Last month, the Alberta Labour Relations Board published a decision regarding a complaint that transit users brought against the City of Edmonton.
The more than 2,500 transit workers are represented by Local 569 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and their last collective agreement expired at the end of 2023, more than a year and a half ago.
In October 2023, Local 569 informed the City of Edmonton that they were ready to begin negotiating a new agreement. Even though the current agreement at the time expired in about 2 months, the two parties did not begin bargaining until April 2024.
At the first meeting, the workers’ bargaining team were accompanied by Lanny Chudyk, President of Civic Service Union 52, and Liam Peuramaki, Director of the Coalition Of Edmonton Civic Unions.
The Coalition Of Edmonton Civic Unions is an umbrella organization that supports several unions who represents workers employed by the City of Edmonton. These include ATU Local 569, CSU Local 52, Local 30 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1007 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local 209 of the Edmonton Fire Fighter’s Union.
Chudyk and Peuramaki were introduced to the City of Edmonton’s bargaining team as “special advisors”.
Both of them also attended the opening bargaining session between the City of Edmonton and workers represented by CUPE Local 30, which occurred just 6 days before the opening between ATU Local 569 and the City of Edmonton.
At the earlier meeting, Chudyk said before leaving that if the City of Lethbridge expected the workers from the different unions to accept the same deal, then the bargaining teams for all those workers should be at the same table.
In the meeting with the bargaining team for transit workers, the City of Edmonton said that they were fine with transit workers (around 8) attending the meeting who were not part of the bargaining committee, but they did not want Chudyk and Peuramaki there.
Steve Bradshaw, the president of Local 569, told the City of Edmonton’s bargaining team that if Chudyk and Peuramaki were not allowed to stay, Local 569 would file a complaint with the ALRB.
Bargaining did not progress beyond opening remarks, so Bradshaw filed a complaint with the labour board the next day, accusing the City of Edmonton of violating two sections of Alberta’s Labour Relations Code.
Section 60(1)
When a notice to commence collective bargaining has been served under this Division, the bargaining agent and the employer or employers’ organization, not more than 30 days after notice is served, shall meet and commence, or cause authorized representatives to meet and commence, to bargain collectively in good faith, and make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement.
and Sections 148(1)(a)(i) and (ii):
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
The two parties did not meet again until August 2024. They met 10 more times between that meeting and 8 January 2025, 5 of which included the attendance of Peuramaki, who did not speak during any of those meetings.
At no time during those meetings, the City of Edmonton never objected to Peuramaki’s attendance. As a result, the next day, Local 569 withdrew the complaint they had filed with the ALRB.
Later that month, on the 21st, Bradshaw emailed one of the lead negotiators—Kent Sorochuk—to let the City of Edmonton know that Peuramaki would not be attending bargaining the next day. Instead, Steve Southwood, business manager for IBEW Local 1007 would be filling that vacancy.
When Sorochuk responded, asking for a reason why, Bradshaw said it was because “Steve’s experience and knowledge of the bargaining process make him a valued consultant”.
Sorochuk emailed Bradshaw the next day to say the City of Edmonton was concerned about Southwood attending, that they had not received sufficient notice for the change, and clarification regarding Southwood’s role in the bargaining session.
Then they cancelled the bargaining session.
Local 569 responded, claiming that the City of Edmonton’s actions violated the Labour Relations Code but they were willing to meet without Southwood present at that meeting but that he would be attending the next bargaining meeting, which was scheduled for the following week. The bargaining session went ahead after all.
The next day, 4 days before the next scheduled bargaining session, Sorochuk emailed Bradshaw, saying that Local 569 had until 14:00 that day to confirm that Southwood would not attend the next session after all, otherwise they threatened to cancel that bargaining session.
The parties ended up meeting at that session, without Southwood attending.
That same day, Local 569 filed another complaint with the ALRB, alleging that the City of Edmonton violated the same sections of the Labour Relations Code as mentioned earlier.
Despite this, the two parties met twice more in February, and Peuramaki attended both meetings.
This past May, the City of Edmonton presented an offer to Local 569, that they would allow CESU representatives attend these bargaining sessions, but only if their own union had not served a notice to bargain and had not reached a collective agreement.
ATU declined that offer.
In their decision, the ALRB found that the City of Edmonton’s refusal to meet with the ATU’s bargaining team to be “unreasonable”.
none of the facts in this case justify the City’s refusal to continue bargaining if Southwood was present. We find that the City imposed an unreasonable precondition to bargaining when it refused to meet with ATU on January 22 and 27.
In fact, the board went on to say that it seemed that the only reason the City of Edmonton opposed any members of the CESU attending was because it would force them to be more mindful of the things they say in bargaining, given that it could affect bargaining with the other employee groups.
The evidence demonstrated that the City’s objection to the attendance of other Coalition Presidents was based, at least in part, on how comments made or information given at one table could affect discussions at the other tables. Sorochuk specifically testified that the presence of other Coalition union Presidents would stifle discussion.
If bargaining truly was unique with each working group, the ALRB commented, then there should not be any concern with information being shared with other unions.
If there were not overlapping issues between the bargaining tables there would not be any concern about the information shared during bargaining or that the presence of the other Coalition union Presidents would stifle conversation.
Ultimately, the board found that the City of Edmonton breached section 60(1) but not 148(1).
