Alberta board issues warning about ‘vexatious and abusive’ complaints
A union has dodged a duty of fair representation complaint after a worker who spent 27.5 hours browsing a legal database during training couldn't explain his time usage.
In his panel's Jan. 26, 2026 decision, vice-chair Jeremy Schick of the Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed both complaints filed by Olufemi Shodunke against General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 claiming it breached its obligation to represent him fairly.
Shodunke’s employment was terminated in April 2024.
However, Schick found that the union thoroughly investigated the grievances and made reasoned decisions: “There is no indication of arbitrariness, bad faith, or serious negligence.”
Unexplained training hours
The case unravelled during Shodunke's onboarding at a new Clean Harbors Energy and Industrial Services LP site after a client banned him from their location. He was supposed to complete roughly 40 hours of computer-based training. Instead, he logged 156 hours.
When the employer pulled the computer records, the breakdown was damning: just 35.1 hours on actual training tasks, 27.5 hours on the CanLII legal database, 19.9 hours on personal email, and 56.6 hours with no computer activity whatsoever.
The union filed a termination grievance on April 12, 2024, and asked Shodunke for an explanation. He offered theories about internet connectivity issues, questioned whether the employer could prove it was actually him using the computer, and noted he sometimes forgot to log out.
As for CanLII? He said the training courses mentioned legislation including "the Alberta Labour Code [sic] and OHS legislation."
Information needed for complaint
The union representative wasn't convinced. In a May 1 email, he told Shodunke the grievance remained live "but would be difficult to proceed with unless [he] had further relevant information to provide, as [he] had not provided an adequate explanation during the investigation for how he used his computer time."
Two weeks later, after receiving no meaningful response, the representative sent another email with a clear warning: "If there is any other information please share it with me, or I may have no other option than withdrawal of the grievance."
Shodunke replied on the same day, expressing disagreement but provided "no further explanation regarding how he had used his time in the computer lab," the board noted.
The union withdrew the grievance on July 9.
When discipline forms a pattern
The termination wasn't Shodunke's first issue with the employer. He'd racked up a written warning and three suspensions between October 2022 and February 2024 – all of which the union initially grieved.
The one-day suspension stemmed from an August 24, 2023 meeting where, by his own account, Shodunke "pointedly" told a manager that claims his coworkers refused to work with him were libelous and talked about suing. The employer's description was harsher, characterizing his behaviour as "aggressive and confrontational" including "yelling and pointing in the Clean Harbors leaders faces."
A three-day suspension followed in November 2023 for allegedly failing to conduct a required Field Level Risk Assessment before starting a task. The union agreed to hold that grievance in abeyance pending the outcome of the first suspension grievance.
Then came a five-day suspension after a Jan. 19, 2024 safety meeting where Shodunke questioned certain client safety practices. The employer described his behaviour as "unprofessional and disrespectful," involving "consistent interruptions, persistent challenging and disagreement." The client subsequently imposed a site ban.
Discrimination allegations falter
At a March 5, 2024 grievance meeting, the union and employer reviewed three witness statements from that heated August confrontation. The union withdrew all the suspension grievances.
In explaining the decision, the union representative told Shodunke the managers' statements "largely accorded with" his own version of events, and that "there had been a heated discussion in which the Complainant threatened to sue a manager and accused the manager of racism."
Given a written warning already on file from October 2022, the representative determined "the one-day suspension was just." Once that grievance was withdrawn, the subsequent suspensions fell into place as appropriate progressive discipline.
Throughout both complaints, Shodunke alleged racial and religious discrimination. As a Black man who immigrated from Nigeria about 15 years ago, he argued that characterizing his behaviour as "heated" or "aggressive" reflected racist stereotypes about Black men.
The board took the arguments seriously, even acknowledging in its decision that "racism against Black men in particular may manifest in biased perceptions of their behaviour as aggressive, including when they challenge authority."
Credibility gap with complaint
However, the Board found "the facts alleged still do not support a finding that the union's representation was discriminatory."
The union representative had been careful in assessing the safety meeting incident, explaining discipline was warranted "based solely on the Complainant's own description of his interventions at the safety meeting, and without considering any allegations related to the Complainant's tone."
The board interpreted this as showing "sensitivity to the Complainant's concerns about being unfairly perceived as aggressive" rather than bias.
The credibility gap widened when the Board noted issues Shodunke raised during the proceedings that "he did not adequately bring up with the union." Despite being asked twice whether he had further relevant information about his training time usage, he provided nothing until after filing his complaints.
Vexatious litigant in Alberta
The union requested costs, revealing Shodunke had been declared a vexatious litigant at the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2025. Materials showed he had a self-described "quota" for filing claims and a history of rejected complaints based on what the board called "bald accusations of racism."
The board seriously considered awarding costs, acknowledging the complaints "could properly be stated to engage the board's cost authority as vexatious and abusive." But it declined, citing concerns about creating "a chilling effect on the filing of complaints which outweighs any useful purpose it could serve in the case at hand."
Still, the warning was unmistakable. The board cautioned that "complaints alleging racism or discrimination without a factual basis beyond bald allegation will be summarily dismissed." And for Shodunke specifically, "future applications of this nature by the Complainant might indeed lead to a different conclusion concerning costs."
Board’s role with grievances
The decision reinforced a principle often lost on dissatisfied employees: the board's role "is not to decide whether the underlying grievance has merit or whether it agrees with a union's decision." Instead, it examines whether representation was tainted by arbitrariness, bad faith, discrimination, or serious negligence.
Here, the union filed grievances, investigated them, sought Shodunke's input repeatedly, and made reasoned assessments he simply disagreed with. As the board put it, the union "is entitled to make a wrong decision, as long as it fairly and reasonably investigates the grievance and comes to an informed decision."
The flip side, as this case demonstrates, is that employees carry their own obligation to cooperate and provide the information their union needs to fight effectively on their behalf.
