A goodwill arrangement with no paper trail just cost AFL in arbitration
A secondment that launched without a single word in writing and expanded well beyond its original scope ended in a formal arbitration ruling.
In a decision issued February 19, 2026, Arbitrator James T. Casey, K.C. found that the Alberta Federation of Labour violated its collective agreement with Unifor Local 445 by allowing a seconded employee's duties to drift into bargaining unit territory without securing the union's agreement.
UFCW Local 401 had fallen behind on federation fees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than pursue the debt, the AFL accepted the services of "AB," a respected workplace organizer, as an offset, with UFCW Local 401 continuing to pay his salary and benefits. The arrangement launched in April 2022 with no written agreement on AB's duties, duration, or relationship to the bargaining unit.
Ironically, Unifor Local 445 itself had initially preferred the secondment structure, asking that AB remain employed by UFCW Local 401 rather than join the AFL as a direct hire. The AFL agreed. Casey found that neither party had formally agreed on the scope of AB's work, its duration, or its implications for the bargaining unit.
"Long experience teaches those in labour relations that a failure to carefully document employment relationships and agreements which are out of the norm sows the seeds for future serious disagreements between employers and unions with respect to the arrangement," Casey wrote.
The slow creep that triggered a grievance
AB's original workplace organizing work was found to fall outside the bargaining unit. But over time, his duties broadened to include research, political action, communications campaigns, representing the AFL at rallies and on picket lines, and assisting affiliates in avoiding frivolous duty of fair representation complaints. Bargaining unit members began raising concerns by Spring 2023.
The parties signed a September 2023 Letter of Understanding restricting AB's work to organizing activities and confirming "bargaining unit work will not be assigned to the Coordinator of Workplace Organizing," subject to review before September 1, 2024.
On August 30, 2024, the AFL requested a one-month extension for that review. Discussions followed but collapsed when the AFL refused to agree to a definite end date for the secondment. The union filed a grievance on September 20, 2024. Casey was direct: "From my perspective, what has happened in this case is 'scope creep.'"
The fine print that sealed the ruling
Two collective agreement provisions were central. Article 5.01 prohibited hiring employees or contractors to perform bargaining unit duties without prior union consultation and agreement. Article 5.11 required union agreement on terms and conditions, including bargaining unit membership, for any contract exceeding 12 months with the same individual.
Casey found both articles breached, but only regarding AB's non-organizing work. AB was not deemed an AFL employee for labour relations purposes; UFCW Local 401 remained his true employer, responsible for his compensation and discipline. No financial remedy was ordered.
The ruling's direction came directly from Casey: "The AFL can continue to use the services of AB but the work must be restricted to workplace organizing unless the Union otherwise agrees or AB becomes employed within the bargaining unit."
