EHS Separate Bargaining Town Hall Recording

Over several years, we’ve heard from many of our EMS members about the unique challenges of EMS and some of the limitations of bargaining within a larger agreement. Now that EHS has a separate bargaining certificate, we have an opportunity to fully explore the question. 

On May 4, we hosted a Town Hall for our Emergency Health Services employees to gather feedback on separate bargaining in order to address their unique needs. 

An FAQ section for members has been posted below. EHS members will also receive a survey on May 6 to assess their preferences on separate bargaining.

The recording of the Town Hall is included for members below.

EHS Separate Bargaining Q&A

Why is HSAA raising this now?

Because EHS now has a separate bargaining certificate. That is the practical change.

Before that change, we could hear the concerns, and members could continue to advocate for it, but the legal bargaining structure did not support a straightforward separate EHS bargaining path in the same way. Now the structure has changed. That does not mean HSAA must automatically separate the bargaining. It means we can now properly ask the affected members what direction they want us to explore.

Is this being proposed by HSAA, the employer, government, or someone outside the union?

No. Members have been raising this issue for years. It is about finally having a structure that makes the question possible in a more concrete way.

What exactly are EHS members being asked?

Members are being asked whether they want HSAA to explore separate bargaining for HSAA EMS members employed by EHS.

If members say yes, we would take that direction forward. We would then deal with the employer and, if needed, the Alberta Labour Relations Board. If members say no, we would not pursue separate EHS bargaining at this time, and EHS members would continue under the broader bargaining approach unless something else changes.

Who gets to vote?

The poll will go to all EHS members, this is not a question for the full HSAA membership.

Is the threshold 50% of all eligible members or 50% of the members who vote?

The threshold discussed at the town hall was 50% plus one of the members who vote. It is not 50% of every eligible EHS member.

Is there a minimum number of votes required before HSAA acts?

No minimum turnout threshold was identified during the town hall. The direction discussed was based on the majority of those who vote. If only a small portion of members vote, we may have a direction, but it may not have the same political or member mandate weight.

Can non-EHS HSAA members block this?

Non-EHS members will not be able to block HSAA from exploring a separate bargaining table. 

What changed from the 2025 convention resolution?

The 2025 convention resolution reflected the circumstances at that time and the broader concern about keeping the former AHS group together for bargaining. Since then, the structure changed. EHS now has a separate certificate.

That does not erase the convention resolution. It does mean HSAA has to respond to the new legal and bargaining reality. We can still value solidarity across the broader membership while asking EHS members whether they want us to explore a separate EHS bargaining table.

Why was Banff EMS not included?

Banff EMS was not included because this process is about EHS and the EHS certificate. Banff, Associated, Medavie, Siksika, and other EMS-related bargaining units may share similar work and similar concerns, but they are not part of the same employer structure or the same certificate question.

Is it EHS separating or EMS separating?

The certificate is EHS as the employer, the member concern is EMS bargaining within EHS.

Would new EHS employees or areas brought into EHS be included?

If new employees or transferred operations fall under the EHS certificate and are HSAA-represented, they will become part of the EHS bargaining structure. 

Would EHS members have EMS led representation at the table?

Yes, the expectation would be that EHS members would be represented at the EHS bargaining table by EHS members. That would be the point of having a focused table.

That does not mean bargaining becomes informal or separate from HSAA bargaining standards. HSAA would still provide negotiator support, research, legal strategy, costing, and coordination. 

Would HSAA still represent EMS if EHS bargains separately?

Yes. Separate bargaining within HSAA is not the same as leaving HSAA.

Members would still be HSAA members. HSAA would still be the bargaining agent. HSAA would still owe the same duty to represent members. The difference would be the bargaining structure and the collective agreement path, not the union itself.

What are the strongest arguments for separate EHS bargaining?

The strongest argument is focus. The proposals could be built around emergency response, shift work, fatigue, injury risk, psychological stress, skill development, recruitment, retention, and the first responder nature of the work.

It could also help with member engagement. Many EHS members feel they have been underrepresented inside the larger structure. Whether every member agrees with that or not, the feeling is real. A focused table may bring more EMS members into the process and make the bargaining mandate clearer.

What are the biggest risks of separate EHS bargaining?

The biggest risk is that focus does not equal leverage.

A separate table may reduce the size of the group applying pressure at the bargaining table. The broader table brings scale. It brings more members, more classifications, and a larger system impact. Separate bargaining may give EHS members a clearer voice, but it may also narrow the dispute to one employer group and one bargaining unit.

There is also a risk that gains achieved at the broader table will not automatically move into the EHS agreement. 

The other major risk is compulsory arbitration. If EHS is treated as a group that cannot meaningfully strike because of essential service requirements, the dispute path may move toward compulsory arbitration. Arbitrators can award improvements, but they are usually cautious. They tend to look at comparators, replication, internal wage patterns, government mandate, and what the parties might have negotiated themselves. That can limit major breakthroughs.

Are EHS members stronger together with the larger HSAA table or stronger on their own?

There is no perfect answer. Both arguments are valid.

The larger table gives scale. It ties EHS to a bigger group of healthcare professionals and may help protect shared gains. It also makes it harder for the employer and government to isolate EMS issues.

A separate EHS table gives focus. It lets members build a bargaining agenda around their own work and their own pressures. It may also make members feel more ownership over the process.

The decision comes down to what kind of leverage members believe will work best: size and solidarity across a larger table, or focus and direct accountability at a separate table.

Will separate bargaining guarantee EMS-specific issues are addressed?

No. Nothing in bargaining is guaranteed.

Separate bargaining would make it easier to put EMS-specific issues at the centre of the table. It would not force the employer to agree. It would not force government to fund every proposal. It would not guarantee an arbitrator will award what members want.

Could HSAA guarantee EMS specific gains without separate bargaining?

We can commit to bringing EMS specific proposals forward. We can commit to using evidence. We can commit to building a stronger member mandate. We can commit to pushing as hard as we can on recruitment, retention, retirement, workload, and first responder recognition. But no union can guarantee that the employer or government will agree.

Would the current collective agreement carry over, or would EHS start from scratch?

The current collective agreement with your addendum will be treated as the legal starting point.  

Once bargaining is opened, both sides may bring proposals. HSAA does not bargain concessions as a principle, but bargaining always carries risk. The employer may still try to change language. We would have to defend existing rights while pursuing improvements.

Could EHS lose benefits or rights that the broader group gets?

Potentially, yes. That is one of the trade-offs.

If EHS has a separate agreement, benefits and language would need to be negotiated or maintained inside that agreement. Improvements won at another table may help as a comparator or pattern, but they would not necessarily be automatic. The same is true in reverse. If EHS wins something specific, other tables may not automatically receive it either.

Would separate bargaining help EMS get treated as first responders?

It may help make that argument clearer. It will not win it by itself.

A separate EHS table would let HSAA build the bargaining case around emergency response work, public safety, psychological injury, physical injury, fatigue, violence, unpredictable shifts, and the pressure of being first on scene. That is a stronger frame than trying to fit every EMS issue into a broad healthcare table with many different classifications.

Would separate bargaining help with supplemental pension or retirement issues?

It could give those issues more space at the table. It would not guarantee success.

Supplemental pension language, early retirement recognition, or other retirement-related improvements would likely be difficult and expensive. The employer and government will not agree just because the table is separate. HSAA would need a strong case based on the nature of the work, injury risk, career length, burnout, and comparators.

Is the LAPP pension at additional risk if EHS bargains separately?

The decision to explore a separate EHS bargaining table does not by itself put the LAPP pension at additional risk. HSAA continues to monitor any government restructuring that could affect pensions, benefits, or employment security for any member. 

Would EHS be stuck bargaining after the larger tables and limited to whatever they get?

The government mandate affects all public-sector bargaining whether EHS bargains first, last, or at the same time as other tables. Going first may create risk because no pattern has been set. Going later may create risk because the employer may argue the pattern is already established. Bargaining at the same time may create coordination challenges, but it may also keep pressure aligned. Bargaining dates are between both parties not unilateral, availability for dates while many other public sector bargaining tables are open also bargaining makes timing harder.

Could the employer split EHS further by zone, city, or region?

A vote to explore separate EHS bargaining does not give the employer a free hand to split members into smaller pieces.

However, members are right to worry about fragmentation. The health system is still changing, and government restructuring can create new risks. HSAA will oppose any move that weakens members bargaining power by carving EHS or other units into smaller and smaller units.

Could EHS or government use separate bargaining to privatize or eliminate jobs?

Government can still make legislative and policy decisions that affect HSAA members. Employers can still try to reorganize work. Separate bargaining does not create the risk. That risk already exists in the current health-care environment.

Would the Labour Board need to be involved?

If HSAA and the employer agree on the bargaining path, If the employer does not agree, we may need to bring the issue to the Alberta Labour Relations Board for a decision.

It is a legal process and it could take many months. HSAA would argue that it has the right to bargain in line with the certification structure and that the employer should not interfere with that bargaining right. The Board would then decide the issue if the parties cannot resolve it.

Could EHS be forced to bargain separately even if members vote no?

Health Shared Services has not said that EHS will be forced to bargain separately, nor have they guaranteed to bargain collectively either. Further legislative changes or employer decisions in the future may change the bargaining and legislative landscape. 

If members vote no, what does the separate EHS certificate still mean?

It means the current structure still exists, but HSAA would not be actively pursuing a separate EHS bargaining table based on this member direction.

If EHS chooses separate bargaining, can members later change their mind and go back?

Members should not assume this would be simple. Once a separate bargaining path is established, reversing it may require mutual agreement, legal steps, Labour Board involvement, or future bargaining decisions. 

Will EHS lose the right to strike?

During the last round, EMS was part of the broader essential services discussion. A high percentage of EMS work may have been required to continue during a strike, but that does not mean every EMS member would automatically have been working or that the strike threat had no value.

Our current legal opinions says we will most likely end up in compulsory arbitration rather than a normal strike or lockout model. 

Does separate bargaining help or hurt the use of police, fire, and first responder comparators?

It may help HSAA make the argument more clearly, but it does not guarantee the argument will win.

At a separate EHS table, HSAA can say more directly that EMS members perform first responder work and should be compared to other emergency response workers. That argument may be important for public messaging and bargaining pressure.

In arbitration, the test is more technical. An arbitrator may ask whether police and fire are proper comparators, whether they are funded and governed differently, and whether EMS should instead be compared to other EMS providers or provincial health-care employees. 

What about Ontario West comparators?

Ontario West comparators can still be part of the evidence if they are relevant and properly supported.

The risk is that a separate EHS arbitration may narrow the Arbitrators’ view and comparator discussion from a legal perspective. 

Would separate bargaining hurt other HSAA professions?

Other HSAA professions still have their own needs and their own bargaining rights. If EHS leaves the broader table, the composition and leverage of that table may change. 

HSAA's job is to keep solidarity where it can, while still respecting the specific needs of different groups. 

Would staying in the broader table mean EMS issues keep getting diluted?

The broader table has created many EMS specific gains in the past through EMS specific provisions and addendums. It shows the broader agreement can address EMS issues when the bargaining mandate and employer movement are there.

If EMS stays with the broader table, we still need a compressive plan again to make EMS-specific issues visible.

Why only one town hall?

A written Q&A has been provided along with recording of the townhall being available, the poll will guide future decisions and interactions.

Is HSAA moving too fast?

The reason for moving now is that 2028 bargaining planning is already starting. If HSAA waits too long, we may lose the ability to set up the bargaining structure, member engagement, proposal development, and legal process in time. But members still need enough information to make a real decision. 

Why is this happening before or after leadership changes?

The timing is not tied to one person's exit or one person's role. It is tied to the bargaining calendar and the certificate change.

How does HSAA make sure a separate EHS unit is not forgotten?

That means dedicated bargaining preparation, early member engagement, EHS specific research, regular reporting back to members, a clear proposal process, and strong coordination with other public sector tables. 

How should members think about the choice?

Members should ask themselves what problems they are trying to solve.

If the main problem is that EMS issues are not visible enough, a separate table may help. If the main problem is leverage against government, the broader table may still have advantages. If the main problem is wages, members should understand that both paths still run into government mandate, comparators, costing, and arbitration risk.

There is no risk-free option. The choice is whether members want HSAA to keep fighting inside the larger structure or try to build a more focused EHS bargaining path.