Alberta (Attorney General) et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 et al., (2011) 502 A.R. 188 (CA)

JudgeHunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateJanuary 31, 2011
Citations(2011), 502 A.R. 188 (CA);2011 ABCA 93

Alta. (A.G.) v. UFCWU (2011), 502 A.R. 188 (CA);

      517 W.A.C. 188

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. MR.160

The Attorney General of Alberta (respondent/applicant) v. Raymond Berry, Colleen Duttenhoffer, Donna Seamans, Aruna Sen, Jose San Juan, Maria Gonzalez, Blair Francis, Ky Tran, Maria Messier, Kuluir Sahota, Blanca Mansilla, Eddy Kwan, Anh Nguyen, Kevin Larson, Trang Hoang, Paramjit Bhinsa, Robert Simmonds, Jasmine Dhaliwal, Nguyen Bang, Larry Manser, Scott Estabrook, Ian Gregory, Georges Matta, Carlos Gonzales, Rebeca Gamdarillas, Trevor Elms, Geraldo Siguera, Rasinder Khra and Les Csyz (respondents/respondents) and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 (appellant/respondent) and The Alberta Labour Relations Board (respondent/respondent) and Old Dutch Foods Ltd. (not a party to the appeal/respondent)

(1003-0271-AC; 2011 ABCA 93)

Indexed As: Alberta (Attorney General) et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Hunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A.

March 23, 2011.

Summary:

On November 9, 2009, the Alberta Labour Relations Board declared that the absence of a Rand Formula (required all union members to pay union dues) or an equivalent union security provision in Alberta's collective bargaining legislation was a violation of s. 2(d) of the Charter and the legislation was therefore invalid. The Board also held that the employer in this case failed to bargain collectively in good faith and thereby violated s. 60 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code by refusing to agree to include a type of Rand Formula in its collective agreement. The Attorney General of Alberta sought judicial review and an order setting aside the Board's declaration. Several employees (minority employees), who previously were not union members and did not have to pay union dues, brought a motion seeking intervener or party status in the Attorney General's application.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 498 A.R. 59, allowed the application and granted the minority employees party status as applicants. The union appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision below. The application for standing was brought outside the 30 day time limit for seeking judicial review (Labour Relations Code, s. 19(2)). Therefore the impugned order should have been granted. Further, the appeal was moot. A collective agreement was entered into between the employer and the union. It required that the minority employees pay union dues in any event until that agreement was renegotiated in 2013.

Labour Law - Topic 577

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Limitation period - The Alberta Labour Relations Board declared that the absence of a Rand Formula (required all union members to pay union dues) or an equivalent union security provision in Alberta's collective bargaining legislation was a violation of s. 2(d) of the Charter and the legislation was therefore invalid - The Attorney General of Alberta sought judicial review - More than three months after the Board's decision, several employees (minority employees), who previously were not union members and did not have to pay union dues, sought standing in the Attorney General's application - Lee, J., granted the minority employees party status as applicants - The union appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the order adding the minority employees as parties was brought outside the 30 day time limit for seeking judicial review in breach of s. 19(2) of the Labour Relations Code - Therefore, the impugned order should never have been granted - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 8858

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - The Alberta Labour Relations Board declared that the absence of a Rand Formula (required all union members to pay union dues) or an equivalent union security provision in Alberta's collective bargaining legislation was a violation of s. 2(d) of the Charter and the legislation was therefore invalid - The Attorney General of Alberta sought judicial review - Several employees (minority employees), who previously were not union members and did not have to pay union dues, sought standing in the Attorney General's application - Lee, J., granted the minority employees party status as applicants - The union appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the matter was moot given that the employer and union had entered into a collective agreement which required that the minority employees pay union dues in any event until that agreement was renegotiated in 2013 - The minority employees' argument that the appeal was not moot because there was an immediate and tangible result that might flow to them if the court decided whether the obligation to pay union dues arose contractually or by virtue of s. 2(d) of the Charter was speculative, remote and uncertain - There was nothing left to resolve by way of judicial review - See paragraphs 1 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

R.S. Wiltshire, for the respondent, Attorney General of Alberta;

C.W. Neuman, Q.C., for the respondents/respondents;

J.R. Carpenter, for the appellant/respondent;

S.W. Mcleod (not present), for the respondent, Alberta Labour Relations Board.

This appeal was heard on January 31, 2011, before Hunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who filed the following memorandum of judgment on March 23, 2011.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • United Food & Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local 401 v. North Country Catering Ltd. et al., (2012) 541 A.R. 75 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 4 Abril 2012
    ...7 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19]. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 188; 517 W.A.C. 188; 2011 ABCA 93, refd to. [para. UFCA, Local 401 v. Economic Development Edmonton, [2002] A.L.R.B.R. 186, refd to. [para. 21]......
  • Runkle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ABCA 56
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 1 Marzo 2016
    ...specific parties even if the subject matter might come up again: see eg Alberta v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 , 2011 ABCA 93 at para 10, 502 AR 188. In that case it was noted that "the intervening legislative and jurisprudential context may well have a bearing on out......
  • R. v. Deng (A.A.D.), 2016 ABPC 204
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 31 Agosto 2016
    ...submitted case law in which violence was inflicted upon children. He relied upon the cases that follow. [29] In the case of R. v. Harris , 2011 ABCA 93, the accused was given a suspended sentence and probation following his guilty plea to a charge of assault with a weapon. The Court of Appe......
3 cases
  • United Food & Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local 401 v. North Country Catering Ltd. et al., (2012) 541 A.R. 75 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 4 Abril 2012
    ...7 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19]. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401 et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 188; 517 W.A.C. 188; 2011 ABCA 93, refd to. [para. UFCA, Local 401 v. Economic Development Edmonton, [2002] A.L.R.B.R. 186, refd to. [para. 21]......
  • Runkle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ABCA 56
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 1 Marzo 2016
    ...specific parties even if the subject matter might come up again: see eg Alberta v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 , 2011 ABCA 93 at para 10, 502 AR 188. In that case it was noted that "the intervening legislative and jurisprudential context may well have a bearing on out......
  • R. v. Deng (A.A.D.), 2016 ABPC 204
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 31 Agosto 2016
    ...submitted case law in which violence was inflicted upon children. He relied upon the cases that follow. [29] In the case of R. v. Harris , 2011 ABCA 93, the accused was given a suspended sentence and probation following his guilty plea to a charge of assault with a weapon. The Court of Appe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT