EDMONTON—An Alberta judge has sided with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, granting a temporary injunction against Bill 9, the province’s controversial labour bill that would have pushed wage talks into the fall

On Tuesday, Eric Macklin, a Court of Queen’s Bench judge, said in a written decision that he was granting the injunction as it relates to AUPE — a decision the Alberta government says it plans to appeal.

“It is in the long-term public interest for the public to see that its government cannot unilaterally change its contractual obligations through legislation,” Macklin wrote in his decision.

With the injunction in place, wage negotiations will continue and not be pushed to the fall — as was intended under the government’s legislation. According to a spokesperson for the union, talks are now slated to begin Aug. 7-9.

But in an emailed statement late Tuesday evening, the government said it would appeal and seek an expedited hearing.

“Albertans elected a government that would be responsible with their hard-earned tax dollars. Bill 9 is prudent measure. It only provides for a temporary delay to ensure the government has all the relevant financial information before entering into wage negotiations,” said Finance Minister Travis Toews.

Lawyers from both the AUPE and the United Nurses of Alberta (UNA) went head-to-head with government lawyers in court on Monday over the controversial bill.

Passed in June by the United Conservatives, Bill 9 — the Public Sector Wage Arbitration Deferral Act — was met with fierce resistance from workers and public sector unions, who said the move amounted to bargaining in bad faith.

Read more:

Unions await judge’s decision on Alberta government’s wage arbitration delay bill

Hundreds rally in Calgary to protest Bill 9 and support public sector workers’ rights

Opinion | Graham Thomson: Is Kenney preparing for war with Alberta’s public sector workers?

The government said it was awaiting an analysis being put together by its “blue ribbon panel” — a government group appointed to look at the economic situation in Alberta. Their report is expected in mid-August and the United Conservatives say they need the information within it in order to properly negotiate wages.

The bill delayed wage arbitration negotiations until the fall, potentially affecting 180,000 public sector workers. Many had taken wage freezes in the first two years of their contracts, with the right to a wage reopener in the third year, and binding arbitration if needed.

Government lawyers argued in court on Monday that simply delaying the date for arbitration didn’t amount to enough of an infraction to be considered a charter violation — union lawyers disagreed. They countered that the move amounted to bad faith bargaining and that the delay would cause irreparable harm to relationships between the government, employers and the union.

“In my view, this is not a temporary delay akin to a scheduling issue,” wrote Macklin. “The temporary delay legislated in Bill 9, however, is wholly the result of the unilateral act of one of the parties.”

Macklin found that the delay wouldn’t cause irreparable harm, but that there is still a chance irreparable harm could stem from damage to relationships between the organizations over the controversy.

“When considering whether AUPE and its members will suffer irreparable harm, the effect of Bill 9 goes deeper than mere delay or short-term monetary loss,” he wrote.

The public interest was also front and centre in court, with union lawyers arguing that upholding contract obligations and maintaining healthy labour relations was paramount. However, government lawyers shot back that in a democratically elected legislature, the public interest was represented in all government bills.

“Members of the public expect that parties to an agreement will honour commitments made in agreements, and they reasonably expect that parties with whom they contract, regardless of who that may be, will honour the terms of the agreement made,” wrote Macklin.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Union lawyers also said that extensive consultations hadn’t been carried out before the bill was brought in, however the other side argued they had met the minimum requirements for consultation. Government lawyers said that AUPE had been asked for its input on the wage delay bill during consultation meetings but didn’t provide it.

Macklin wrote in his decision that both sides presented conflicting evidence and that a trial would be needed to work out the issue of a duty to consult, “and if so whether such a duty may have been breached, because the uncontested evidence establishes a serious issue to be tried.”

Macklin had looked at three factors throughout the proceedings: whether there was a serious issue that could be dealt with at trial, if there would be irreparable harm if the injunction wasn’t granted, and he also took into account if the grant would be in the public interest.

He was satisfied that an injunction was required in all three areas.

“It is important to emphasize that a legislature, as a democratically elected body, is generally entitled to enact laws as it sees fit in a manner it believes is in the public interest,” he wrote.

“However, where that legislation interferes with, or impinges upon, constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, it is the courts’ role and obligation to ensure that those rights are safeguarded.”

After the bill passed, AUPE quickly filed in court, seeking a temporary injunction. The UNA was later granted intervener status in the proceedings.

The AUPE, Alberta’s largest union, said around 65,000 of its 95,000 members were impacted by the bill. Arbitration talks were to take place in June, but were delayed until the fall by the government until the judge’s ruling quashed that notion.

In a press release, Guy Smith, president of the AUPE, hailed the decision as a victory “for all workers in Alberta.”

“We fought for the rights of workers and we won,” said Smith. “Justice Macklin was very clear that collective bargaining is a right protected by the constitution. Governments cannot attack those rights using legislation and the power of the state.

“The judge said that delaying arbitrations made no sense. His opinion was that the government should already know what state the economy is in without waiting for a blue-ribbon panel to report.”

Hundreds of protesters slamming Bill 9 have hit the pavement in Calgary and Edmonton since the legislation was passed by the government in June.

Correction - July 31, 2019: This article was edited from a previous version that misstated the name of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

Read more about: