The Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) has dismissed a complaint from a former ATCO Gas & Pipeline Ltd. employee who alleged that his union failed to properly represent him during a disciplinary process. The ruling, issued by a three-member panel, concluded that the Natural Gas Employees’ Association, the complainant’s union, acted in good faith and without discrimination or negligence in handling his grievance.
The complaint was filed under section 153(1) of the Labour Relations Code and centred around a disciplinary letter the complainant received in March 2023. The disciplinary action stemmed from an inappropriate conversation involving the complainant and colleagues about a proposed City of Edmonton bylaw. The bylaw would allow individuals to swim topless in public pools, and the complainant was alleged to have made disrespectful comments during the discussion, leading to a formal complaint and subsequent investigation by his employer.
The complainant’s primary assertion was that the union failed to represent him adequately during the investigation and grievance process. He argued that the union did not properly gather his side of the story, allowed false statements to remain in the disciplinary letter, withheld information about the allegations against him, and failed to conduct a thorough investigation. He sought two years’ severance pay, totalling $216,000, as a remedy for what he described as an untenable work environment.
However, after reviewing the written submissions from both parties, the Board concluded that the union had fulfilled its duty of fair representation. The union had filed a grievance on behalf of the complainant and pursued it through multiple stages of the grievance process, including discussions with the employer about revising the disciplinary letter.
“The union completed a thorough review and assessment of the incident,” the ruling states. “At each step of the grievance procedure, the union sought the removal of the discipline letter from the complainant’s employment file.”
The employer, during the grievance process, did agree to revise the disciplinary letter. The union provided the complainant with an opportunity to suggest changes to the letter, but he declined. The union also sought legal counsel before making the final decision to not take the grievance to arbitration.
The Board emphasized that a union is not obligated to advance every grievance to arbitration simply because the employee requests it. The union is entitled to weigh factors such as the merits of the grievance, the likelihood of success at arbitration, and the associated costs. The ALRB ruling highlighted that “the union is entitled to make a wrong decision, as long as it fairly and reasonably investigates the grievance and comes to an informed decision.”
The union’s decision not to pursue arbitration was based on a combination of factors, including the low severity of the disciplinary action—a letter that would eventually be removed from the complainant’s file—and the challenges of disputing the employer’s findings in arbitration. The ruling noted that “even though there were flaws with the employer’s investigation, the facts of the case led the union to believe its chances of success at arbitration were low.”
The complainant had expressed frustration with the union’s communication throughout the process, particularly regarding the time it took for the union to inform him that it would not advance the grievance to arbitration. However, the Board found that the union maintained consistent communication with the complainant, keeping him informed at every stage of the grievance process.
“Nothing before the Board suggests the union acted in bad faith,” the ruling states. “There was no indication the union’s views on the merits of the grievance were motivated by any personal hostility or ill-will toward the complainant.”
The Board concluded that the union had investigated the grievance thoroughly, challenged the employer on several key points, including the use of expired discipline in the investigation, and made a reasoned judgment not to proceed to arbitration. Ultimately, the Board found no evidence that the union acted arbitrarily or with negligence.
The complainant also alleged that false information was included in the final version of the disciplinary letter, but the Board noted that the union had provided him with an opportunity to review and suggest changes to the letter, which he refused.
“Based on the complainant’s version of events that are material to the duty of fair representation complaint, the Board finds the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success,” the ruling concludes.
The complainant had worked for ATCO Gas & Pipeline Ltd. for five years before voluntarily resigning in October 2023, citing concerns about feeling unsafe in his work environment following the disciplinary process. His complaint against the union was filed shortly thereafter, in November 2023.
For more information, see Complainant v Natural Gas Employees’ Association, 2024 ALRB 97 (CanLII).
