In Hasegawa v International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 130, 2025 ALRB 77 (Smith, Vice-Chair), a union failed to get a section 26 Unfair Labour Practice complaint (“ULP”) by one of its members stayed pending an internal union trial involving the member.
The ALRB found that this ULP did not allow the union to insist that the member go through a further union hearing prior to proceeding with the ULP hearing.
This case is important because it provides some guidance on the cases where the ALRB allow a complainant to appear before the ALRB respecting unfair hearings and without having first exhausted the union’s internal dispute mechanisms.
Legal counsel for the complainant that was successful in defending this application was Bow River Law employment lawyer Michael Hernandez.
Facts
The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the ALRB:
- The complainant was an elevator constructor, and member of the Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 130 (“Elevator Union”)
- The complainant’s employment with an employer was terminated as a result of alleged misconduct
- As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Elevator Union then brought internal union charges against the complainant under its International’s constitution and bylaws, and it was scheduled to be heard as an internal union trial (the “Union Trial”)
- The complainant obtained a job elsewhere before the Union Trial took place
- The Union Trial found against him, resulting in a $5,000 fine and being expelled from the Elevator Union. The complainant had asked to be represented by legal counsel in the Union Trial, but the Elevator’s Union refused this request
- The complainant’s new employment was then terminated
- The complainant filed an Unfair Labour Practice (“ULP”) complaint against the Elevator Union under Section 26 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code. This section provides that no union member shall be expelled, suspended or penalized from the union without a fair hearing
- The complainant’s complaint alleged that the Union Trial was unfair, and it resulted in his new job termination. In the ULP, he was asking that the ALRB: (1) quash (overturn) the Elevator Union’s disciplinary decision, (2) order the Elevator Union to pay damages for lost wages caused by their breach, (3) order that the Elevator Union was prohibited from re-prosecuting the complainant, and (4) award him costs
- The Elevator Union then rescinded its discipline decision from the Union Trial, but re-charged the complainant to have a new trial
- In the interim decision being summarized here, the Elevator Union was arguing that the ULP was moot because the order from the Union Trial had already been rescinded, and in the alternative (the backup argument) the Elevator Union was arguing that the complainant had to exhaust all union dispute mechanisms – including the new internal union trial – prior to the ULP proceeding
Analysis / Conclusion
The ALRB first considered Elevator Union’s argument that the ULP should be dismissed as moot, since the original order was already rescinded.
The complainant argued that Section 26 complaints do not require union appeal procedures to be exhausted, and although the union would have had a right to internal appeal (had the decision not been rescinded) they did not have a right to a retrial under its rules and needed to be held accountable for damages as a result of the Section 26 beach.
The ALRB refused to dismiss the complaint as moot. Although the original disciplinary decision had been rescinded, there remained a “concrete dispute” between the parties respecting the questions of the complainant’s entitlement to compensation for lost wages and costs, and whether he should be subjected to a second union trial in the circumstances.
The ALRB then considered the Elevator Union’s argument that the ULP should be stayed because the complainant had not exhausted all internal union appeal mechanisms. The ALRB dismissed this argument as well, reasoning as follows about the purpose of Section 26 and the facts weighing in this case:
[22] Clearly, this section provides a statutory right to due process and natural justice treatment and, as acknowledged by the IUEC, there is no express precondition in section 26 that internal union appeal procedures must first be exhausted before such statutory rights can be exercised. […] As a result, we see no compelling basis to impose such a requirement on the section in these circumstances.
[23] Even if the Board were to accept the IUEC’s argument on this issue […] it is difficult at first blush to see how this situation would not constitute an exception to the general requirement to exhaust all internal appeal processes.
[…]
[25] What must be addressed at this time is whether an adjournment would cause an unfairness to a party or result in some sort of uneconomical or impractical process. The Board can see no unfairness to the IUEC or Local 130 in the Complaint proceeding at this time. In contrast, and as already discussed above, waylaying the hearing into the Complaint so that the second union trial can proceed would unfairly deny the Complainant the ability to argue he should be relieved from such an outcome. […] The Board sees no substantial benefit in these circumstances in the second trial proceeding first, for there is no assurance or even indication questions surrounding the other remedies that the Complainant seeks, including the recovery of his economic losses, and his costs, could or would be addressed at a second trial. That uncertainty means it is quite likely the parties would have to return to the Board in any event.
The ALRB determined that the ULP complaint was not going to be dismissed or stayed in this application by the Elevator Union, but would instead proceed to an ALRB hearing as scheduled.
My Take
This case is interesting to me because of how few reported decisions there are on topics like this.
Still, its important. Unionized employees often have access to help from their unions when it comes to things like discipline, termination, working conditions, compensation and other terms. This can work well.
However, unions do not always treat their members fairly. This creates a unique problem for the members, because the members are then put in a position of having a legal battle with the very entity that is generally supposed to protect them.
When the union actions involve a union’s refusal to grieve something, it results in a Duty of Fair Representation complaint against the union. When the union actions involve a failure to follow the union’s own constitution and bylaws, it can result in an unfair labour practice complaint like the one summarized (unfair hearing), or in some cases even a civil lawsuit against the union.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters. Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.
