Medical leave leads to request for dismissal – but union refuses to file grievance
A City of Edmonton bus cleaner who asked her union to fight for her termination rather than accept medical leave has lost her duty of fair representation complaint
Vice chair Karen Scott dismissed the complaint against Amalgamated Transit Union, Local No. 569 on Feb. 9, 2026, ruling the nine-month delay was fatal to her case, despite the employee's argument that accommodation obligations were ongoing.
Katjamana went off work in fall 2023 due to medical restrictions and received short-term disability benefits until January 2024. After an independent medical examination, she provided information to her employer in August 2024 stating she was unable to work for six months due to temporary medical restrictions.
The employer placed her on a six-month leave of absence pending clearance to return to work. But the bus cleaner asked the employer to terminate her employment. The employer refused.
In September 2024, the worker contacted the union and asked it to file a grievance challenging the employer's refusal to terminate her employment. The union reviewed the material and determined it did not have a basis to grieve the employer's refusal to dismiss her.
Grievance not filed
On Oct. 18, 2024, the worker followed up with the union. She wrote: "There has been no update on my request for a termination… As a result, I will file a complaint against the union (ATU569) at the labour board for not supporting me. To respond, you have until Monday, November 21, 2024."
The union did not file the grievance, continuing to believe there was no basis for one. The bus cleaner contacted the union again on March 20, 2025 to follow up on the same request. The union maintained its position.
The worker did not file her complaint until June 13, 2025, nine months after the union first declined to file the grievance in September 2024.
Duty to accommodate?
The bus cleaner argued that because the employer has an ongoing duty to accommodate medical restrictions, the union's obligations were likewise ongoing, making her complaint timely. The board disagreed.
“There is no evidence that anything had changed between September 2024 when the complainant first asked the union to file the grievance and March 2025 when she contacted the union to follow up on that same grievance."
The board concluded: "In March 2025, the complainant was still asking for the same thing; the union to file a grievance in an effort to force the employer to terminate her employment and pay her a severance rather than place her on a leave of absence."
The worker ultimately signed a settlement agreement with the employer in August 2025 that resolved all outstanding issues, with the union as a party to the agreement.
