Two recent Alberta Human Rights Commission decisions confirm that when unionized employees raise discrimination concerns, the grievance and arbitration process is usually the proper place to resolve these concerns. In Haynes v. His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Children and Family Services), 2025 AHRC 94, the complainant said she was discriminated against based on race, gender, age, and disability. Because her union had already filed a grievance about the same issues, the Commission dismissed the complaint, noting that arbitration is the primary forum for employment disputes in a union setting, even when the allegations involve discrimination. A similar outcome followed in Cruz-Barry v. Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 96. The worker claimed she was discriminated against when her benefits were cut while she was on modified duties. She argued that the harassment and bullying she experienced were not fully captured by her grievances. The Commission disagreed, holding that unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as when the grievance process cannot provide a meaningful remedy, human rights complaints tied to a collective agreement should be left to labour arbitration. These rulings illustrate the Commission’s gatekeeping role under section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. While the AHRC can hear discrimination cases, it generally will not duplicate the work of arbitrators. For unionized employees, human rights concerns normally belong in the grievance process, with the Commission only stepping in for exceptional circumstances. Takeaway: The Commission may decline to hear a human rights complaint if it can be adequately addressed through a union’s grievance and arbitration process. Only in rare cases, where the grievance process cannot provide a meaningful human rights remedy, will the Commission intervene.