Last week, the Alberta Labour Relations Board released their most recent New Applications Report. In the report is an application that alleges employer interference with union activity.
The application was submitted on 31 January 2023 by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and includes 11 labour complaints regarding the Ontario-based employer, Chartwell Master Care LP, which runs various retirement communities throughout Canada.
The complaints centre around Eunsil Kim, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Chartwell Eau Claire Care Residence, one of Chartwell’s properties. Chartwell recently terminated her employment, which AUPE alleges was a wrongful termination. Kim was also the president of her union local.
The first of AUPE’s complaints is that Chartwell “interfered with the internal administration and the union’s representation of employees.”
The second complaint is that Chartwell breached section 21 of the Labour Relations Code.
An employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities, and to bargain collectively with the employee’s employer through a bargaining agent.
21(1)(a) & (b), Labour Relations Code
AUPE is requesting that the ALRB issue an interim directive to direct the employer to reinstate Kim, in accordance to section 17 of the Labour Relations Code.
When the Board is satisfied after an inquiry that an employer . . . has failed to comply with any provision of this Act that is specified in a complaint, the Board may issue a directive to rectify the act in respect of which the complaint was made and . . . may issue a directive or interim directive to the employer . . . to cease doing the act in respect of which the complaint was made; may issue a directive to require the employer . . . to reinstate any employee suspended or discharged contrary to this Act
17(1)(a) & (b), Labour Relations Code
The third complaint is that Chartwell tried “to intimidate employees from exercising their rights to be a member of a trade union & participate in its lawful activities.”
The fourth complaint is that Chartwell “interfered with the administration of a trade union”. AUPE also say that this action breaches section 148 of the Labour Relations Code.
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union
148(1)(a)(i), Labour Relations Code
The fifth complaint is that Carry Steel interfered “with the representation of employees by a trade union and attempt[ed] to undermine the union and influence union members against remaining members.” AUPE claims that this action also breaches section 148 of the Labour Relations Code.
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall participate in or interfere with the representation of employees by a trade union,
148(1)(a)(ii), Labour Relations Code
AUPE’s sixth complaint was that Chartwell terminated Kim’s employment because of “her support for and activity in the union.”, which they claim violates section 149 of the Labour Relations Code, according to USW and Brummet.
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ any person or discriminate against any person in regard to employment or
149(1)(a)(i), Labour Relations Code
any term or condition of employment because the person has indicated in writing the person’s selection of a trade union to be the bargaining agent on the person’s behalf
Their seventh complaint is that Chartwell’s dismissal of Kim was “interfering with employees’ rights to support and be a member of a trade union”, which they claim also violates section 149:
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ any person or discriminate against any person in regard to employment or
149(1)(a)(ii), Labour Relations Code
any term or condition of employment because the person is a member of a trade union or an applicant for membership in a trade union
The eighth complaint is that by firing Kim, Chartwell “sent a message to other employees that if they support the union, then they, too, will be subject to adverse treatment, including termination”, which they claim also violates section 149:
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ any person or discriminate against any person in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment because the person has exercised any right under this Act
149(1)(a)(viii), Labour Relations Code
Their ninth complaint is that Chartwell by terminating Kim’s employment, while she was the union local president, they were trying to “avoid mediation and arbitration under the collective agreement”, which AUPE claims also violates section 149.
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall . . . discriminate against a person in regard to employment or membership in a trade union or intimidate or threaten to dismiss or in any other manner coerce a person or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person, because the person has testified or otherwise participated in or may testify or otherwise participate in a proceeding authorized or permitted under a collective agreement or a proceeding under this Act
149(1)(g)(i), Labour Relations Code
They also claim, as part of their tenth complaint, that Chartwell “used threats and intimidation to limit employee involvement with the Union’s unfair labour practice complaint”, violating section 149.
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ any person or discriminate against any person in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment because the person has made or is about to make a disclosure that the person may be required to make in a proceeding under this Act
149(1)(a)(v), Labour Relations Code
Finally, they claim that Chartwell “wrongfully dismissed the Complainant contrary to section 149(1)(c),” which reads
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall seek by intimidation, dismissal, threat of dismissal or any other kind of threat, by the imposition of a pecuniary or other penalty or by any other means, to compel an employee to refrain from becoming or to cease to be a member, officer or representative of a trade union
149(1)(c), Labour Relations Code
Since the application notice is replaced each Monday, I’ve attached a copy below for anyone who’s interested in more information.
Update (13 February 2023): Since this publication was published, I had several people reach out to tell me that, despite what is contained in the ALRB new application report, the person overseeing each AUPE local is not a local president but a chapter chair.
