EDMONTON-In an important and strongly-worded decision released yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a controversial Labour Relations Board (LRB) decision which allowed Finning International in 2005 to rid itself of a union collective agreement by establishing a new company for part of its operations. At the time the decision was considered by many to fly in the face of available evidence. (Please backgrounder below on issue, including a timeline.)

"This is an important decision by the three Justices of the Court of Appeal," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "It reverses a terrible decision by the Alberta Labour Relations Board (LRB). Finning had created a new blueprint for union busting, and the LRB was letting them get away with it. Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw through it and has stopped it."

The unanimous decision pertains to a dispute in 2005, in which Finning International created a new entity, OEM Remanufacturing, to take over Finning's component rebuilding operations. In the transfer OEM evaded the existing contract with the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and instead signed a contract with the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC).

An original LRB decision ruled OEM was a successor to Finning and that the two companies were, in fact, a common employer. Normally this would have meant that IAM would have maintained its status as official bargaining agent and the workers would have been protected by the existing IAM collective agreement with Finning.

Two months later, adopting a highly unusual procedure, the Labour Relations Board reconsidered the decision at the request of the employer. In that reconsideration, a five-person "superpanel" consisting of the LRB Chair Mark Asbell, two Vice-Chairs and two Board members overturned the original ruling. IAM then appealed to the courts.

"It was a thinly-veiled attempt to bust our union, and we were determined to fight it," says IAM Lodge 99 President Bob MacKinnon. "This is an important day for us, the Machinists, and for all unionized workers. It is also a great day for the democratic process: the Court has recognized that where workers have voted to be represented by a union, that decision must be respected by employers in Alberta."

In its decision, the Appeal Court criticized the LRB superpanel for substituting its opinion for the factual findings of the original panel. The Appeal Court also found that the panel had deviated from well-established successorship principles clearly evident in the Boards own previous rulings and in court decisions. It ruled the decision was "patently unreasonable" and ordered the original decision re-instated. "Patently unreasonable" is a legal term indicating that the decision was "clearly irrational" or "bordering on the absurd."

"Quite frankly, the LRB messed up on this," says McGowan. "It speaks to ongoing problems at the LRB and will deepen the growing mistrust unions have with the Board's lack of visible objectivity. It is gratifying that the Court of Appeals recognized the superpanel's rush-to-judgment for what it was."

The decision leaves the IAM free to pursue its attempt to ensure that the successorship decision leads to full remedies for its wronged members.

"It is a shame that workers need to rely on judges to uphold our democratic rights," notes McGowan. "That is supposed to be the job of the Labour Relations Board."

-30-

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President   @  780.218-9888 (cell)
Bob McKinnon, AIM Lodge 99 President  @  780.218-9888 (cell)

BACKGROUNDER:

High Court Overturns Labour Board Decision

Blueprint for Union Busting Now Off the Table: The Significance of the Decision

• It is rare for LRB decisions to be overturned by the courts. The bar for doing so is very high.
• The case was a controversial one. It related to a new technique for union busting, and included the involvement of CLAC, a bargaining agent mistrusted by mainstream unions.
• The decision by the Appeal Court raises serious questions about the process used by the Reconsideration Panel.
• Unions have been growing increasingly frustrated at the LRB for its lack of transparent objectivity.
• The Alberta Court of Appeal does not have a reputation for progressive decisions.

Timeline of Finning/OEM Case

Why are Finning & OEM "Common Employers"

• OEM did not demonstrate sufficient legal and operational independence from Finning International.
• Finning Canada, a wholly-owned division of Finning International, paid the total costs (approximately $87 million) for the construction of the new OEM plant
• Finning Canada financed all of the money for the creation of OEM through the purchase of two existing independent firms
• Finning International controls 100% of the Class A (controlling) shares in OEM's parent company
• All CRC work was subsequently transferred to OEM

The decision rendered this morning by the Alberta Labour Relations Board (LRB) declaring the strike notice filed by the Carpenters union invalid is the latest example of how Alberta's labour laws illegitimately restrict fundamental rights for Alberta workers.

"The LRB decision this morning is an outrage," says AFL President Gil McGowan, "but the main culprit in this injustice is Alberta's horrible labour laws."

"The carpenters acted appropriately and democratically in their efforts to stand up for their members," observes McGowan. "In any jurisdiction with truly free and open collective bargaining, they would be in a legal position to strike today. However, we live in Alberta, where workers are not afforded even the most basis of rights."

McGowan states the decision takes an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the sections of the Labour Code at question in the case. However, he suggests, the primary problem is the convoluted and restrictive rules governing bargaining and the right to strike in the construction sector.

"You need a masters degree in mathematics to understand all the numerical requirements in the construction part of the Code," notes McGowan. "The multitude of roadblocks, hoops and hurdles in the law are designed explicitly and intentionally to prevent workers from expressing their democratic right to strike."

"And that," says McGowan, "leads us straight to the doors of the legislature and the Alberta government. They created a bad law that must be changed."

"I take my hat off to the thousands of carpenters in Alberta for trying to exercise their democratic right to strike," says McGowan. "And I say to the rest of Albertans that it is time to force the Conservatives to change the labour laws."

- 30 -

For more information call:

Gil McGowan AFL President  @  780.218-9888 (cell)

Unions are warning Alberta's employment minister they will take the government to court if it doesn't change labour-relations rules that contravene a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The Alberta Federation of Labour -- the province's largest labour organization -- sent a letter Friday to Iris Evans asking for a meeting to discuss legislative changes. If changes are not made, unions will look for specific cases they could use to challenge Alberta labour laws in court, according to the letter sent just before Labour Day.

"And we both know a number of sections will not survive a court challenge. But there is another option," Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan wrote to the minister.

"We can work together to repair the damaged parts of the (Alberta Labour Relations) Code and other labour legislation and save Albertans the money, time and hassle of having to use the lengthy court process."

The AFL met last week with 50 senior labour leaders who represent most of Alberta's unionized work force to discuss the June Supreme Court decision that affects unions' right to collective bargaining.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that collective bargaining rights are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association.

The landmark ruling came out of a British Columbia case but has repercussions for laws across the country.

The Alberta Federation of Labour argues there are numerous pieces of labour legislation in this province that interfere with unions' now constitutionally protected right to bargain collectively.

For instance, said McGowan, a group of carpenters who voted last month in favour of a strike still can't walk off the job because current laws group that union with another union representing labourers. The votes of both unions must be counted before either one can serve strike notice.

"The section of the labour code dealing with construction workers was designed to make it almost impossible for those workers to go on strike. Those kinds of unreasonable and unfair rules and hurdles are no longer constitutional as a result of the recent court decision," McGowan said.

Other Alberta legislation prevents provincial employees from bargaining their own pensions, and separate rules stop agriculture workers from joining unions, McGowan said.

"So basically, what the court said in this decision was that labour law in all Canadian provinces should be used to facilitate collective bargaining, not to undermine it."

A spokeswoman for Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry said the department is already working with Alberta Justice to review the Supreme Court decision and determine its implications for Alberta legislation.

Calgary Herald, Page B2, Mon Sept 3 2007

EDMONTON - Unions are warning Alberta's employment minister that they will take the government to court if it doesn't change labour relations rules that contravene a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The Alberta Federation of Labour, the province's largest labour organization, sent a letter Friday to Iris Evans asking for a meeting to discuss legislative changes. If changes are not made, unions will look for specific cases they could use to challenge Alberta labour laws in court, says the letter sent just before Labour Day.

"And we both know a number of sections will not survive a court challenge. But there is another option," Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan wrote to the minister.

"We can work together to repair the damaged parts of the (Alberta Labour Relations) Code and other labour legislation, and save Albertans the money, time and hassle of having to use the lengthy court process."

The AFL met last week with 50 senior labour leaders who represent most of the province's unionized work force to discuss the June Supreme Court decision that affects unions' right to collective bargaining.

The court ruled that collective bargaining rights are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association.

The landmark ruling came out of a British Columbia case, but has repercussions for laws across the country.

The AFL argues there are numerous pieces of labour legislation in this province that interfere with unions' now constitutionally protected right to bargain collectively.

For instance, said McGowan, a group of carpenters that voted last month in favour of a strike still can't walk off the job because current laws group that union with another union representing labourers. The votes of both unions must be counted before either one can serve strike notice.

"The section of the labour code dealing with construction workers was designed to make it almost impossible for those workers to go on strike," McGowan said.

"Those kinds of unreasonable and unfair rules and hurdles are no longer constitutional as a result of the recent court decision."

Other Alberta legislation prevents provincial employees from bargaining their own pensions, and rules stop agriculture workers from joining unions, McGowan said.

"So basically, what the court said in this decision was that labour law in all Canadian provinces should be used to facilitate collective bargaining, not to undermine it."

Senior labour lawyer Bob Blair said he can't predict if the Alberta government will change laws before unions challenge them in court.

"Certainly, the history hasn't been one of changing legislation to head off constitutional challenges. In fact, the legislation hasn't changed since 1988 in any substantial way."

Blair, who was chairman of the Alberta Labour Relations Board from 1994 to 1999, said the government has never amended laws that prevent agriculture workers from unionizing.

"Similar laws have been struck down in other provinces," said Blair, whose law firm represents trade unions and has acted for the AFL.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly said that it is not permissible, and it said it several years ago and the legislation hasn't been changed."

A spokeswoman for Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry said the department is working with Alberta Justice to review the Supreme Court decision and determine its implications for Alberta legislation.

"Minister Evans has already directed her officials to prepare a plan to consult with Albertans regarding consolidation of labour legislation in the province," Lorelei Fiset-Cassidy said.

"However, there is still a significant amount of work to be done, and that will take some time."

Edmonton Journal, Page A13, Mon Sept 3 2007
Byline: Andrea Sands

Days after Alberta's labour market was declared tops in North America, 125,000 of its unionized workers are demanding a review of provincial labour legislation they say is weak and unconstitutional.

The Alberta Federation of Labour has sent a letter to Iris Evans, minister of employment, industry and immigration, to review the laws -- two days after the Fraser Institute declared Alberta the labour market champ among the 10 provinces and 50 U.S. states.

AFL president Gil McGowan blasted the study, saying it claims unions are "a drag on economic performance."

"Alberta has a higher rate of unionized workers than every American state and yet we outperform them," he said.

"How does the Fraser Institute explain that?"

McGowan said aspects of Alberta's labour legislation don't conform to recent Supreme Court decisions -- including a recent ruling in B.C. that enshrined the right to collective bargaining -- which spurred the call on Evans for a review.

"We're not asking her to change labour law in the province, we're telling her," said McGowan.

"The most recent decision is something too big and too significant to be ignored."

More than 50 of Alberta's labour leaders discussed the B.C. ruling before the long weekend, saying they would be prepared to take the law to court as a result.

Sections of the laws that could be overturned if challenged include prohibiting agricultural workers from joining unions and bans on secondary picketing, said McGowan.

The Calgary Sun, Page 8, Sun Sept 2 2007
Byline: Katie Schneider

It was only a matter of time. Whenever the economy heats up, business people reward themselves with bigger salaries and hefty bonuses.

"We've earned it," they tell themselves as they put orders in for the latest BMW or gas-guzzling monster SUV.

But when ordinary, wage-earning workers begin asking for a bigger piece of the pie, they're usually denounced as greedy and short-sighted.

Over the past few months, this double-standard has re-surfaced with a vengeance in Alberta.

As groups of unionized workers -- from nurses and paramedics in the public sector to construction and energy workers in the private sector -- have tabled aggressive contract positions, a wounded cry of protest has gone up from corporate boardrooms and business press.

One prominent columnist described unionized Alberta construction workers as among the most "coddled" in the world and called their wage demands "absurd."

Calgary Herald, Page A23, Sat Sept 1 2007
Byline: Gil McGowan

A well-known business professor and an influential energy industry analyst both warned darkly that the wage demands being advanced by Alberta workers threaten to drive up inflation, undermine our province's "business-friendly" reputation and scare away oilsands investment.

One B.C.-based construction boss went so far as to say that unionized workers were "holding a loaded gun" to the head of Alberta's economy and that all workers (not just those deemed "essential") should be stripped of their right to strike.

In the face of these kinds of verbal assaults, some working people might start wondering if, just maybe, the bosses are right. But they shouldn't allow themselves to be sucked in by all the hype and mock indignation.

The truth is that the wage increases being sought (and won) by unionized Alberta workers have been reasonable, fair -- and entirely appropriate.

In most cases, unions have been asking for increases of between five and seven per cent a year. This might be out of line in other provinces, where the cost of living has been increasing by about two per cent annually.

But in Alberta, inflation shot up by more than five per cent in the first six months of this year -- and in June it rang in at a whopping 6.3 per cent over the cost of living in June 2006. That's three times higher than the national average.

In this climate, wage increases of anything less than five or six per cent represent a cut in take-home pay and purchasing power.

Given the unprecedented growth in the Alberta economy -- and the fact that inflation-

adjusted wages have remained essentially flat for the past 15 years -- is it unreasonable for workers to aspire to something more than treading water?

If the working middle class can't get ahead during a boom, when exactly can they?

In response to the claim wage increases will drive up inflation or discourage investment, two things need to be said.

First, growing unionized wage demands haven't caused Alberta's overheated economy -- they've been a response to it.

If the only way the boom can be sustained is by convincing workers to take cuts to their inflation-adjusted take-home pay, then the boom is probably not sustainable.

Second, threats about "capital flight" are overblown. Even factoring in rising costs for things like labour and building materials, the Conference Board of Canada projects that the Canadian oil industry is on track for $12.6 billion in profits this year -- not a record, but very healthy.

What really determines whether energy companies invest in Alberta is not labour costs -- it's global demand and international prices for oil.

As Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams recently demonstrated, in a world of rapidly disappearing "cheap" oil and galloping demand from monster economies like China and India, energy companies will (however reluctantly) pay more for the privilege of exploiting publicly-owned energy resources.

Oil executives may bluster and rattle their sabres -- some of them may even take their balls and leave the sandbox for short periods. But as long as we have the resource the world wants, they'll be back.

Having said all that, union members and leaders agree that inflation is a real concern for Albertans. It bites into both corporate profits and individual workers' standard of living.

But workers are not causing the problem -- they're just trying to avoid being swamped by the rising economic tide.

The real cause of overheating in the Alberta economy is the decision by energy companies to develop an unreasonable number of oilsands projects at once -- and the decision by the provincial government to stand passively on the sidelines.

If our leaders in government and business really want to tame the excesses of the economy, then what we need -- as former Premier Peter Lougheed has urged -- is a plan to regulate the pace of development so that it doesn't outstrip the ability of our labour force or infrastructure to handle the growth.

We also need rules to ensure upgraders and refineries are built here -- as opposed to having valuable "downstream" jobs shipped down pipelines along with our oil to the U.S.

Left to their own devices, energy companies will never do this. And none of them will willingly put the public interest ahead of their corporate self-interest. Only government can effectively play the role of referee, traffic cop and steward of the public interest.

Unfortunately, our barely visible premier, Ed Stelmach, has made it clear he has no plans to "touch the brake" or address the energy industry's Wild West approach to development.

This stubborn refusal to stand up for the public interest may cause Alberta's economic house of cards to come tumbling down. But let's be clear -- that collapse will be the result of business and government policy failures, not wage demands.

So what's my advice to working people?

Don't be afraid to use the power that the market is giving us to drive hard bargains and grab the biggest piece possible of Alberta's economic pie.

Smart people take advantage of market conditions to get the highest possible returns. The labour market is a market like any other, so we'd be suckers if we fell for corporate guilt trips and missed out on this opportunity to make gains.

Calgary Herald, Sat Sept 1 2007
see also Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 3 2007
By Gil McGowan
AFL President

This Labour Day long weekend, the Alberta Federation of Labour is calling on Iris Evans, Minister of Employment, Industry and Immigration, to establish a review of Alberta labour relations legislation to fix parts which have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or have created unnecessary labour conflict in Alberta.

"The government of Alberta has been flaunting the Supreme Court of Canada for many years in the area of labour law," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "A number of sections of the Labour Code have been implicated in decisions by the Supreme Court, yet the government has done nothing to correct these injustices."

The AFL has sent off a letter to Evans requesting a process for amending labour legislation. The letter comes after more than 50 of Alberta's top labour leaders met before the long weekend to discuss implications of the Supreme Court's latest labour decision which squashed B.C. legislation that interfered with workers' right to collective bargaining.

"The July decision by the Supreme Court fundamentally shifts the landscape of labour relations in Canada, with profound consequences for Alberta's labour law," says McGowan. "The new decision opens up many opportunities for Charter challenges in Alberta.

Unions have committed to taking the law to court. In the letter to Evans, the AFL says: "Alberta unions will be looking for appropriate cases with which to launch Charter challenges against the labour laws. And we both know a number of sections will not survive a court challenge."

It goes on to say: "But there is another option. We can work together to repair the damaged parts of the law. & Selective, well-guided amendments can improve the quality of labour relations in Alberta and bring our legislation up to the standard expected by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Over the past seven years, a series of Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the right to join a union and the right to free collective bargaining are part of the right to associate protected under Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The most recent overturned B.C. legislation attempting to impose a settlement on health care workers and restricting the items open to bargaining.

Alberta's legislation is widely considered to be the weakest in the country for protecting workers rights. Sections of the laws that are likely to be overturned in the event of a challenge include: prohibiting farm workers from joining unions, bans on secondary picketing, flawed and unfair arbitration system, restrictions on what public employees are allowed to bargain, and unfair rules in the construction sector.

"It is Labour Day, the weekend we are supposed to honour the efforts and contribution of workers to this province," says McGowan. "I can't think of a better time to start respecting workers' Charter-protected rights to associate and to bargain collectively."

- 30 -

For more information call:

Gil McGowan AFL President  @  780.218-9888 (cell)

EDMONTON - Today's Supreme Court decision upholding controversial changes to Alberta's Local Authorities Election Act may be a narrow technical victory for the provincial government - but it's a real setback for democracy in the province, says the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

Up until 2004, teachers and other school board employees were prohibited from running for election in the school districts where they worked on the grounds that, if elected, they would be in a position of conflict of interest. School board workers never challenged those restrictions.

But in the wake of the province-wide teachers' strike of 2004, Klein government MLAs successfully rammed through an amendment to the Act that now prohibits school board employees from sitting as trustees on any school board in the province.

"Effective measures to deal with conflict of interest were already in place - so the amendment was never really about that," says AFL president Gil McGowan.  "Instead, it was a mean-spirited 'payback' law - plain and simple. It was aimed at teachers but ended up affecting all school board workers. And it was clearly intended to stop them from flexing their democratic muscles."

In an 8-1 decision, the high court ruled that, since the provincial government "created the opportunity" for people to run for office as school trustees through provincial statute, it has the right to take that opportunity away. Provincial governments have the right to take these steps, the court said, because municipal and school board governments are not subject to the same protections and guarantees about who can stand for and hold public office as federal and provincial governments.

The majority also ruled that school board employees have other avenues available to them to express their concerns or political beliefs - like writing letters to the editor.

"This decision should be an eye-opener for all Canadians," said McGowan. "Most people assume that our municipal governments and schools are truly independent and open to participation by all qualified citizens. What this ruling shows is that, by being excluded from mention in the Constitution alongside provincial and federal governments, local governments are truly the poor cousins of our democracy."

McGowan says that if whole categories of people can be unilaterally excluded from participation at the whim of a provincial legislature, it calls into question the legitimacy of all local governments.

"This time it was school board workers who they came after," says McGowan. "Who will it be next time?"

McGowan agreed with Justice Fish who wrote in his dissent that the right of school board workers to freedom of expression should extend to the right to run in school board elections:

"Seeking and holding office as a school trustee &  is a uniquely effective means of expressing one's views on education policy.  It is cold comfort indeed for school employees, who are barred from themselves serving as trustees, to be told that they nonetheless remain free to talk to those who can, or to write letters to their local newspapers.  The voices of school employees are simply unlikely to be heard over the din of those who actually run for office and serve if elected." (Baier v. Alberta, 2007, para. 107)

McGowan says he will write a letter to Premier Stelmach asking him to amend the election act again to return to its pre-2004 approach to dealing with questions of conflict-of-interest.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that it's within the Alberta government's power to do what it has done. But that's not the same thing as saying what they've done is right or morally defensible," says McGowan. "Given all his promises about the need to promote greater accountability and democracy in this province, I'll be asking the Premier to do the right thing and tear up this amendment."

The challenge against the amendments to the Local Authorities Elections Act was launched by the Alberta Teachers Association on behalf of several of its members. The ATA won at the lower court level and lost at the Appeal level before appearing before the Supreme Court in November.

The AFL joined the ATA at the Supreme Court as an intervener speaking on behalf of unionized Alberta school board employees who are not teachers.

To see the Supremem Court decision, go here

-30-

For more information contact:

Gil McGowan, President Bus: (780) 483-3021 Cell: (780) 218-9888

In a letter sent today to James D. Packer, Executive Chairman of PBL Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd. - the Australian publishing, broadcasting and gambling giant - the Alberta Federation of Labour has asked the Australian billionaire to resolve the seven month old labour dispute at the Palace Casino in Edmonton.

"I have simply asked Mr. Packer to look at this dispute in a cool, dispassionate business way," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "His company has just acquired the Palace Casino along with the other assets of the Gateway Casinos Income Fund, and we are hoping that a fresh approach by the new ownership can break this deadlock."

In the letter, McGowan pointed out just how badly the strike has affected the financial picture at the Palace Casino. "I informed Mr. Packer about the massive $3.5 million drop in revenue from Palace in the fourth quarter - which coincides with the beginning of the strike," notes McGowan. "Operating earnings during the period fell from $2.167 million to a loss of $.582 million - a drop of 126.9%."

"What should be a flagship of his new Canadian holdings is actually a drag on profits because of the strike," says McGowan. "I suggested to Mr. Packer that he could restore good will in Edmonton and make the Palace Casino profitable by encouraging management to reach a fair and equitable settlement with the striking members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 401."

"I believe that any businessperson as successful Mr. Packer will not let this situation continue to impact his operations," concludes McGowan.

-30-

For more information contact:

Gil McGowan, President Bus: (780) 483-3021 Cell: (780) 218-9888

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Just under four years ago, the Alberta government introduced and passed a controversial law that radically altered labour relations in the health care sector.

Bill 27 allowed the government to tear up dozens of freely negotiated contracts covering the pay and working conditions of literally tens of thousands of health care workers.

It also forced unions into run-off votes, denying many workers the right to choose the union they actually preferred.

And, finally, it removed the legal right to strike from thousands of union members in areas like community health and mental health - without ever attempting to justify how the public interest would be threatened if a speech pathologist or a physiotherapist or community health nurse walked a picket line.

Our concerns about the substance of the law were profound. In many ways, it was the most blatantly anti-union piece of legislation introduced by an Alberta government in more than 20 years.

But in addition to being strongly opposed to what the new law said and what it meant for health care workers in this province, we were also deeply troubled by the process that led to its introduction.

In particular, we were concerned about the role that the Alberta Labour Relations Board played in drafting the law.

The Labour Relations Board is supposed to be the impartial referee in all labour relations matters. It is supposed to be free from influence from both employers and unions. And it is supposed to be independent from government.

However, in the case of Bill 27, it became clear to us that the boundaries between the board and the government had become dangerously blurred.

In the process, we felt that the Board's ability to act as an independent and impartial third party had been compromised.

Our concerns about the LRB's role in Bill 27 prompted us to file numerous freedom of information requests aimed at getting a clearer picture of what really happened behind the scenes between government and the Board.

It also prompted two major unions - the United Nurses of Alberta and the Communications, Energy Paperworkers - to launch legal action.

In September of 2004, Justice Watson of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the unions' application for a judicial review of Bill 27 - not because their arguments lacked merit, but because so much of their case rested on things that had gone on behind closed doors. We simply did not have enough evidence.

However, in the months following the lower court decision, the evidence that had been missing started to pile up. As a result of freedom of information requests launched by the Federation of Labour, a picture of what happened in the run-up to Bill 27 began to emerge.

That picture featured a government, who was also the employer - either directly or through the Regional Health Authorities it created and appointed - using its legislative power to force concessions on health care workers that it couldn't win at the bargaining table. It featured a Labour Board helping the government draft a law which they knew would be used against health care workers. And it also featured Board officers sitting in judgment on cases involving the law they had just helped write.

The new evidence that we managed to gather - and the picture that evidence painted - caused unions across the province to ask a very fundamental question: how can we possibly have confidence appearing before a tribunal that had so clearly worked with a major employer to undermine the rights and interests of a large group of workers?

How could we possibly trust a referee who had been working with the other team?

Today was supposed to be our first day at the appeal court. We were eager to have our day in court and, as a result of the new evidence, we were confident about the outcome.

But instead of appearing before the appeal panel, we are here to respond to a major new development.

Earlier this morning the Labour Relations Board released a new protocol designed to more clearly define future interactions between the Board and the government.

The protocol begins by asserting that the only way for the Board to maintain the confidence of the parties appearing before it is to defend its independence from employers, unions and government.

It goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the government, not the Board, to develop policy and draft labour legislation.

It acknowledges that in some cases the government may approach the board for narrow technical advice on legislation or regulations. But it puts strict boundaries on what this kind of consultation would involve.

Most importantly, the protocol guarantees that all interactions between the board and government on either legislation or regulation will be fully and publicly disclosed.

No more veil of secrecy. No more backroom meetings. No more government behaving as if the Board is merely a branch of one of its departments. No more guessing about what's going on behind closed doors.

The protocol also guarantees that, in those cases where the board does give technical advice, the board officers involved will not be allowed to sit in judgment on the laws or regulations they gave advice on.

It also puts restrictions on the role of outside legal counsel - so they can't act for employers one day and as advisor to the board the next.

With this document, the Alberta Labour Relations Board has gone from having essentially no clear internal rules dealing with its independence from government to having some of the best rules in the country.

We may still have some of the worst labour laws in Canada - and we do. But this protocol makes it clear that the Board's only role will be to interpret those bad laws, not help write them.

The importance of this change cannot be overstated. In a province where working people can't count on the Legislature to consistently protect their rights in the workplace, at the very least they have to have confidence that the referee isn't working against them as well.

The Board now has the tools to say "no" when the government comes calling. They now have the tools to tell say to the government, "we won't help you with your dirty work."

We expect the Board to aggressively use these new tools when appropriate.

We also have expectations for government. Now that clear boundaries have been set, we expect the government to respect those boundaries and to not compromise the independence of the board.

As a result of this new protocol, which has been signed by the Board chair and all the vice-chairs and which will be signed by all future vice-chairs, we at the Alberta Federation of Labour, the United Nurses of Alberta, and the Communication Energy Paperworkers union have collectively decided to withdraw our court appeal.

We have pursued this case tenaciously for the past four years. We have invested significant amounts of time, money and resources. And we have persevered in the face of efforts to discourage us.

But our goal was never to put trophy heads on our wall. Our goal was to improve public policy. Our goal was to defend and guarantee the independence of the Labour Board from undue influence from government and employers. And our goal was to restore confidence among all those who have to appear be before the Board.

Looking at the protocol released by the Board today, we are satisfied that our major goals have been achieved. As a result, we see no reason to proceed with the court case.

From our perspective, this is a victory for working people because we can now have more confidence in the tribunal that hears our concerns and complaints.

It is a victory for the Labour Board itself because it more clearly defines and defends its independence from government.

And it is a victory for the broader public because it sets in place a new model for governance which we think can and should be adopted by other public boards and agencies.

If the Stelmach government is sincere in its efforts to promote transparency and accountability, we think this protocol is a very good place to start.

Building a better model of governance - one that the public can really have confidence in - was our goal from the start.

That's why, last year, we at the AFL commissioned an expert study on the situation related to Bill 27. That study was done by Professor Lorne Sossin, a highly respected authority on administrative law from the University of Toronto.

It's clear to us that the Board took Prof. Sossin's recommendations to heart.

Prof. Sossin talked about the importance of maintaining a clear distance between government and administrative tribunals such as the LRB. He talked about the importance of rules to guarantee that distance. And he talked about the importance of transparency and full public disclosure.

The board may not have used the exact words proposed by Professor Sossin, but the spirit of his recommendations has clearly been given life in the Board's protocol.

As a result of these new rules, the Board has gone a long way to reestablishing confidence among the public and stakeholders.

Obviously, we would have been happier if Bill 27 had never been introduced. But we can't re-write history. We can, however, make sure that we don't repeat it.

If these rules had been in place four years ago, the government would not have been able to enlist the Board in its campaign to gut health care labour laws. We may still have gotten those laws - but their introduction would not have triggered a crisis in confidence in the Labour Board.

With the Board's new protocol, we consider our case against the Board's conduct on Bill 27 closed.

We can now turn our attention where it really belongs - to the bad laws we have on the books and to the government that has passed those laws and still defends them.