Edmonton loses challenge to reinstatement after COVID-policy dismissal

The Alberta Labour Relations Board has rejected Edmonton’s challenge to an arbitration award reinstating a long-serving employee fired for refusing to comply with its COVID-19 vaccination and rapid-testing policy. The award replaced dismissal with a 24-month suspension.

In Edmonton (City) v Civic Service Union 52, 2026 ALRB 91, issued July 15, 2026, Vice-Chair Ian Smith found that the city had not shown the award was unreasonable. The decision did not invalidate the policy or excuse the employee’s refusal to follow it.

Misconduct did not settle the penalty

The employee had worked for the city for 23 years. The policy allowed exemptions on legally protected grounds and offered rapid testing as an alternative to vaccination. After she reported to work without vaccination or a negative rapid test in November 2021, the city placed her on unpaid leave, warned of disciplinary consequences and later suspended and dismissed her.

Civic Service Union 52 grieved both the suspension and dismissal. It did not challenge the policy’s reasonableness. The dispute concerned whether discipline was justified and, if so, whether the penalties imposed were excessive.

The arbitrator found deliberate, continuing insubordination. The evidence did not establish that the employee reasonably believed rapid testing would endanger her health and safety. The suspension grievance was dismissed, but the termination grievance succeeded because dismissal was excessive in the circumstances.

Factors supporting a lesser penalty included long service, a previously clean disciplinary record and positive work history, the absence of a significant operational impact from her non-compliance, and the consequences of dismissal. The arbitrator also recognized that the refusal was sustained despite repeated warnings and warranted a significant disciplinary response.

A review, not a fresh penalty decision

The city asked the labour board to review the August 12, 2025 award. Its five grounds challenged the logic of the analysis, reliance on an overturned arbitration decision, application of other case law, assessment of the evidence and alleged use of hindsight.

The board applied reasonableness review. That required the city to identify a serious flaw in the award’s reasoning or outcome. It did not authorize the board to decide the grievances again simply because it might have weighed the evidence differently.

The city argued that the arbitrator had blurred the policy’s validity with the legitimacy of discipline. The board disagreed: the arbitrator accepted the policy as reasonable, found cause for discipline, and then considered whether dismissal was excessive. Discussing the policy’s purpose was responsive to the parties’ evidence and arguments, not an attack on its validity.

The board found that this approach followed the established William Scott framework: decide whether some discipline is justified, whether dismissal is excessive in all the circumstances, and, if necessary, what alternative penalty is just and equitable. It acknowledged that the award’s use of “reasonableness” when discussing the penalty was somewhat confusing, but found that the actual analysis addressed the right question.

Earlier cases did not dictate dismissal

The city also pointed to the arbitrator’s references to a Saskatchewan arbitration award that had been overturned. The board found no material reliance that undermined the result. Unlike the overturned decision, this award accepted the policy, found misconduct and followed the required disciplinary analysis. Its discussion of operational impact was one part of the penalty assessment.

Another dispute concerned a prior Edmonton arbitration decision upholding dismissal. The board distinguished two principles: failing to individualize discipline does not automatically make it void, but an arbitrator must still assess whether the penalty is appropriate for the individual employee. Those propositions can coexist, and the arbitrator had not misapplied the earlier case.

The city said the arbitrator had overvalued mitigating factors and undervalued sustained insubordination and lack of remorse. The board noted that the award imposed a substantial suspension, rather than overlooking the misconduct. It also found that the reference to a clean disciplinary record concerned the period before the suspension that was itself under challenge.

No blanket right to refuse workplace rules

The board rejected the argument that the award relied improperly on the later removal of rapid-testing requirements. The arbitrator expressly excluded that hindsight and assessed what the city knew in late 2021 and January 2022.

The review application was dismissed, leaving the reinstatement award and substituted 24-month suspension undisturbed. The board did not make a new damages award, and its reasons do not establish the employee’s subsequent work status or any later implementation of the award.

The result turns on the distinction between a valid workplace rule, misconduct in breaching it and the proportionality of dismissal. It does not establish that vaccination or testing requirements are unlawful, that sincere opposition excuses non-compliance, or that long service prevents dismissal in other cases.