St. Joseph’s Health Care London v. OPSEU Local 106

After 35 years of service, the Grievor faced a layoff — without the early retirement allowance the union argued she was owed. The union filed a grievance, then went silent for over 16 months.

Background

The Grievor began employment with St. Joseph’s Health Care London on May 8, 1989, as a full-time Therapeutic Recreationist. Over her 35-year tenure, she progressed through various roles and classifications within the hospital. In July 2023, St. Joseph’s Health Care London announced layoffs that would affect the Therapeutic Recreation department. The hospital issued a notice of long-term layoff pursuant to Article 11.05(b) of the Collective Agreement. However, the hospital did not offer the Grievor an early retirement allowance before issuing the layoff notice. The Grievor continued working until she chose to retire on May 30, 2024, more than 10 months after the initial layoff notice.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 106, filed a grievance on August 3, 2023, alleging that the hospital violated Article 11.04(b) of the Collective Agreement by failing to offer early retirement allowance at the time of layoff notification. The union sought full redress, which it understood to mean reinstatement with compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The Collective Agreement Language at Issue

Article 8.03 – Grievance Procedure

Article 8.03(g):

“If the parties are unable to resolve the grievance, the Hospital will provide the Union with a written response to the grievance by the end of the thirtieth (30th) day following the date of the filing of the grievance.”

Article 8.03(h):

“The Union will then have a period of fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hospital’s response to determine if the response is acceptable, or will refer the matter to arbitration.”

Article 8.07 – Arbitration

“Failing settlement under the foregoing procedure, any grievance, including a question as to whether the grievance is arbitrable, may be submitted to arbitration as herein provided. If no written request for arbitration is received within fourteen (14) calendar days after the decision under the foregoing procedure is given, the grievance shall be deemed to have been abandoned.”

The Hospital’s Position

The hospital argued that the grievance should be dismissed on three grounds. First, it argued the grievance had been abandoned by the union because of the lengthy delay in referring it to arbitration (more than 16 months after filing and 14 months after the union’s last communication on the matter). Second, it argued that the union failed to adhere to the mandatory timelines in the Collective Agreement for referring grievances to arbitration under Article 8.07. Third, it argued that the doctrine of laches applied—the union had waited so long to pursue the matter that it was unfair to now proceed.

The Union’s Position

The union argued that the grievance remained active and viable. The union pointed out that the delay, while significant, did not constitute abandonment because the union had not explicitly withdrawn the grievance and had communicated with the hospital about resolution. The union argued that the matter should proceed on its merits and that the Grievor was entitled to the early retirement allowance that the hospital should have offered in July 2023.

Arbitrator Webb’s Decision

Arbitrator Webb dismissed the grievance. The arbitrator found that the grievance should be dismissed based on the combination of abandonment by the union, failure to adhere to the mandatory timelines in the Collective Agreement, and the application of the doctrine of laches. The arbitrator found that while the union’s delay was not intentional abandonment, the passage of more than 16 months before referring the matter to arbitration, combined with a 14-month gap in the union’s communication with the hospital, demonstrated that the union was no longer actively pursuing the grievance. The arbitrator also noted that Article 8.07 of the Collective Agreement established clear mandatory language regarding timelines for referral to arbitration and that the union’s failure to meet those timelines was a bar to proceeding.

The decision underscores the importance of timely grievance procedures and the risk that unions face when they allow grievances to languish without active pursuit. It also demonstrates that arbitrators will apply procedural fairness doctrines, including laches, even in the face of substantive claims.

 

Citation: Webb, Arb. · 2026 CanLII 6282