A settlement between an employee and employer can affect an unresolved complaint against the employee's union, even when the union didn't sign the agreement. The extent of that effect depends on what the Tribunal would have to decide to resolve the union complaint. In Clark v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, 2026 CHRT 103, that distinction left 1 allegation against the union alive while bringing 2 others to an end.
David Clark was a Jazz Aviation pilot and held elected positions within the Air Line Pilots Association, International, known as ALPA. During a period of medical leave beginning in 2019, he was also involved in union disciplinary appeals. He alleged that ALPA restricted his ability to perform his elected union duties because of his disability. He separately alleged that the union failed to accommodate his return to work in 2020 and failed to challenge Jazz's alleged lack of accommodation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission referred those 3 allegations to the Tribunal.
By the time the Tribunal addressed ALPA's motions, Clark had reached a settlement with Jazz. In December 2024, Clark and his employer resolved disputes concerning accommodation, an unfair labour practice complaint and a human rights complaint. The arrangement returned him to work as a captain with his seniority, provided monetary compensation and included agreed workplace accommodations. Jazz obtained a broad release extending to known and unknown claims connected with the disability leave and specified proceedings. The agreement also included a promise not to pursue claims against others that could produce a claim against Jazz. ALPA, which wasn't a party to the agreement, said the Tribunal should dismiss the entire complaint as an abuse of process.
The Tribunal examined the allegations separately rather than treating the settlement as an automatic release of every possible claim against ALPA. The first concerned the union's own conduct. After Clark sought to adjourn a union appeal hearing for medical reasons, ALPA had warned him that carrying out other elected union activities might call into question his inability to participate in the appeal. Whether that restriction adversely affected him because of disability under section 9(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act could be determined without deciding whether Jazz discriminated against him. The first allegation was therefore not foreclosed by the employer's settlement.
The other 2 allegations required a different inquiry. They criticized ALPA's alleged inaction during Clark's return to work and its failure to object to Jazz's accommodation decisions. As pleaded, resolving those allegations would require evidence and findings about what Jazz did, whether its actions were discriminatory and how the union's involvement fell short. The Tribunal considered Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud and Waddle v. Canadian Pacific Railway, noting the relationship between an employer's accommodation obligations and a union's involvement. Clark hadn't alleged an independent factual basis for a union duty in those 2 matters. Reopening the employer's accommodation conduct would effectively relitigate issues settled with Jazz.
Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure permits orders to prevent abuse of process, and section 50(2) of the Act allows it to decide questions necessary to its inquiry. The Tribunal applied the principles of finality, consistency and judicial economy to dismiss the 2 allegations dependent on employer conduct. It rejected Clark's suggestion that ALPA's motion was an improper challenge to the Commission's referral. Unlike a party that knew about a settlement during the Commission process and later tried to revisit the referral, ALPA had learned of this agreement only through disclosure after referral.
ALPA also asked to add Jazz as a respondent. Once the 2 accommodation allegations were dismissed, the remaining dispute concerned the union alone. Jazz's participation wasn't necessary to answer that complaint, and adding it would defeat the protection it had negotiated and disrupt an inquiry already being prepared on the existing pleadings. The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Jazz. Its final order allowed the dismissal motion only in part, removed allegations 2 and 3 and directed that allegation 1 proceed to a hearing.
This is a procedural decision rather than a finding that either ALPA or Jazz discriminated. It doesn't mean a settlement with an employer releases every union claim, nor that a union can never have an independent duty to accommodate. The practical question for counsel is narrower and more useful. Before continuing a related claim after settlement, identify the precise conduct alleged against each party and ask whether adjudicating it would require the decision maker to decide liability that the settlement was meant to put to rest.