Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alleged Code breaches included anti-union layoffs, unlawful lockout, and improper bargaining during the statutory freeze.

• Melloy justified the layoffs under management rights clauses in the collective agreement due to the client’s shift schedule change.

• The ALRB found no breach of section 147(3), as no shift change was imposed without union consent.

• No evidence supported claims that Melloy used layoffs to compel union withdrawal or acceptance of new terms.

• The Board ruled layoffs did not constitute a lockout under section 72 due to lack of available work under the prior schedule.

• The Court upheld the ALRB’s decision as reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Facts of the case

Melloy Industrial Services Inc., an Alberta-based contractor, employed unionized tradespeople for work at client sites. Among its employees were members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Lodge 146. In April 2020, three Boilermakers—Cory Castor, Mike Fermaniuk, and Jean-Claude Mallet—were laid off after Melloy’s client, Nutrien, altered the work schedule at its site in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nutrien shifted from a four-day, 10-hour schedule to a 7-on, 7-off rotation to reduce exposure risk. The new schedule required four crew members per shift, including a welder and a member of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union. Welding could be performed by either Boilermakers or Plumber and Pipefitter members. However, working the new schedule without overtime pay required union consent under the National Maintenance Agreement (NMA), which the Boilermakers’ Union did not grant. Since Nutrien refused to pay overtime and the union withheld consent, Melloy filled the welding role with Plumber and Pipefitter Union members. Consequently, Melloy laid off the three Boilermakers, citing the union's refusal to approve the shift change.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

The Boilermakers’ Union filed a complaint with the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB), alleging violations of:

• Section 60: Failure to bargain in good faith.

• Section 72: Layoffs as unlawful lockout.

• Section 147(3): Change in terms during the bargaining period.

• Section 149(1)(a) and (c): Termination to undermine union activity or compel cessation of membership.

The NMA had expired at the end of 2019, and a notice to bargain was issued on October 4, 2019. Under section 147(3), terms continued during bargaining. The ALRB found the collective agreement allowed Melloy to lay off employees and manage crew sizes. It also found Melloy communicated to the union the potential consequences of non-consent, which included the loss of work at Nutrien’s site.

Judicial review and court outcome

The union sought judicial review under section 19 of the Labour Relations Code, arguing the ALRB’s decision was unreasonable with respect to sections 149(1), 147(3), 60, and 72. The Court applied the reasonableness standard per Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

The Court found:

• The ALRB reasonably concluded that the layoffs resulted from Nutrien’s operational changes and not anti-union animus.

• Communications by Melloy impliedly conveyed the consequences of union non-consent, meeting good faith standards under section 60.

• Layoffs were consistent with existing management rights in the collective agreement, satisfying section 147(3)(c).

• No evidence showed Melloy used the layoffs to coerce the union or its members, defeating the section 149(1) allegations.

• Since no work was available under the old schedule, and the layoffs were not intended to pressure the union, they did not constitute a lockout under section 72.

Justice Maureen J. McGuire concluded the ALRB’s findings were based on evidence and a rational chain of analysis. The application for judicial review was dismissed on June 2, 2025.

No monetary award, damages, or costs were granted or ordered in the decision.