Alberta (Attorney General) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 et al., 2010 ABQB 455

JudgeLee, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJune 03, 2010
Citations2010 ABQB 455;(2010), 498 A.R. 59 (QB)

Alta. (A.G.) v. UFCWU (2010), 498 A.R. 59 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JL.081

The Attorney General of Alberta (applicant) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401, Old Dutch Foods Ltd., and The Alberta Labour Relations Board (respondents) and Merit Contractors Association of Canada, The Alberta Federation of Labour and Raymond Berry, Colleen Duttenhoffer, Donna Seamans, Aruna Sen, José 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 Estabrooks, Ian Gregory, Georges Matta, Carlos Gonzalez, Rebeca Gamdarillas, Trevor Elms, Gerardo Siguera, Rasinder Khra and Les Csyz (applicants for intervenor status)

(0903 19396; 2010 ABQB 455)

Indexed As: Alberta (Attorney General) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401 et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

July 7, 2010.

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, 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 allowed the application and granted the employees party status as applicants. The court held that the employees had an interest in preserving their freedom of choice and their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. The court concluded that the employees had an interest in maintaining their ability to negotiate future collective agreements with their employer that did not require the payment of union dues.

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - General - Practice - Parties - The issue before the Alberta Labour Relations Board was whether a collective agreement would contain a Rand formula type of union security clause (required all union members to pay union dues) - The Board declared that the absence of a Rand Formula 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 ordered that the union security clause be included in a collective agreement as an item deemed to have been agreed to in bargaining - The employer chose to accept the Board's decision and to conclude a collective agreement with the union which included a Rand style union security provision - The Attorney General of Alberta sought judicial review and an order setting aside the Board's declaration - Several employees, who previously were not union members and did not have to pay union dues, sought party or intervener status in the Attorney General's application - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and granted the employees party status as applicants - The employees had an interest in preserving their freedom of choice and their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter - They had an interest in maintaining their ability to negotiate future collective agreements with their employer that did not require the payment of union dues.

Cases Noticed:

Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. v. United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (1946), 46 C.L.L.R. 18,001, refd to. [para. 7].

Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia (2007), 363 N.R. 226; 242 B.C.A.C. 1; 400 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Edmonton Friends of the North Environmental Society et al. v. Canada (Minister of Western Economic Diversification) (1990), 114 N.R. 153; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 653 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Smyth v. Edmonton Police Service et al. (2005), 385 A.R. 100 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Goudreau et al. v. Board of Education of the Falher Consolidated School District No. 69 (1993), 141 A.R. 21; 46 W.A.C. 21; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Alberta Liquor Store Association et al. v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.) et al. (2006), 406 A.R. 104 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Real Estate Council of Alberta v. Henderson et al. (2007), 417 A.R. 39; 410 W.A.C. 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cunningham v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al. - see Peavine Métis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

Peavine Métis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2008), 425 A.R. 1; 418 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. (1991), 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Papaschase Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 380 A.R. 301; 363 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] S.C.J. No. 48, refd to. [para. 27].

Doe v. Canada - see Indian Residential Schools, Re.

Indian Residential Schools, Re, [2000] A.R. Uned. 243 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Ahyasou v. Lund - see Ahyasou et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection) et al.

Ahyasou et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection) et al. (1998), 235 A.R. 387; 1998 ABQB 875, refd to. [para. 27].

Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Ontario Securities Commission (2003), 310 N.R. 376; 179 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Apple Canada Inc. et al. v. Canadian Private Copying Collective et al. (2007), 371 N.R. 60 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon et al. (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 315; 333 W.A.C. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; 247 N.R. 306; 179 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 553 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Vong v. Wong et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 342; 329 W.A.C. 342; 2004 ABCA 216, dist. [para. 45].

B.D.W. v. G.B.G.R. (1989), 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Boyd et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 278 A.R. 341 (Q.B.), affd. (2002), 299 A.R. 198; 266 W.A.C. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1996), 186 A.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Johannesson v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1995), 175 A.R. 34 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Alberta et al. (2001), 303 A.R. 1; 273 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Simlote v. Alberta, [1989] A.J. No. 818 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1990), 105 N.R. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Telus Communications Inc. et al. v. Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) (1998), 235 A.R. 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Conway (P.) (2010), 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 58].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 61].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 68].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co., [2007] A.R. Uned. 150; 2007 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 85].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2009), p. 799 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Craig Neuman, Q.C. and Dwayne Chomyn (Neuman Thompson), for certain Old Dutch Food Employees;

Rod Wiltshire (Alberta Justice and Attorney General), for the applicant;

John Carpenter and Vanessa Cosco (Chivers Carpenter), for United Food Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 401;

Shawn McLeod (Labour Relations Board Employment and Immigration), for the Labour Relations Board.

This application was heard on June 3, 2010, by Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on July 7, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

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