Labour relations board looks at whether union made reasoned judgment based on adequate investigation and consideration of merits
When a job reclassification stalls, the consequences can last years.
On March 13, 2026, Alberta Labour Relations Board Vice Chair Jeremy Schick dismissed a complaint by a City of Edmonton market planner, against Civic Service Union 52, closing a dispute that began with an unfinished reclassification in 2019 and escalated through pandemic layoffs, contested recall rights, and a settlement.
The planner held a temporary MP-II position from July 2018 to January 2019 before returning to his permanent MP-I role. His manager committed in February 2019 to initiating a reclassification, and the planner continued performing MP-II duties after his return.
A revised job description was reviewed with the worker in mid-2019 but never finalized. In February 2020, his director submitted a further revised description without showing the planner the changes, who believed it did not adequately reflect his duties.
When COVID-19 layoffs hit in April 2020, the market planner was the only MP-I in his department and was laid off, while a less senior MP-II was not. His classification review was still incomplete. Permanently recalled in April 2021, he returned to an MP-I position, where his work has since remained.
Pandemic clauses
A classification umpire confirmed in February 2023 that the planner had performed MP-II level work from 2019 through the layoff. The umpire found the parties had tacitly agreed "the end of the remedy period would be when [the planner] commenced layoff in 2020," capping any compensation at that point.
The first COVID-19 letter of understanding, in place at the time of the layoff, permitted deviation from reverse seniority "after taking into primary consideration any specific knowledge, qualifications, and/or skills that are difficult or impractical to acquire." Legal advice indicated an arbitrator would likely defer to the employer's assessment of which employees to retain.
A separate, updated letter of understanding was in effect at the time of recall: "The City shall return employees, who are returning to work from temporary layoff to their regular position of employment prior to the pandemic, wherever possible."
A July 2024 legal opinion found that following workplace restructuring, no MP-II position remained for the worker.
Settlement accepted
The union obtained three legal opinions over the course of the dispute. The first found that challenging the layoff was unlikely to succeed but concluded the planner should have been returned to an MP-II position on recall. The second reached similar conclusions on the layoff while finding a stronger (though still uncertain) basis for the recall argument.
The third, issued in July 2024, accounted for the updated letter of understanding and the restructured work unit, and recommended accepting the employer's settlement offer, concluding that a claim for aggravated or punitive damages was unlikely to succeed and that no MP-II position existed to recall the planner to.
Following that third opinion, the union informed the worker in March 2025 it would accept the employer's offer of damages and red-circling at the MP-II Step 4 rate, stating, "We do not feel that we have a reasonable chance of getting better than we have now at arbitration."
He objected but said he would sign. The union informed him of its internal Grievance Appeal Committee process; he chose not to file an appeal. He filed his complaint before the settlement was executed.
Fair representation
The board acknowledged a dramatic difference between the settlement and the earnings that the planner believed he had lost, but confirmed that fair representation does not turn on whether an outcome satisfies the employee — it turns on whether the union made a reasoned judgment based on adequate investigation and consideration of the merits.
Having reviewed the extensive records, the board found the union had done exactly that — diligently pursuing the grievances over several years, successfully arguing his case before a classification umpire, and settling only after a thorough review with the benefit of legal counsel determined a better result at arbitration was unlikely.
