A group of Calgary Starbucks employees has lost their attempt to decertify their union after filing their application two days before Alberta’s statutory deadline, in a decision that underscores the rigid timelines governing labour relations in the province.
The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the revocation application from workers at the Millrise Centre location, ruling it had no authority to overlook the premature filing despite the narrow margin of error.
“There is no jurisdiction for the board to permit a revocation application filed outside of the open period set in section 52(3)(d) of the code to proceed, via section 57 or otherwise,” the board stated. “The early filing cannot be characterized as a mere technical defect.”
The employees applied on June 2, 2025, to revoke the bargaining rights of United Steelworkers Local 1-207. Their collective agreement runs from August 4, 2023, to July 31, 2026.
Under Alberta’s Labour Relations Code, employees covered by agreements exceeding two years may apply for decertification during the 11th or 12th month of the second or subsequent year, or in the two months before the agreement expires. The open period for this location didn’t begin until June 4, 2025.
Contradictory requests created confusion
After a board officer recommended dismissal on June 11, the workers’ spokesperson requested the board exercise discretion to permit resubmission.
“I respectfully submit that this minor technical filing error should not bar the employees from exercising their statutory right to apply for revocation,” the spokesperson wrote. “The filing was made only two days prior to the opening of the applicable window.”
But the letter created problems by asking for two contradictory outcomes — both seeking permission to refile under section 57 of the code while also asking to let the current application proceed.
The union responded on June 13 that the request was improper because the original application had not been withdrawn and was still being pursued.
Despite multiple opportunities to clarify their position, including case management discussions, the workers never withdrew their June 2 application. The spokesperson confirmed in case management they were “insisting upon continuation of the initial application rather than withdrawal and filing of a new application.”
Section 57 consent not available
Section 57 of the Labour Relations Code prevents parties from filing duplicate applications within 90 days unless the board consents. However, this provision only applies when an initial application has been refused, withdrawn, or abandoned.
Because the workers were actively pursuing their original application, the board found no basis to consider section 57 consent.
“Failure to withdraw the original application demonstrates the applicants’ intention to pursue the alternative course referenced in their June 12 letter: seeking the board to ‘allow the application to proceed,'” the board stated.
The employer, Starbucks Coffee Canada, supported the workers’ position, arguing the spokesperson’s error shouldn’t close the open period. The company cited a 2007 case where the board permitted a second revocation application filed two days early. However, in that case the workers had withdrawn their initial application.
Mandatory timelines cannot be waived
The board emphasized that certification and revocation timelines are mandatory under the code. Section 53(1)(a) requires the board to verify an application is timely before granting revocation.
Applications filed outside permitted windows are statute barred, the board noted, citing previous case law.
“Section 57 does nothing to permit the board to alter that requirement, regardless of the procedural nature of the error or the good faith intentions of the applicants,” the tribunal stated.
The board rejected arguments that holding a vote created expectations the application would succeed, noting it regularly directs votes while disputes remain unresolved.
“The holding of a vote cannot be viewed as creating legitimate expectations that a party’s position will be accepted and the vote counted,” the board stated.
The decision highlights strategic considerations workers face when timing decertification applications. The voting constituency can change under the board’s rules depending on the application date, meaning a refiled application would establish a new date and potentially different eligible voters.
The board had directed a vote with the ballot box sealed pending resolution of objections to the timeliness issue and voting constituency. Those ballots will now go uncounted.
The three-member panel included vice-chair Jeremy Schick and members Burns and Thibault.
