A dispute over paid time for Mount Royal University faculty representatives to do union work belongs first before a labour arbitrator, the Alberta Labour Relations Board has ruled.
In Mount Royal Faculty Association v Mount Royal University (Board of Governors), 2026 ALRB 133, reasons released October 28 explain the board's July 31 decision to defer the association's unfair-labour-practice complaint. The ruling does not decide whether the university unlawfully interfered with the association or whether the additional release time must be approved.
The board left room to address statutory issues after arbitration, if any remain unresolved.
A request for more union work time
The faculty association and university have a collective agreement running from July 2024 to June 2028. It provides release time for specified association duties and permits the association to purchase additional release time with university approval, which normally is not to be refused.
According to the complaint summarized by the board, members approved bylaw changes in April 2026 and the association asked the university to approve increased release time for association officers and other representatives. It wanted a decision in time for the next academic year's workload planning.
The university sought an explanation of the additional responsibilities and workload, why existing allocations were insufficient, and the alternatives considered by members. The association objected that those requests intruded into its internal affairs. It said it would pay for the additional release time and that the operational effect would be limited.
The university subsequently said it was not in a position to approve the request as presented, while explaining that this should not be treated as a refusal to consider additional release time under the agreement.
The association alleged interference with its administration and representation of members, including a chilling effect on representatives. It sought declarations and orders requiring the interference to stop, approving the release time and making affected employees whole. The university denied the allegations and asked that the dispute be sent to arbitration.
Why the contract came first
The Labour Relations Code gives the board discretion to defer a complaint when arbitration is the more appropriate forum. The question is not simply whether a union alleges a statutory breach: the board examines the dispute's central character, the available remedies and the respective expertise of an arbitrator and the board.
Vice-chair Gordon Nekolaichuk found that this dispute principally concerned the collective agreement. The Code itself does not create a right to paid time off for union activities. The association therefore first had to establish what release time the agreement entitled it to obtain and what conditions could lawfully accompany that entitlement.
The university had sought information in response to a contractual request to purchase release time. The board did not find a separate demand for information unrelated to that request, or an indication that the university would keep pursuing it if the request disappeared. Whether the questions went too far consequently depended first on interpreting the agreement.
The association's concern about employer domination could still raise a statutory issue, the board said. But that issue was secondary to determining the contractual right. An arbitrator could interpret the agreement using labour-relations principles and, if a breach were established, order additional release time without the information the university had sought.
The association also preferred the board process because of concerns about delay and disclosure in arbitration. The board rejected those reasons for keeping the case. Arbitration delay is generally not a reason to refuse deferral outside exceptional circumstances, and arbitrators control their own procedures and disclosure requirements.
Complaint deferred, not decided
No grievance had been filed when the deferral request was considered. The university agreed not to raise a procedural or time-limit objection, and the July 31 order gave the association 15 days from August 14 if the association wished to pursue a grievance.
The board adjourned the unfair-labour-practice complaint without setting a new hearing date. Its order permits the association to ask for a board hearing within 30 days after an arbitration award if statutory labour-relations issues remain unresolved, with notice to the university. The board said it would be bound by the rules against relitigating decided issues and would generally defer to an arbitrator's factual findings.
The result directs the dispute to the contractual process first. It neither approves the university's conduct nor establishes that the association is entitled to the additional release time.
