Khadija Abdi was employed as a Youth and Family Counselor. She alleged that following a workplace injury and a COVID-related medical leave, her employer failed to accommodate her return-to-work needs, ultimately leading to her termination. Abdi claimed this amounted to discrimination based on race, ancestry and disability. She pursued grievances through her union, but the union missed a deadline in the grievance process. Abdi then filed a Duty of Fair Representation (“DFR”) complaint, which was ultimately settled with her union.

Why the Complaint Was Dismissed

 Abdi also filed a human rights complaint with the AHRC. However, the Director of the AHRC dismissed the complaint, and that decision was upheld. The key reason for the dismissal was that the complaint had already been “appropriately dealt with another forum”, namely, the grievance and arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The decision reaffirms that labour arbitration is the primary forum for adjudicating human rights matters in unionized workplaces, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Even though Abdi did not have her grievances decided on the merits (due to the missed deadline), the fact that the DFR process was pursued and a fair settlement offer was made meant her claims had been adequately addressed.

Implications for Employers + Unions

This decision highlights several takeaways for employers:

• Human rights and grievance processes can overlap, but duplication is not always permitted. If an issue has been substantively addressed through a grievance in arbitration or through a fair DFR process, the AHRC may decline to proceed further.

• Settlement offers made during DFR proceedings can be significant. Here, the complainant accepted an offer to resolve the DFR complaint only against her union but not against the employer, which still influenced the AHRC’s view that her complaint had been appropriately addressed.

Conclusion

This decision to dismiss the claim is a clear reminder of the legal framework guiding complaints of discrimination in unionized settings. As observed by the Director, the dismissal of the complaint did not prevent the complainant from having her human rights allegations dealt with or prevent her from being protected against discrimination as she alleged. Rather, the decision promotes the legislative preference for grievance arbitration as the appropriate forum for resolving discrimination complaints in the unionized context and the legislative goal of ensuring an efficient use of resources.

If your organization is navigating complex human rights or grievance matters, contact Maryam Musbah in Edmonton, Steve Eichler in Calgary, or any member of Field Law's Labour + Employment Team.

Link to decision: Abdi v Wood’s Homes Society, 2025 AHRC 45