Hospital Not Required to Hold Vote on 5-Hour Night Shift
West Haldimand General Hospital and Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada, 2025 CanLII 109742 (ON LA) (Wright; 24 October 2025)
Background
The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Hospital violated the collective agreement by posting a new 5-hour night shift on the Switchboard Schedule. The grievance relied on a Letter of Understanding to the collective agreement, titled “Model Agreement: Extended Shift Arrangements” (the “Model Agreement”) which provided that employees in units implementing extended shifts must have the opportunity to vote on the schedule.
Switchboard Clerks at the Hospital had historically worked 12-hour shifts. Following a prior grievance concerning missed meal breaks, the Hospital introduced a 5-hour night shift (11:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.) for part-time staff to provide coverage. The Union contended that adding this shift amended the extended shift schedule, triggering a vote under the Model Agreement; the Hospital disagreed.
Positions of the Parties
The Union argued that any amendment to a schedule containing extended shifts required a vote under the Model Agreement. The Union maintained that the new 5-hour night shift was part of the Switchboard Schedule and therefore required employee approval.
The Hospital submitted that the Model Agreement only governed extended shifts. Because the 5-hour night shift was not an extended shift and did not modify the existing 12-hour night shifts, the Hospital maintained that no vote was necessary.
Decision
Arbitrator Wright agreed with the Hospital. The Model Agreement governed the implementation or modification of extended shift schedules. While the Switchboard Schedule included extended shifts, adding a 5-hour night shift did not change or amend those extended shifts. The vote contemplated by the Model Agreement applied only to schedules implementing or modifying extended shifts, not to additional non-extended shifts. On this basis, the grievance was dismissed.
Vacation Allotments Must Be Reasonable and Flexibly Applied
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1974 and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, 2025 CanLII 114285 (ON LA) (Jesin; 07 November 2025)
Background
CUPE filed two policy grievances alleging that Kingston Health Sciences Centre breached the collective agreement by failing to reasonably accommodate employees’ vacation requests. The Union argued that the Employer relied on rigid unit-based vacation allotments rather than assessing requests on an individualized basis, contrary to the requirement that vacations be scheduled at times “mutually convenient” to the Hospital and the employee.
The Employer denied the allegations, maintaining that departments were entitled to establish vacation allotments pursuant to management rights and that these allotments were applied flexibly, with discretion retained by departmental managers.
The Collective Agreement
The dispute centred on the interaction between:
- Article B (Management Rights): Reserving to management the right to establish policies and staffing requirements, subject to the collective agreement.
- Article M (Vacations): Providing that vacations are to be scheduled at times “mutually convenient” to the Hospital and the employee, with seniority governing preference where requests compete.
While the collective agreement permitted vacation denials, it did not expressly authorize rigid or blanket vacation quotas.
Decision
The grievances were allowed in part. The Employer did not breach the collective agreement simply by having vacation allotments, but did breach it by applying at least one allotment in an unreasonable, inflexible way.
Arbitrator Jesin held that the collective agreement does not prohibit the Employer from establishing unit vacation allotments. Given the size and complexity of hospital operations, some form of quota system may be a legitimate management tool.
However, Arbitrator Jesin also found that vacation allotments must be reasonable in substance and reasonably applied. A blanket rule that prevents vacation during a shift where no other employee is absent was found to be unduly restrictive and inconsistent with the obligation to seek mutually convenient vacation scheduling. The Employer’s failure to explain or justify such restrictions, or to demonstrate meaningful exercise of discretion, rendered the practice unreasonable.
Arbitrator Jesin declared that the Employer’s blanket rule prohibiting vacation during shifts when no other employee was off was contrary to the collective agreement. While unit allotments are permitted, they must be transparently disclosed, grounded in operational necessity, and applied flexibly with individualized consideration of requests.
Full-Time Employees Entitled to Premium Pay After Three Consecutive Days or Four Days in a Week
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4000 and The Ottawa Hospital, 2025 CanLII 122444 (ON LA) (Clarke; 27 November 2025)
Background
The Union filed grievances on behalf of full-time employee Ms. Gratton regarding premium pay for consecutive days worked and total days worked in a week. The dispute arose from the interpretation of two collective agreement provisions governing work schedules and premium pay.
Ms. Gratton worked a series of shifts in January and February 2024. While the Hospital paid premium for some dates, it denied pay for January 28 and February 18, arguing that premium pay applied only when both conditions in the applicable provisions, detailed below, were met. The Union contended that premium pay was triggered if either condition was satisfied.
The Collective Agreement
The dispute involved two long-standing provisions, the latter of which modified the former. The parties had not combined these into a single article.
Article L.5.1(e) limited work to six consecutive days before premium pay applied:
ARTICLE L.5 – ASSIGNMENT OF WORK
…
(e) No full-time or regular part-time employee shall work more than six (6) consecutive days. If however, exigency requires that he works more than six (6) consecutive days he shall be paid at the overtime rate for hours worked on consecutive days in excess of six (6) days. This shall not apply where a regular part-time employee is offered and voluntarily accepts an additional shift in accordance with L.5.2(a).
…
(Emphasis in the award)
In or about 2004, the parties added article L.5.8 to the agreement which modified article L.5.1(e) by reducing the threshold to three consecutive days and provided additional premium pay for full-time employees working more than four days in a week:
Work Schedule
…
The six (6) consecutive days referred to in Article L.5.1(e) is amended to three (3) consecutive days and not more than four (4) days in a week for full-time employees.
(Emphasis in the award)
Parties’ Positions
CUPE argued the combined provisions created two separate entitlements:
- Premium pay for all employees working more than three consecutive days.
- An additional entitlement for full-time employees working more than four days in a week, regardless of whether the days were consecutive.
The Hospital maintained that full-time employees were only entitled to premium pay if both conditions were met. It emphasized the use of “and” in Article L.5.8 and submitted that the plain wording of the collective agreement should govern.
Disposition
The Arbitrator agreed with CUPE. The plain wording of Article L.5.8 provided two separate entitlements for full-time employees. First, premium pay applied after three consecutive days. Second, full-time employees received additional premium pay if they worked more than four days in a week, without the requirement that those days be consecutive. The Hospital’s interpretation would unfairly impose an additional hurdle for full-time employees, inconsistent with the collective bargaining context, which typically provides greater benefits to full-time staff.
The Arbitrator concluded that Ms. Gratton was entitled to premium pay for January 28 and February 18, 2024. The Hospital was directed to pay the outstanding amounts.
Hospital 2 Home Coordinators Not Engaged in a “Nursing Capacity”
Hamilton Health Sciences and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2025 CanLII 116871 (ON LA) (Nyman; 11 November 2025)
Introduction
Arbitrator Jesse Nyman dismissed grievances brought by ONA that the Hospital 2 Home Coordinator (“H2H”) position at Hamilton Health Sciences did not fall within the nurses’ bargaining unit, even when the role was filled by a Registered Nurse.
Background
The dispute centered on whether nurses employed as H2H Coordinators were “engaged in a nursing capacity” within the meaning of the collective agreement. The H2H role focused on supporting high-frequency hospital users, often seniors with complex needs, by gathering health and social information, coordinating care, and helping patients navigate community supports. ONA argued that the position required nurses to draw on their professional judgment and therefore constituted nursing work.
Decision
The Arbitrator rejected the Union’s position. While acknowledging that H2Hs must have healthcare knowledge and may incidentally draw on professional expertise, Arbitrator Nyman emphasized that the role does not involve hands-on nursing care, diagnosis, treatment, or the application of the nursing process. The H2H uses standardized assessment tools, gathers information, and facilitates access to care, but does not interpret clinical findings or make decisions about treatment or interventions.
Critically, the evidence showed that the H2H role could be performed by a range of regulated healthcare professionals, including social workers and occupational therapists, and that no discipline-specific nursing skills were required or expected. Any use of nursing judgment was incidental, not central, to the position. Consistent with long-standing arbitral jurisprudence, the Arbitrator held that incidental or potential use of nursing skills is insufficient to establish that a role is performed in a nursing capacity. More is needed.
As a result, the H2H position was not included in the bargaining unit and the grievances were dismissed.
Arbitration Board Confirms Top-Rate Wage Increases Only for Certain Paramedic and Communications Classifications
Ontario Public Service Employees on behalf of its local 342 v West Parry Sound Health Centre, 2025 CanLII 124612 (ON LA) (Wilson, Garzouzi, and Shaw; 28 November 2025)
An Arbitration Board clarified a consent award resolving collective bargaining issues between OPSEU Local 342 and West Parry Sound Health Centre EMS, confirming that new wage rates awarded for Ambulance Communications Officers, Lead Ambulance Communications Officers, and Primary Care Paramedics applied only to the top step of each wage grid.
The Union argued that the award eliminated lower wage steps or, alternatively, required proportionate or across-the-board increases for all employees in the affected classifications. The Employer maintained that the award implemented higher-than-usual increases at the top rate only, with no changes to lower steps.
The majority of the Board agreed with the Employer, finding the award unambiguous and holding that collapsing or restructuring wage grids would require explicit language. The Board declined to alter the consent award, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to do so.
OLRB Denies Interim Relief in Dispute Over Voluntary Recognition Agreement (Interim Award)
Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada v Runnymede Healthcare Centre, 2025 CanLII 126662 (ON LRB) (Smeenk; 01 December 2025)
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed an application by SEIU Local 1 Canada seeking interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. SEIU asked the Board to suspend a voluntary recognition agreement (VRA) and related collective agreement between Runnymede Long-Term Care (RLTC) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) pending resolution of its related employer and unfair labour practice applications.
The Board declined to grant the extraordinary remedy, finding that it would not make “labour relations sense” in the circumstances. While assuming SEIU may have a strong case on the merits, the Board emphasized that interim relief would strip employees of union representation, grievance rights, job security, and contractual guarantees for wages, benefits, and pension participation. These harms were considered irreparable and outweighed any speculative prejudice to SEIU. The Board also noted that SEIU’s ability to obtain full remedies later would not be compromised by denying interim relief.
Psychiatric Hospital Fined $130,000 After Workplace Violence Incident
Ontario Court Bulletin dated November 12, 2025 available here
Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care has been fined $130,000 after three workers were injured during a violent incident involving a patient in a high-security forensic mental health unit. The Ministry of Labour’s investigation revealed that the employer failed to provide proper information, instruction, and supervision to protect workers, contrary to the OHSA.
The incident occurred on December 31, 2023, when a patient attacked a patient care assistant following an earlier disagreement. A Code White was called, and five other staff intervened, but the PCA suffered a critical injury and two other workers were hurt. Investigators found that the patient’s crisis prevention plan was outdated, staff were not properly trained on its use, and employees lacked guidance on responding to violence from a seated position.
Following a guilty plea, the Provincial Offences Court in Barrie imposed the fine and a 25% victim surcharge.
OLRB Rejects Employer’s Objections in Reprisal Complaint Under OHSA (Interim Award)
Claudine Gayle v Southlake Regional Health Centre, 2025 CanLII 110449 (ON LRB) (Rogers; 14 October 2025)
Background
In a decision under section 50 of the OHSA, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Hospital in response to an unlawful reprisal application.
The Parties’ Positions
The applicant alleged that the Hospital took certain actions, including removing her from her position, placing her on leave, and refusing accommodation, after she reported workplace harassment and systemic anti-Black racism. The Hospital argued that the application was an abuse of process, lacked a prima facie case, and was barred because related issues were before an arbitrator.
The Board’s Decision
The Board rejected the Hospital’s objections, finding it was not “plain and obvious” that the complaint had no reasonable chance of success.
The Board emphasized its limited jurisdiction under section 50, noting that its role is to determine whether a worker exercised OHSA rights, whether a penalty was imposed, and whether there is a causal link, not to adjudicate the underlying harassment or discrimination claims. The Board also confirmed that pursuing a grievance under a collective agreement does not automatically preclude a section 50 complaint unless the grievance explicitly alleges reprisal.
Arbitration Board Declines to Dismiss Individual Grievance as Moot Despite Without-Prejudice Payment
Cupe, Local 1065 v Joseph Brant Hospital, 2025 CanLII 133579 (ON LA) (Beatty, Wright, and Little; 22 December 2025)
Overview
An arbitration board dismissed the employer’s motion to have an individual grievance declared moot after the hospital paid a grievor accrued vacation entitlements related to pregnancy and parental leave on a without-prejudice basis.
Positions of the Parties
The hospital argued that because the grievor had been made whole, there was no longer a live dispute and no labour relations purpose in proceeding. The union countered that the parties continued to disagree over the interpretation of collective agreement provisions governing vacation accrual during statutory leaves, an issue with ongoing and broader application beyond the individual grievor.
The Board’s Decision
Agreeing with the Union, a majority of the Board found that: (a) the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits because there remained a live dispute of potentially wide application over the interpretation of certain provisions of the Collective Agreement (which had been “centrally negotiated”); and (b) there were sound labour relations reasons to have the grievance heard.
HRTO Rejects Age Discrimination Claim in Failed Hiring Applications
Teshale v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2025 HRTO 2904 (Lamers; 25 November 2025)
The HRTO dismissed an application alleging age discrimination after a Sunnybrook employee was unsuccessful in two separate job competitions for an Informatics Associate role. While the applicant was an older worker with significant education and experience, the Tribunal found no evidence that age was a factor in either hiring decision.
For the first competition, the position was never filled, which meant the applicant could not establish that a younger or less qualified candidate was preferred. For the second competition, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the successful candidate was ranked higher based on interview performance and job-related criteria. Importantly, the Tribunal found that the employer’s concern that the applicant was overqualified, and lacked front-line customer service experience, was a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation.
Hospital Ordered to Lead Evidence First in Dispute Over Clinical Nursing Externs (Interim Award)
Listowel Memorial Hospital v Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada, 2025 CanLII 123908 (ON LA) (Chauvin; 17 November 2025)
In a policy grievance challenging the exclusion of Clinical Nursing Externs from an SEIU bargaining unit, Arbitrator Chauvin issued an Interim Award requiring the Hospital to lead its evidence first, even though the general rule is that the Union would proceed first. The grievance alleged that the Hospital breached the collective agreement by not recognizing the classification of Clinical Nursing Extern, by refusing to negotiate wages, and by assigning bargaining unit work to employees not covered by the bargaining unit.
The Hospital was required to proceed first because the collective agreements provided for an “all employee” bargaining unit, which meant the Union had easily established its prima facie case that the Externs were employees. The burden then shifted to the Hospital to seek to justify its exclusion of the Externs from the bargaining unit.
Partial Dismissal of Group Grievance on Non-Suit Motion (Interim Award)
Mackenzie Health v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 374, 2025 CanLII 111999 (ON LA) (Herman; 22 October 2025)
Arbitrator Herman partially dismissed a group grievance alleging unsafe working conditions and excessive workloads in Patient Food and Nutrition Services at the Hospital. The grievance covered multiple classifications following a 2021 transfer from another facility, but the Union called only one witness, a Hostess.
The Arbitrator declined to require the employer to elect whether to call evidence before moving for a non-suit, emphasizing efficiency concerns in a group grievance involving distinct classifications. On the merits, the arbitrator found that the Union had established a prima facie case only for Hosts/Hostesses, based on direct evidence of their duties and working conditions. By contrast, claims relating to Cooks, Dishwashers, and Food Service Attendants were dismissed at the non-suit stage for lack of direct evidence and reliance on hearsay.
OLRB Orders Separate Nursing and Non-Nursing Bargaining Units Following Health Unit Merger
The Board of Health for the Northeastern Health Unit v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2025 CanLII 110426 (ON LRB), (Ross; 9 October 2025)
Following the merger of the Timiskaming and Porcupine Health Units into the Northeastern Health Unit, the Ontario Labour Relations Board had to decide the appropriate bargaining unit structure. Prior to the merger, there were three bargaining agents and three units. One unit was an all-employee unit that included nurses. A second unit was a nurses-only unit. A third unit was all employees except nurses. The OLRB rejected a larger “all-employee” unit and instead created two units: one for nurses and one for non-nursing staff. The Board cited operational realities across a vast region, continuity of services in vulnerable communities, long-standing norms of separate nursing representation, and minimal disruption for employees as key reasons for its decision.
This publication provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hunter Legal LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hunter Legal LLP.