The board found the union acted with blatant disregard for her interests
For 25 years, a City of Calgary worker showed up and did a job she was never formally hired to do. In March 2024, it ended. In a ruling dated March 4, 2026, Alberta Labour Relations Board Vice Chair Gordon Nekolaichuk found her union, CUPE Local 37, had breached its duty of fair representation under section 153(1) of Alberta's Labour Relations Code, leaving her on long-term disability with no return to work in sight.
Loreto Walton joined the City of Calgary in 1991 as a seasonal labourer. In 2008, she was selected for a meter service worker position with Water Services, but the City gave her a different role before she started: working in the water meter warehouse on office duties, including ordering supplies, and managing rental agreements for City-owned Hydrant Control Units.
After a 2012 location move, she was given a desk in an office, but no formal reclassification followed. A 2018 job evaluation questionnaire review produced no change. In 2022, a senior meter clerk position was posted. Walton believed she had been performing those duties but was not aware of the posting until quite late and did not apply.
By June 2023, she brought her concerns to Local 37's Vice President, Robin Orsulak. Walton testified he was not interested and focused instead on an unrelated issue involving her supervisor. Nothing was done. Dissatisfied with the response she was getting from Orsulak, Walton escalated in October 2023 to CUPE National Representative Deena Kapacila. After email correspondence between the two, it was decided they would contact the President of Local 38, D'Arcy Lanovaz, given that the work Walton had been performing appeared to belong in that bargaining unit. Lanovaz told her she had to stop doing what she was doing and referred her back to her own union.
The morning everything changed
On March 11, 2024, Walton arrived at work. Her foreman told her not to touch her computer. Shortly after, her foreman and another foreman told her she was to perform the meter service worker job, a truck was ready for her, and her belongings had been removed from her desk. She went home and contacted the union.
At a meeting on March 15, union president Matthew Sjogren and Kapacila met with Walton. The union's own notes record the position delivered to her: "Now that the error has been identified, we corrected the error, you called local 38's president and he told you to stop doing that work. You went through an application process and weren't successful. If you would have called 15 years ago we could have fixed this. What do you want?"
Walton told the union she could not perform the work of a meter service worker because she had major restrictions. She went on short-term disability after March 11, which extended to long-term disability. Her benefits ended in April 2025. She had not returned to work as of the date of the hearing.
Union negligence
The union filed a grievance on March 28, 2024, under Schedule A Classifications of the Collective Agreement, alleging the employer required Walton to work "outside their posted position scope and job descriptions." Sjogren testified the purpose was to have Walton perform the duties of her posted position — the direct opposite of what she had asked for. Kapacila later prepared a lengthy assessment of the grievance, dated October 2, 2024, which recommended withdrawal. The grievance was ultimately withdrawn in January 2025 after Walton's appeal of that decision was denied.
On Walton's stated medical restrictions, the board found the union's response fell short. The ruling states: "Such comments, whether accompanied by a request for accommodation or not, should flag for a union to investigate whether there is a reasonable basis to begin discussions with the employer about accommodating the employee."
The board found the union's conduct met the threshold for serious negligence. Applying the standard in Information Bulletin #18, it stated: "It is arbitrary to give only superficial attention to the facts or matters in issue. It is arbitrary to decide without concern for the employee's needs and interests."
Remedy is yet to be determined. The board reserved jurisdiction and directed the parties to discuss a potential resolution, with a further hearing to follow only if required.
See Walton v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 37, 2026 ALRB 31
