Interest Arbitration Board Decides on Wage Increases, Compensation for Transfer of Accountability, Nurse-to-Patient Ratios and More
Participating Hospitals v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2025 CanLII 89205 (ON LA) (Price, Abbink and Christen; September 03, 2025)
Overview
The Board of Arbitration issued a significant interest arbitration award, settling the central terms of the renewal for the collective agreement between the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA) and 127 hospitals (i.e. the Participating Hospitals), represented by the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA).
This arbitration marked the 21st round of provincial bargaining between ONA and the Participating Hospitals.
The previous agreement expired on March 31, 2025, and despite several days of bargaining and mediation, the parties were unable to resolve key issues. As a result, the matter was referred to arbitration, where the Board was tasked with replicating what the parties might have achieved in a free collective bargaining environment, taking into account factors such as fiscal constraints, economic conditions, comparability, and demonstrated need.
Wage Increases and Economic Context
One of the most significant aspects of the award was the determination of general wage increases (GWIs).
ONA sought 6 percent increases in both 2025 and 2026, arguing that such adjustments were necessary to maintain Ontario nurses’ “top of market” status nationally, particularly in comparison to Alberta.
The Board rejected this approach, instead awarding a 3.0 percent increase for 2025 and a 2.25 percent increase for 2026.
The Board found that these figures align with recent outcomes for other hospital bargaining units, including CUPE and SEIU, and reflect the Board’s continued reliance on internal comparators within Ontario’s hospital sector.
The Board emphasized that while recruitment and retention remain important considerations, the economic climate and fiscal realities facing hospitals must also be weighed. The award noted that vacancy rates among registered nurses had declined significantly since their peak in 2023, and that the Participating Hospitals were already well-positioned to attract and retain qualified staff.
Transfer of Accountability: Breakthrough on Compensation
Perhaps the most notable development in the award was the Board’s decision to amend Article 13.01 of the collective agreement to require compensation for up to 15 minutes of “Transfer of Accountability” (TOA) beyond the end of a nurse’s scheduled shift.
Historically, nurses were expected to perform TOA – an essential handover process – without pay, provided it did not exceed 15 minutes.
The Board found this practice to be untenable and inconsistent with prevailing norms, concluding that nurses should be compensated for all time worked, stating as follows:
[66] The more normative a provision is, the more likely it is to be granted by an interest arbitration board. It is difficult to think of a stronger norm than that an employee is entitled to be paid for the time spent working. This basic premise weighs heavily in favour of granting the Union’s proposal.
[67] … The fact of the matter is that nurses are paid an hourly rate for their scheduled hours of work, but not for up to 15 minutes, after their shift has ended, engaged in the exceedingly important work of transferring accountability for their patients to the oncoming shift. As the rights arbitration cases demonstrate, this is a patently unfair practice, which flies in the face of prevailing norms in society at large.
The amended provision, set out below (and sourced from the award), will stipulate that TOA time will be paid at the same rate as the shift worked, with overtime applicable if the reporting time exceeds 15 minutes:
Transfer of Accountability
– Effective 60 days from the date of the award:
13.01 (a) The normal daily tour shall be seven and one-half (7½) consecutive hours in any twenty-four (24) hour period exclusive of an unpaid one half (½) hour meal period, it being understood that at the change of tour there may
will normallybe additional time required for reporting.which shall be considered to be part of the normal daily tour, for a period of up to fifteen (15) minutes duration.Any time spent reporting beyond the end of the normal daily tour for a period of up to fifteen (15) minutes duration will be paid at the same rate as the tour that has just been worked. Should the reporting time extend beyond fifteen (15) minutes, however, the entire period shall be considered overtime for the purposes of payment under Article 14.
This change takes effect sixty (60) days from the date of the award, on November 2, 2025.
The Board remitted to the parties the implementation of this change, leaving it to them to make any consequential amendments to the collective agreement required to give effect to the stated intent of the award on this issue.
The Board indicated that it would remain seized to resolve any disputes.
This aspect of the decision was met with strong dissent from the Hospital nominee, who characterized it as a costly and disruptive change that should have been negotiated rather than awarded.
Nurse-to-Patient Ratios: Proposal Rejected
ONA’s proposal to embed fixed RN-to-patient ratios in the collective agreement was rejected. The Union had argued that minimum staffing ratios were essential to protect nurse health and safety and improve patient outcomes. However, the Board found that the proposal lacked demonstrated need and was inconsistent with staffing models in other jurisdictions, which typically allow for greater flexibility and include multiple nursing classifications.
The Board also expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing such ratios, particularly in the absence of government funding and in light of ongoing recruitment challenges. The proposal to cancel non-urgent care when ratios were not met was deemed especially problematic, with the Board concluding that it could jeopardize patient access and hospital operations.
Work of the Bargaining Unit: Management Rights Affirmed
The Board also declined to award ONA’s proposal to restrict the assignment of RN work to non-ONA members, such as RPNs represented by other unions. The Union argued that such assignments threatened the integrity of its bargaining unit, but the Board found no evidence of erosion. On the contrary, the number of RN positions had increased significantly in recent years.
The Board reaffirmed that determining the appropriate mix of healthcare professionals is a fundamental management right, and that the Union’s proposal would unduly constrain hospitals’ ability to respond to patient needs and evolving scopes of practice.
Nurse Practitioner Wage Grid Harmonization
The Board awarded incremental harmonization of Nurse Practitioner (NP) wage grids across hospitals. Specifics of this change include the following:
- Effective the date of the award, all Participating Hospitals to revise their wage grids, if necessary, to ensure that it takes no more than 8 years to reach the top of the grid (i.e. maximum of 9 steps with the start rate).
- Effective April 1, 2025, all NPs to receive the GWI of 3.0%.
- Effective the date of the award, any NPs whose hourly rate, after the 3.0% GWI, is lower than the minimum hourly rate for their years of service set out in the wage chart , will move to the applicable minimum hourly rate.
- Effective April 1, 2026, all NPs will be entitled to the GWI of 2.25%.
The Boar clarified that, for this round of bargaining, the NP wage rates will not be adjusted in accordance with Article 19.01(d) of the collective agreement.
Additional Enhancements to Compensation
The award also includes several other enhancements to compensation and working conditions:
- The pregnancy and parental leave top-up was increased from 84 percent to 93 percent.
- Dental benefits were improved, with increased coverage for crowns, implants, and orthodontics.
- Hospitals are now required to post vacancies within 60 calendar days.
- Language around domestic violence leave has been expanded to include additional supports and protections.
Conclusions and Next Steps
While the Board declined to award several of ONA’s more ambitious proposals, it introduced changes in compensation and working conditions that will be very significant going forward, particularly around TOA.
Board Confirms Training Premium and Pandemic Pay Are Local Issues
Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada v Participating Hospitals, 2025 CanLII 90968 (ON LA) (Kugler, Garzouzi and Christen; September 04, 2025)
Background
A dispute arose between SEIU, Local 1 Canada, and the Participating Hospitals concerning two proposals that the Union had submitted for local issues interest arbitration: Training Premium and Pandemic Pay.
The Board of Arbitration had been established by the parties to address local issues. Both parties agreed that the Board did not have jurisdiction over central issues.
The Participating Hospitals brought a Motion to object to the proposals being advanced in local interest arbitration, asserting that these were central issues.
The Board was tasked with determining whether the Union’s proposals for Training Premium and Pandemic Pay were properly characterized as local or central in nature.
Positions of the Parties
The Participating Hospitals argued that the Union’s proposals for Training Premium and Pandemic Pay were central issues under the Memorandum, falling within broad categories like “Premium Payments” and “Allowances” listed in Appendix “C” to the Memorandum. They emphasized that the Union had initially tabled these proposals during central bargaining and mediation, which, in their view, confirmed their central nature. Although the proposals were later approved as local issues, the Participating Hospitals claimed this was an oversight and that any resulting local agreements were null and void.
The Union maintained that the proposals were not explicitly listed in Appendix “C” and therefore defaulted to local issues under the Memorandum. The Union stressed that the proposals were vetted and approved by both parties as local issues on August 15, 2024, and that the Participating Hospitals could not retroactively reclassify them.
The Union also argued that the Participating Hospitals had suffered no prejudice because the issues were not bargained/discussed at the central table, and they were not pursued at central interest arbitration. Conversely, if the Motion was upheld, the Union submitted that local issues bargaining would be upended, and the agreements on Pandemic Pay that had already been reached with several hospitals would become null and void.
Decision
The Board concluded that the Union’s proposals for Training Premium and Pandemic Pay were properly classified as local issues under the Memorandum. Although the proposals were initially tabled at the central level, they were formally vetted and approved as local issues by both parties on August 15, 2024, and subsequently bargained at the local level. The Board emphasized that once an issue is approved as local, it cannot be unilaterally reclassified. As such, the Board dismissed the Participating Hospitals’ objection, allowing the proposals to proceed in local interest arbitration for the current round of bargaining.
Arbitrator Confirms RPNs Must Be Paid for End-of-Shift Reporting
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 145 v Halton Healthcare Services (Georgetown Hospital), 2025 CanLII 80294 (ON LA) (Trachuk; August 12, 2025)
Overview
This case arose from grievances filed by the Union challenging the Hospital’s longstanding practice of not compensating nurses for TOA unless it exceeded 15 minutes.
Arbitrator Trachuk ruled that Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) must be compensated for time spent performing Transfer of Accountability (TOA) duties after their scheduled shifts, and that the Hospital’s past practice of not doing so violated the collective agreement and the ESA. The issue of remedy was remitted to the parties per their agreement.
Positions of the Parties
The Union argued that the Hospital’s practice violated both the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act (ESA), which requires employers to maintain accurate records of hours worked.
The Hospital relied on past practice and policy to justify its approach, arguing that TOA was part of the regular shift and that the time involved was minimal.
Decision
The Arbitrator agreed with the Union, finding that TOA is a professional responsibility and that the collective agreement’s language clearly entitles nurses to pay for time worked beyond their scheduled shifts.
The Arbitrator rejected the Hospital’s arguments, emphasizing that past practice cannot override clear contractual language. She also found that the Hospital’s failure to record TOA time breached the ESA.
We note that this decision aligns with the Board of Arbitration’s recent award in Participating Hospitals v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2025 CanLII 89205, summarized above, which ruled on TOA in the context of the ONA and Participating Hospitals central bargaining interest arbitration.
Arbitrator Dismisses Grievance Over Job Posting Repost Obligation
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 7811 v Cornwall Community Hospital, 2025 CanLII 81397 (ON LA) (Tremayne; August 11, 2025)
Overview
Arbitrator Tremayne dismissed grievances challenging the Hospital’s decision not to repost two Patient Care Aide positions after the original successful applicants withdrew during their 30-day trial period.
Collective Agreement
The Collective Agreement stated in relevant part as follows:
9.05 – JOB POSTING
(a) Where a permanent vacancy occurs in a classification within the bargaining unit… such vacancy shall be posted for a period of seven (7) consecutive calendar days…
…
(e) The Hospital agrees that it shall post permanent vacant positions within 30 calendar days of the position becoming vacant…
…
(h) The successful applicant shall be allowed a trial period of up to thirty (30) days, during which the Hospital will determine if the employee can satisfactorily perform the job. Within this period the employee may voluntarily return or be returned by the Hospital to the position formerly occupied, without loss of seniority…
Positions of the Parties
The Union argued that, when the original successful applicants withdrew during the trial period, a new vacancy was created, requiring reposting under the Agreement.
The Hospital argued that Article 9.05 requires a single posting process for a single vacancy. If a successful applicant withdraws during the trial period, the original vacancy remains, and the Hospital can return to the applicant list to select the next qualified candidate.
Decision
The Arbitrator agreed with the Hospital, finding that the language in Article 9.05 was clear and unambiguous. When a permanent vacancy had been posted and a successful applicant had been selected but did not complete the trial period, this did not create a new vacancy which the Employer was required to post.
Arbitrator Upholds Strict Interpretation of Pandemic Pay Agreement
Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation v Ontario Public Sector Employees Union, Local 273, 2025 CanLII 90969 (ON LA) (Abramsky; September 03, 2025)
Arbitrator Abramsky dismissed a Policy Grievance alleging that the Hospital had violated the Pandemic Pay provisions of a June 2024 Interim Agreement between the parties.
The dispute centered on whether employees who received partial pandemic pay from the government were entitled to a top-up from the Hospital, and whether employees hired after the eligibility cut-off date could claim the benefit.
The Arbitrator found that the language of the agreement was clear and unambiguous. Pandemic pay was limited to employees in the bargaining unit as of August 13, 2020, who had not already received pandemic pay under the government program. The agreement did not provide for proportional payments or top-ups, nor did it extend eligibility to employees hired after the specified date.
While the Union argued that the Hospital’s interpretation was inequitable, the Arbitrator emphasized that fairness cannot override the express terms of a negotiated agreement.
Arbitrator Confirms Flexibility in Holiday Scheduling Without Premiums
Ontario Nurses’ Association v Cornwall Community Hospital, 2025 CanLII 100935 (ON LA) (Wilson; September 23, 2025)
Background
This case concerned a grievance brought by ONA against Cornwall Community Hospital. The dispute centered on the Hospital’s longstanding practice of not paying certain shift premiums for schedules posted during the holiday period (December 15 to January 10).
ONA argued that, although the Hospital could modify scheduling rules to accommodate nurses’ requests for time off during the holidays, the premiums for qualifying shifts should still be paid. In contrast, the Hospital asserted that Article E.1(i) of the collective agreement permitted it to modify both scheduling rules and the associated premiums during the holiday period, a practice it claimed had been in place for over twenty years.
Decision
The arbitrator examined the language of the collective agreement, the negotiation history, and the parties’ established practices. The arbitrator determined that the provision’s purpose was to satisfy staffing needs while providing nurses with greater flexibility and opportunities for time off during the holidays. Requiring the Hospital to pay premiums for these modified schedules would, in the arbitrator’s view, undermine this objective and discourage the Hospital from granting such requests.
The arbitrator found the Hospital’s interpretation to be consistent with the agreement’s language, intent, and the parties’ longstanding practice. Accordingly, the grievance was dismissed, and the Hospital was not required to pay the disputed premiums for posted schedules during the holiday period.
The arbitrator clarified that the Hospital’s practice of paying local premiums for shifts picked up after the schedule was posted would remain unchanged, and nothing in the award would alter that practice.
Arbitrator Confirms Seniority-Only Rule for Non-Overtime Shift Assignment
Ontario Nurses’ Association v Southlake Regional Health Centre, 2025 CanLII 97736 (ON LA) (Beatty; September 17, 2025)
Background
This case involved four individual grievances regarding whether a specific subset of shifts should be assigned based solely on seniority or on both seniority and equitability. The union argued for seniority alone, while the employer argued for both criteria. The parties requested an interpretation of the relevant collective agreement language, with the issue of remedy to be addressed separately.
The Collective Agreement
ONA argued that Article D.1(e) iii) of the agreement required these shifts to be assigned strictly by seniority. The most relevant portion of Article D.1(e) iii) states:
iii) When all Regular Part time employees are scheduled up to their commitment and there are further available shifts, these additional shifts will be offered up to full time hours, within a pay period, to Regular Part time employees in the unit, based on their seniority in the following order: regular part-time, job sharers, and then to casual nurses.
The Hospital maintained that both seniority and equitability should be considered, referencing the opening paragraph of Article D.1(e), which mentions both criteria. The opening paragraph of Article D.1(e) states:
(e) Additional shifts will be offered up to full time hours to nurses based on their seniority and equitability in the following order: regular part-time, job sharers, and then to casual nurses.
Decision
The arbitrator reviewed the relevant provisions of the collective agreement, including Article D.1(e) iii) and the surrounding context. The arbitrator found that Article D.1(e) iii) specifically requires additional, non-overtime shifts to be assigned by seniority, and that the absence of “equitability” in this provision was intentional. The arbitrator determined that equitability applies only to overtime shifts, as referenced in a different provision of the agreement, and not to the shifts at issue in the grievances.
Accordingly, the arbitrator allowed the grievances, finding that the Hospital must assign non-overtime additional shifts strictly by seniority, as set out in the collective agreement.
No Vacation Pay Accrued During Short-Term Disability Leave
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 291 v Canadian Mental Health Association Waterloo Wellington Branch, 2025 CanLII 103167 (ON LA) (Abramsky; October 09, 2025)
Background
The central issue in this case was whether an employee was entitled to accrue paid vacation time while on short-term disability leave, which was an unpaid absence.
The grievor was off work due to illness beginning May 6, 2022. During her absence, she was informed by the employer that vacation would not accrue while she was not working, and her vacation bank would be adjusted upon her return. The union filed a grievance, asserting that the employer’s failure to allow accrual and payout of paid vacation entitlement during the disability leave violated the collective agreement.
Relevant Collective Agreement Provisions
The collective agreement stated that employee vacation banks are “populated” at the start of the fiscal year with the full “projected annual entitlement”, based on continuous service. It also specified that paid vacation is an “earned” benefit, tied to “working.” The agreement further clarified that, upon termination, employees are entitled only to the vacation amount “earned and accrued” during their period of employment.
Decision
Arbitrator Abramsky found that the language of the collective agreement clearly tied the accrual of paid vacation to working. This could be distinguished from collective agreements in other cases where vacation was based solely on “length of service” or where there was no tie-in to “work.” Arbitrator Abramsky noted that requiring work in exchange for compensation – including vacation pay – is a reasonable and bona fide requirement.
Arbitrator Abramsky also considered the fact that the employer’s actions were consistent with its practice since before 2019, and that, consistently since then, the employer had advised employees going off on a protected leave, including the grievor in this case, that vacation pay did not accrue during this time.
As the grievor did not perform work or receive wages during her unpaid sick leave, she did not accrue paid vacation time for that period. The grievance was dismissed, with the arbitrator concluding that vacation is an earned benefit based on working, and not automatically granted based on continuous service alone.
Human Rights Tribunal Dismisses Creed-Based Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Challenge
Loder v. Huron Perth Health Care Alliance, 2025 HRTO 1995 (Inbar; August 12, 2025)
Overview
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed an application brought by a hospital employee who alleged discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code after being placed on unpaid leave for refusing mandatory vaccinations. The applicant, a housekeeper at Huron Perth Health Care Alliance, argued that her refusal to vaccinate was based on her Christian beliefs and that the hospital failed to accommodate her creed.
The MMR Vaccine
This case is notable for involving the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, rather than the more commonly adjudicated COVID-19 vaccine. The hospital’s concern stemmed from the applicant’s role as a housekeeper, which required regular contact with patient areas and clinical environments. Medical experts testified that measles remains highly contagious and can be imported into Canada through international travel, posing serious risks in healthcare settings. The hospital’s vaccination policy, based on provincial protocols, was designed to mitigate those risks and ensure the safety of vulnerable patients and staff.
Decision
The Tribunal found that while the applicant’s beliefs were sincerely held, they did not meet the legal definition of “creed” under the Code. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant’s objections to vaccination were rooted more in personal health concerns and skepticism about medical science than in a comprehensive religious belief system. Without a protected ground, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal.
Even if the applicant had met the threshold, the Tribunal found that the hospital had made extensive efforts to explore accommodation and had reasonably concluded that it could not do so without undue hardship. The hospital’s vaccination policy was found to be a bona fide occupational requirement, justified by health and safety obligations and provincial protocols.
—
For more information or assistance with workplace law matters, please contact a member of our team.
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.