Who has jurisdiction over human rights complaints in a unionized workplace?
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has upheld a decision by the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to dismiss a worker’s discrimination complaint because the issues brought forward by the complaint were already addressed in a grievance process.
The worker was an employee of the Town of Drumheller, Alta. He suffered a workplace injury in December 2021 and was cleared to return to work on the condition that he only be assigned light work. The town agreed, so the worker returned to work on light duties.
However, according to the worker, he soon was placed on full duties. A short time later, in February 2022, he sustained another workplace injury that required him to take a longer period off work.
The worker eventually returned to work in October, but his doctor recommended that he go off work in April 2023.
Search for modified work
The worker met with management and the union to discuss a new position that was within his medical restrictions. According to the worker, the town froze his salary and cancelled training that he needed for certification. He took computer courses for a new position in December 2023, but he was then assigned physical work that was beyond his medical restrictions. The worker claimed that this further aggravated his injury.
According to the town, it set up an office for the worker that supported him ergonomically. After he completed training for the new position, management met with the worker on Feb. 14, 2024, to review the accommodations in place.
The union filed a grievance on the worker’s behalf, contesting the accommodation process, the cancellation of training opportunities for the worker, and the freezing of his wage increases. The town and the union addressed the grievance through a process outlined in the collective agreement and resolved the issues including accommodation, the worker’s certification and training, and his salary freeze.
Allegation of disability discrimination
However, the worker filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of physical disability.
The director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission found that, since the worker was unionized, the grievance process was “the more appropriate forum for resolving the issues” made in the worker’s human rights application. The director noted that the union and the town did in fact reach a settlement with an accommodation agreement.
The worker filed a request for review of the director’s decision, maintaining that the town didn’t accommodate his physical disability.
The tribunal noted that s. 21(2)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Human Rights Act permits the dismissal of a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint “is being, has been, will be or should be more appropriately dealt with in another forum.” The act also allows the director to dismiss a complaint on that basis.
Human rights issues under collective agreement
The tribunal also referred to decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Alberta Court of Appeal, along with its own decisions, that established that the labour arbitration process is the primary forum for addressing human rights issues arising under a collective agreement. Although the matter didn’t reach the arbitration stage, the grievance process allowed the parties to reach a settlement resolving the issues at hand, said the tribunal.
The tribunal determined that the substance of the worker’s complaint was replicated in the grievances filed by the union on behalf of the worker, which were resolved in the grievance process, which was another appropriate forum. Deferring to this grievance process, the tribunal upheld the director’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
