UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 496 v STRIKE GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Strike Group Limited Partnership (“Strike“) appealed a Chambers Judge’s decision granting an Interlocutory Injunction that stayed the Alberta Labour Relation Board (“ALRB“)’s ballot count for a vote (the “Vote“) on the issue of whether employees of Strike in Crossfield could join a proposed bargaining unit of the Respondent, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local No. 496 (“Local 496“).

The underlying issue, among others, was referred to the ALRB for resolution. The Vote was held and the ballots were sealed pending resolution of the parties’ dispute. On March 30, 2022, the ALRB issued a decision without written reasons, ruling that Strike’s Crossfield employees should be included in the proposed bargaining unit (the “ALRB Decision“). On April 21, 2022, the ALRB stayed the counting of the ballots pending issuance of the written reasons and upon consent of the parties. On February 24, 2025, the ALRB issued the written reasons for the ALRB Decision.

Local 496 filed applied to stay the ballot counting for the Vote pending Judicial Review of the ALRB Decision, which was denied by the ALRB on March 17, 2025. Local 496 then filed an Application for Interlocutory Injunction to stay the Vote’s ballot count on March 19, 2025.

With respect to the Application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Chambers Judge found that the Court had the authority to issue a stay despite the decision of the ALRB to deny one, relying on Siksika Health Services v Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2017 ABQB 683 and noting the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Rule 3.23. The Chambers Judge adopted the tri-partite RJR-MacDonald test for determining whether to grant a stay, which requires an applicant to demonstrate that: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried on Judicial Review; (2) the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting a stay. The Chambers Judge found that Local 496 satisfied the test, noting the inability of a revote to counteract potential prejudice, and the exceptional circumstances of the ALRB’s long delay in issuing written reasons. However, part of the Chambers Judge’s decision conflated Strike’s submissions with the ALRB’s Decision to refuse a stay (the “Conflation”).

On Appeal, the Court noted that the Chamber Judge’s decision was discretionary and entitled to deference, with intervention justified only for: an error of law or principle; palpable and overriding errors of fact; or unreasonable exercise of discretion. The Court held that the Chambers Judge did not err in applying the tri-partite test. The Panel also held that the Conflation did not impact the overall reasonableness of the Chamber Judge’s decision.

The Court dismissed the Appeal, upholding the Interlocutory Injunction to stay the Vote’s ballot count.