Earlier this week, the Alberta Labour Relations Board released their most recent New Applications Report. In the report is a new application alleging interference by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires in a recent unionization drive.
On 6 June, the United Steelworkers submitted an application to the ALRB saying that the employer was interfering with the recent unionization effort in Southern Alberta by terminating the employment of one of their workers.
USW claims that the worker’s employment was terminated “at least in part, due to his support for and activity in the union, who had been involved with the unionization.”
They also allege that the Commissionaires tried to “interfere with the union by using coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, and/or undue influence”.
“at least in part, due to his support for and activity in the Union and seeking to interfere with the Union by using coercion, intimidation, threats, promises and/or undue influence.”
USW believe that this termination contravened several sections of the Labour Relations Code. For example, they believe it contravenes 148(1)(a)(ii), which states,
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.
They also claim that the termination violates sections 149(1)(a)(i), (ii), and (iv):
No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall (a) 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 is a member of a trade union or an applicant for membership in a trade union, has indicated in writing the person’s selection of a trade union to be the bargaining agent on the person’s behalf, . . . has testified or otherwise participated in or may testify or otherwise participate in a proceeding under this
Act . . .
As well as the termination of this worker, according to USW, the Commissionaires apparently also attended the worksite and met with workers while they were on site to ask them to identify the union and and any coworkers who were supportive of the union, as well as emailed anti-union materials to workers.
USW argues that these tactics amount to “coercion, intimidation, threats, promises and/or undue influence” in trying to “interfere with the Union”. As such, they believe these actions violated section 149(1)(c) of the code, which states the following:
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.
The union has retained the Edmonton law firm Chivers Carpenter for representation in this case. The union-side firm specializes in labour, employment, and human rights law and has assigned Amelia Philpott to the case. The firm also represented 12 Lethbridge workers and 7 Edmonton workers accusing Starbucks of union busting.
The ALRB has yet to set a hearing date for this matter.
Since the ALRB doesn’t archive their new application reports, here’s a copy of the most recent one.
