Case information

Labour relations — Bargaining units — Collective agreement expired and notice to bargain served — Collective agreement requiring employer to give union notice of contracting out work ordinarily done by members of bargaining unit — Employer giving notice of intent to subcontract — Employer terminating employment of most of bargaining unit and engaging third party contractor — Board failing to construe clauses cited in support of employer’s right to subcontract — Whether appellate court’s interpretation of Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, s. 147(3), is inconsistent with law and substantially undermines ability of parties to collective agreements to continue to act in accordance with collective agreement while engaged bargaining — Whether appellate court overstepped its role on judicial review by making new substantive law — Whether, when reconsideration of administrative decision has been refused, judicial review only relates to reconsideration decision.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Century Park was owned by Optima Living Alberta Ltd., the successor employer for the purposes of the collective agreement between the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (“AUPE”) and the predecessor employer. Before the collective agreement expired, AUPE sent the employer a notice to bargain. The collective agreement, which included a provision that required the employer to give AUPE notice that it was contracting out work ordinarily done by members of the bargaining unit, continued in effect. In 2017 and 2018, Optima notified AUPE of the steps taken to contract out work ordinarily done by unit members. In 2019, it confirmed that it was terminating 52 out of 53 unit members and replacing them with a third party contractor.

AUPE applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order to prevent Optima from terminating or laying off the 52 employees and from replacing those employees with a third-party contractor. Optima applied for summary dismissal. Optima’s application for summary dismissal was granted in part by the Board, which also dismissed AUPE’s cease and desist application in relation to the Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, ss. 60 and 147(3). AUPE’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Board. AUPE’s application for judicial review of both Board decisions was dismissed, but its appeal was granted. The matter was remitted to a fresh panel of the Board for determination of whether an employer, while engaged in renegotiating a collective agreement with a union, can contract out almost all of the bargaining unit’s work and terminate the employment of almost all of the employees in the bargaining unit.