Declawing a Wildcat Strike: Alberta Court Upholds Suspension of Union Dues for Illegal Strike by AUPE

Written By David M. Price and Cameron Penn

In Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABKB 465 (AUPE v AHS), the Alberta Court of King's Bench upheld the Alberta Labour Relations Board's (Board) decision to penalize the Alberta Union of Provincial Employes (AUPE) by suspending its union dues for one month as a consequence for AUPE's support of an illegal "wildcat" strike during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and Board Decision

In October 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic,  approximately 2,200 healthcare workers (around 5 percent of AUPE's bargaining unit with AHS) across 70 healthcare facilities in Alberta operated by Alberta Health Services (AHS) participated in a half-day illegal strike. This action resulted in over 14,000 hours of work lost, delayed care for patients, hundreds of postponed surgeries and immense strain on remaining healthcare workers.

In response, AHS applied to the Board for various remedies, including an order directing that AUPE's union due remittances be suspended pursuant to Section 114 of the Labour Relations Code.

Section 114 provides that, in the event of an illegal strike affecting bargaining relationships in respect of which the public has a significant stake, the Board may direct the employer to suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues for up to six months.

In its initial decision (2023 ALRB 2), the Board found AUPE publicly and privately encouraged and supported the illegal strike, and "continued to stir the pot" at a time when the healthcare system was already strained. The Board issued a one-month suspension of union dues for the entire bargaining unit, despite only approximately 5 percent of the bargaining unit having participated in the illegal strike, reasoning that the union's conduct warranted deterrence. The illegal strike "endangered the wellbeing of Albertans, and placed additional strain on a health care system that was already reeling from the unprecedented challenges brought about by the pandemic".

Further, the Board dismissed AUPE's constitutional challenge of Section 114. While an earlier Board decision had already upheld the constitutionality of the prior iteration of Section 114, AUPE argued that Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) (i.e., the right to freedom of association) had since evolved such that Section 2(d) "guarantees the right of employees to meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals". However, this right does not guarantee access to any particular statutory regime or model of labour relations. The Board concluded that a dues suspension under Section 114 did not constitute a "substantial interference" with labour rights, as the temporary suspension would not affect the ability of union members to come together to pursue common goals.

The Board later dismissed AUPE's application for reconsideration (2023 CanLII 117152).

The Court of King's Bench Dismisses AUPE's Application for Judicial Review

Justice Teskey of the Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed AUPE's application for judicial review of the Board's initial decision.

Among other positions, AUPE challenged the Board's decision by arguing that the Board erred in imposing a broad penalty on the entire bargaining unit, despite only a small portion of bargaining unit members being involved in the illegal strike. Indeed, the economic impact of the penalty imposed on AUPE was, according to the Court, between C$1.65 and C$2.5 million. The Court found the Board was reasonable in dismissing this argument. With AUPE supporting and encouraging the illegal strike, and accounting for the risks to the healthcare system occasioned by the strike, it was not unreasonable for the entire union to shoulder the consequences. Moreover, the Court refused to question the length of the suspension, given that such decision is one which the Board should be afforded significant discretion.

Finally, the Court found the Board's constitutional analysis on Section 114 was correct. While dues suspension could be a significant burden to a union (and could, in the abstract, constitute substantial interference with Section 2(d) Charter rights), the Court agreed that such a suspension would not prevent union members from coming together to pursue common goals. Section 114 is limited both temporally and in scope, such that it does not offend the Charter. The Court emphasized that Section 114 is aimed solely at penalizing illegal conduct, with such penalty being of a limited duration. The Court reasoned that, to find that Section 114 created a substantial inference with Charter rights, the legal standard would have to be drastically lowered such that Section 2(d) would create a zone of immunity for a union’s illegal conduct. Given Section 114 merely suspended—and did not alter—the requirement for dues collection under the collective agreement between AUPE and AHS, Section 114 was anchored within constitutional policy choices available to the Alberta Legislature.

Key Takeaways for Employers

AUPE v AHS is a significant win for public sector employers with unionized workforces, as it affirms material consequences for illegal "wildcat" strike activity. Unions involved in essential services in the public sector in Alberta should heed the lessons of this case, recognizing the heavy financial penalty AUPE received is intended to send a message, in the words of the Board, that "this kind of conduct will not be tolerated".

Further, the constitutional analysis adopted by the Board and Court is a reasoned, tempered approach to Section 2(d) Charter rights, which have not always been treated in the most consistent or predictable manner by Canadian courts. This decision respects the legislature's ability to penalize illegal union conduct through temporary measures, without constituting substantial interference with freedom of association rights guaranteed by the Charter. As noted by Justice Teskey, unions do not have "immunity" from consequences for illegal activity.

If you have any questions about any of the issues discussed in this post, or if we can help advise your business on similar or other labour-related issues, please contact one of the authors, or another member of the Bennett Jones Employment Services group, for more information. 

Download PDF