Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The City of Fredericton moved to strike the Union’s third-party claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

• The Union sought to involve the City, aiming to shift or share liability if the Union was found to have breached its duty of fair representation.

• The Court found that duty of fair representation claims in New Brunswick exist strictly between the union and its member.

• The Court held that the requested relief would improperly insert the courts into the collective bargaining and grievance arbitration process.

• It was determined that the Union’s third-party claim sought remedies beyond the court’s jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act.

• The third-party claim was dismissed, and the City was awarded $2,000 plus HST in costs.

Background of the case
Gregory Billings, a firefighter with the City of Fredericton, retired in December 2021. After retirement, Mr. Billings alleged that he had been misled by the City into resigning and sought reinstatement. The City refused. Mr. Billings then approached his union, the International Association of Firefighters Local 1053, to file a grievance on his behalf. The Union refused, stating the grievance timelines had expired. Mr. Billings then sued the Union for breach of its common law duty of fair representation. While he initially named the City as a defendant, he later discontinued his claim against it.

Despite the City being removed from the lawsuit, the Union brought a third-party claim against the City, arguing that if Mr. Billings succeeded in his claim against the Union, the City should be responsible for all or part of any damages. The Union also requested that if necessary, the Court order the City to accept a grievance and proceed to arbitration, despite the expiration of time limits in the collective agreement.

The parties' arguments
The City sought to strike the third-party claim under Rule 23.01(1) of the Rules of Court, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was improper. It asserted that New Brunswick law recognizes that duty of fair representation claims are solely between the union and the member, and no wrongdoing by the City was alleged in the third-party pleading. Furthermore, it argued that courts have no jurisdiction to order arbitration or revive expired grievance rights, given the closed system of grievance arbitration under the Industrial Relations Act.

The Union argued that including the City was necessary for full adjudication under Rule 30.01 and Rule 5.01(2), and pointed to other jurisdictions where unions had been allowed to involve employers in similar circumstances. However, the Union conceded that no statutory scheme governed duty of fair representation claims in New Brunswick and acknowledged that no cause of action like breach of contract, tort, or statutory duty was alleged against the City.

Court’s analysis and decision
Justice E. Thomas Christie ruled that the Union’s third-party claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the City. He emphasized that under New Brunswick law, duty of fair representation disputes are strictly between the union and its members and cannot involve the employer. He rejected the Union’s reliance on case law from other jurisdictions, noting that the New Brunswick legal framework was different and no statutory duty or mechanism justified the relief sought.

The Court found that the relief the Union sought—forcing the City to accept a grievance or share damages—was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts and contrary to the exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures mandated under the Industrial Relations Act. It emphasized that courts should not interfere with or modify the collective agreement’s grievance procedures.

Justice Christie concluded that the Union’s third-party claim improperly sought to bring the City into a civil dispute where it had no legal role. As a result, the City’s motion was granted, the Union’s third-party claim was struck, and the City was awarded $2,000 plus HST in costs.

This decision confirms the strict boundaries of duty of fair representation claims in New Brunswick and reinforces the separation between union-member disputes and employer obligations under collective agreements.