Over two years ago, I wrote a story about workers trying to unionize at long-term care facilities in Edmonton.
At the time, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees had filed the application to certify as a bargaining unit the “auxiliary nursing care” workers employed by LeeCaring Communities Foundation.
Previously known as Chinatown Multi-Level Care Foundation, the employer was founded in the 1980s to provide long-term care to elder Chinese people living in Edmonton. In 2023, they opened a second facility for the broader population.
The Alberta Labour Relations Board ultimately certified the workers as a bargaining unit, but not until February 2025.
They still do not have their first collective agreement yet, a year and a half later. The employer’s bargaining team did not meet with the workers’ bargaining team until last October, and, as of this past January, they still had not started bargaining on monetary items.
Speaking of bargaining delays, earlier this week, the Alberta Labour Relations Board published their first new applications report for August 2026.
In that report, AUPE had filed an application that accused LeeCaring of terminating the employment of one of their workers.
AUPE claimed that the employer deprived the workers of the right to union representation during the meeting where they terminated her employment. They also allege that they did not give the worker “minimal fair treatment” during that meeting.
Finally, the union argued in their application that LeeCaring never contact the worker’s union steward or any other union representative that they were terminating employment or even investigating grounds for termination.
In the application summary provided by the ALRB, the union asserts that the employer’s actions were purposefully carried out “to delegitimize collective bargaining and lawful union activity” and representation.
As such, according to AUPE, these actions contravene several sections of Alberta’s 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 or the representation of employees by a trade union
Labour Relations Code, 148.1.a.i & 148.1.a.ii
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 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, or has exercised any right under this Act;
Labour Relations Code, 149.1.a.i, 149.1.a.ii, 149.1.a.iv, & 149.1.a.viii
149(1) No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers’ organization shall impose any condition in a contract of employment that restrains, or has the effect of restraining, an employee from exercising any right conferred on the employee by this Act; or 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
Labour Relations Code, 149.1.b & 149.1.c
149(1) 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
Labour Relations Code, 149.1.g.i
That last one is particularly interesting, suggesting that this worker may have been let go because of their role in ongoing hearings regarding unionization or collective bargaining at their workplace.
Listed in the application summary as contacts for the employer are Truman Severson and Barb Smuth.
Severson’s LinkedIn profile shows him as being a director at Content Consulting Inc; however, he had been president of Covenant Health fo over 2 years prior to that role.
LeeCaring’s website lists him as their executive director and Smyth as their director of human resources, a position she has had for over 3 years.
Because the ALRB does not archive their new application reports, I have included a copy of this week’s report below for your convenience.
