Earlier this week, the Alberta Labour Relations Board published their second new applications report of June 2026. In it was an application alleging an employer of unionbusting.
Now, to be clear, the application (nor the summary provided by the ALRB) used the term unionbusting; that is my word. But after you finish reading this article, see if you agree with my word choice.
According to the summary provided by the ALRB, Local 1505 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees filed the application on 3 June 2026. The summary stated that Local 1505 accused the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo of “imposing suspensions on employees, terminating employees, and denying employees customary salary increases” after these workers had “testified in a Board hearing” regarding recent unionization efforts.
ALRB’s summary was light on details, so I reached out to Craig Milley, Local 1505’s president, for more information. He forwarded me a copy of the original application.
Before I get into what exactly the RM of Wood Buffalo did, I need to give you some background information, as things get a bit complicated.
About a year ago, Local 1505 filed a determination application with the ALRB. Prior to the application, they were representing over 100 transit workers, including hostlers, labourers, customer service representatives, transit technicians, and transit operators.
In last year’s application, they wanted to bring in transit inspectors and schedule dispatchers into their bargaining unit.
Around that time, the RM of Wood Buffalo consolidated these positions into a new position, which they labelled “supervisor, transit operations”.
Less than a month after CUPE 1505 filed their determination application, Local 362 of the General Teamsters filed an application to certify the new positions as a separate bargaining unit. To be clear, CUPE’s 1505 determination application was technically for transit inspectors and schedule dispatchers, and the Teamsters’ certification application was for transit operations supervisors.
Because of the overlap between the two applications, the labour board decided to consolidate both applications in determining whether these new positions should be considered as employees and thus could be unionized. The RM of Wood Buffalo argued that they were not employees.
That specific matter is still before the labour board.
During the hearing process on these two applications, Teamsters 362 obtained and served proper notices to attend to two witnesses, both of whom were incumbents in the aforementioned positions. To be clear, they were not volunteering as witness, but were compulsed by an order of the ALRB.
Nearly a month ago (on 15 May 2026), Teamsters 362 filed an unfair labour practices complaint with the labour board, the particulars of which CUPE 1505 supported.
According to that complaint, RM of Wood Buffalo suspended both of those witnesses.
The complaint alleges that one of the witnesses “has never been advised as to why [they are] under suspension or what the allegations against [them] might be”, and the other witness was also “to be investigated over some seemingly picayune issue”.
No other person in the bargaining unit proposed by Teamsters 362 was suspended, just the two who appeared as witnesses during unionization hearings.
On top of that, RM of Wood Buffalo, through one of its managers, told at least one of these witnesses that their “salary increase for achieving all goals set for 2025” would not be implemented until after the union determination process was completed.
In their complaint, Teamsters argued that the actions of RM of Wood Buffalo violated several sections of Alberta’s Labour Relations Code.
An employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities
Labour Relations Code, 21.1.a
No employer or trade union or any person acting on their behalf shall discriminate against a person in regard to employment or membership in a trade union, or intimidate or 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 in a proceeding under this Act
Labour Relations Code, 22.a
If a trade union has applied for certification, no employer affected by the application shall, except in accordance with an established custom or practice of the employer or with the consent of the trade union or in accordance with a collective agreement in effect with respect to the employees in the unit affected by the application, alter the rates of pay, any term or condition of employment or any right or privilege of any of those employees during the time between the date of the application and the date of its refusal, or 30 days after the date of certification.
Labour Relations Code, 147.1
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,
Labour Relations Code, 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 has testified or otherwise participated in or may testify or otherwise participate in a proceeding under this Act
Labour Relations Code, 149.1.a.iv
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
Labour Relations Code, 149.1.b
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.b
Which brings us to the application CUPE 1505 filed last week, which is based on the same actions of RM of Wood Buffalo.
In addition to supporting the claims that Teamsters 392 made in their complaint, CUPE 1505 said in last week’s application that these actions were not only punitive to the two employees who had sat as witnesses in hearings, but also “intimidating and coercive toward all the other employees of the RMWB who might otherwise support CUPE in its determination application”, including other incumbents in the proposed bargaining unit.
But that is not all.
Apparently, when CUPE 1505 filed their determination application last year, the RM of Wood Buffalo never responded to it, nor did they post the notice to employees. They claimed that they missed the email from the labour board.
Because of this inaction, the ALRB had to extend the deadline for workers to file submissions in to August.
The labour board received letters on behalf of over 50 workers in response to the determination application, and that of those, just one supported adding these new workers from the CUPE 1505 bargaining unit. That letter was written by 2 workers.
In August 2025, the human resources director for the RM of Wood Buffalo, according to CUPE 1505’s application, emailed Wood Buffalo workers about ongoing collective bargaining.
One of the two workers who supported CUPE 1505’s application wrote to the HR director asking for the employer to “organize a further joint town hall with CUPE to increase the confidence of the exempt employees and to reduce their fear of being targeted for participation in the CUPE town hall”.
Three months later, that worker lost their job “without cause”, and the employer never provided a reason.
Last summer, another worker openly supported safety advisors being moved into CUPE 1505’s bargaining unit. The union’s application claims that this worker felt pressure from the employer to send in a letter objecting to the determination application, but they refused.
In September, they lost their job “without cause”.
CUPE 1505’s application from last week also allege that an acting assistant manage in the transit area held one-on-one meetings with incumbent workers in the transit operations supervisor roles.
One-on-one meetins are a common unionbusting tactic. It allows employers to undermine class solidarity because the workers are not all in the room together and do not get to hear what the employer is saying to the others.
Reportedly, in these meetings, the acting assistant manager urged each worker to sign an already-prepared letter that opposed CUPE 1505’s determination application.
Teamsters 362 has requested that the ALRB require that RM of Wood Buffalo rescind the suspensions of the two witness and annual increases be granted.
CUPE 1505 supports this request, and they have themselves requested that the ALRB require that RM of Wood Buffalo reinstate the employment of the two workers that they had terminated last year, including the payment of all lost wages.
Because the ALRB does not archive their new application reports, I have provided a copy of this week’s report for your convenience. I did not include a copy of the original applications as to protect the identity of the workers targeted by the employer.
