A former employee sued for wrongful dismissal after he was suspended without pay and terminated for cause following an incident in the workplace. The defendant filed a counterclaim for damages caused by the employee’s alleged negligence that lead to his dismissal. The plaintiff sought summary judgment of his claim and summary dismissal of the counterclaim. The defendant argued credibility was at stake and could only be resolved at trial. Justice Kiss reviewed the test to determine whether a case is appropriate for summary judgment and the quirks caused by the shifting burden in wrongful dismissal cases where just cause is alleged. Ultimately, the court determined the case suitable for summary judgment and found in favour of the employee. The counterclaim was dismissed as the defendant did not establish the plaintiff’s negligence: Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414

The union applied for certification of a group of fire alarm technicians. The issues to be resolved by the Alberta Labour Relations Board involved whether the work done by the relevant employees is “Maintenance” work as defined in the Labour Relations Code. If the work was Maintenance, then the bargaining unit could consist of all employees employed in Maintenance or one of the trade-specific bargaining units set out in the Code. Fire alarm technicians was not a bargaining unit previously recognized. The Board has the ability to recognize new trade-specific bargaining units but does so cautiously and only after seeking input from interested parties. After determining that the work in question was indeed “Maintenance” work, the Board ordered that the hearing will reconvene with notice to appropriate industry parties to determine whether a new trade jurisdiction of “fire alarm technician” should be recognized: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 v Rotaflow Construction and Maintenance Inc., 2025 ALRB 74

The applicant applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to resolve a dispute with his union regarding disclosures required under sections 24.1 and 26.1 of the Labour Relations Code. These sections require the union to provide members with financial statements and information about how dues collected from members will be spent and, in particular, what percentage of the dues will be used for “non-core” activities (for more information see the Board’s ruling in Vos v Civic Service Union 52, 2025 ALRB 46, where the Board considered these provisions for the first time). The applicant argued (among other things) the union’s financial statements were not provided “as soon as possible” and didn’t provide sufficient information regarding non-core activities the union may be funding. The union applied to have the application summarily dismissed. The Board found in favour of the union and determined the financial information provided by the union was sufficient. There are no specific requirements in the Code or regulations mandating the kind of specific information and format of the financial statements sought by the applicant. Further, the Board found that the transfer of funds by the union from its operating fund (where various funds including members’ dues are deposited) was permitted by the regulations and the applicant provided no evidence to show the funds were being used to fund non-core activities: Adams v General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, 2025 ALRB 75

The employee filed an appeal under section 45(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of an “Occupational Hygiene Qualifications Assessment” which found the employee was not qualified to conduct air monitoring and related services. OHS objected and sought to have the appeal dismissed on the basis that the Alberta Labour Relations Board, acting as the Appeal Body, did not have jurisdiction to hear or decide the appeal. The Appeal Body agreed it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the assessment at issue was not a “compliance order, stop work order, or stop use order” as defined in the legislation. Further, the appeal was filed out of time: Windle v Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety), 2025 ABOHSAB 13

The union applied under section 92.2 of the Labour Relations Code for the Board’s assistance in settling the terms of a first collective agreement. At the time of the application, the parties had not yet to bargain. The applicant initially asked the Board to set dates for bargaining, but later abandoned that request. Despite there being no live request for assistance, the Board found the application raised important questions about whether any preconditions exist for making an application for assistance other than timeliness in large part because receipt of an application under s. 92.2 automatically extends the statutory freeze period prohibiting employers from altering terms and conditions of employment unless certain conditions are met. After a lengthy analysis, the Board concludes that the only precondition to file an application under section 92.2 is the passage of 90 days from service of a notice to commence bargaining. Time does not begin running from any alternative triggers argued by the employer such as the commencement of actual, active bargaining. The Board also made some comments on when it might exercise its discretion to end a statutory freeze following an application for assistance: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4731 v True North Society, 2025 ALRB 76

Was the employee terminated after he was not recalled from temporary layoff? Or, did the employee resign and retire? Both! The court found that the employee’s statement during a phone call that “he might as well retire” was not a clear an unequivocal act sufficient to establish voluntary resignation. However, the court found the employee had intended to retire on his 65th birthday. Therefore, instead of a lengthy notice period (the employee was 64 years old and had over 30 years of service at the time of dismissal), the court awarded 6 months of pay in lieu of notice taking him from the date of termination to his 65th birthday: Gent v Askanda Business Services Ltd., 2025 BCSC 1278

Four employees filed an unfair labour practices complaint against their union alleging penalties had been imposed on them improperly. The employees are presently appealing their expulsion from the union via the internal appeal process. Two of the employees sought in this application a stay of their suspension to allow them to return to their union office roles and participate in collective bargaining (among other things). The Board reviewed the test and various requirements to obtain extraordinary relief from the Board. Applying the test from RJR-MacDonald, the Board did not take issue with the first part of the test, but found the applicants failed to establish that they would suffer irreparable harm beyond mere speculation or inference if an injunction is not granted. The Board also held that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the applicants’ suspension so the application for extraordinary relief was dismissed: Dunlop v United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Local No. 2103, 2025 ALRB 78

An employee was charged with breach of the union’s constitution. After trial, he was expelled. The employee filed an unfair labour practices complaint arguing that the first trial did not comply with section 26 of the Labour Relations Code as he was not afforded a full and fair hearing or representation by legal counsel. The union set aside the expulsion, but recharged the employee with the same offences shortly thereafter. While the new trial is pending, the union applied to summarily dismiss the employee’s unfair labour practices complaint arguing the complaint is moot and/or because the employee had not first exhausted all internal appeal mechanisms before seeking relief from the Board. The Board found that the complaint was not moot even though the first set of charges against the employee were set aside. There remained unresolved allegations in the complaint that were not addressed by voiding the first trial and setting aside the expulsion. The Board also held that section 26, unlike other sections in the Labour Relations Code, does not contain a requirement that the applicant first exhaust all internal appeal mechanisms and declined the union’s invitation to read in such a requirement: Hasegawa v International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 130, 2025 ALRB 77