CUPE, Local 5287 v. Richview Manor, 2026 CanLII 58403 (ON LA)
Norm Jesin, Chair — June 17, 2026

CUPE alleged that Richview Manor used agency workers from an agency referred to as Universal to perform bargaining unit work without applying the collective agreement. On a non-suit motion, the arbitration board found enough evidence to treat certain Universal workers as Richview Manor employees for limited documented periods, but dismissed broader claims unsupported by specific evidence.

Background

Richview Manor is a retirement residence that had engaged Universalcare Home Health Inc. from time to time. The Union argued that the arrangement amounted to “contracting in” and that the collective agreement should have applied to the agency workers.

The Union also relied on 2015 OLRB Minutes of Settlement in which Richview Manor had agreed to terminate staffing arrangements with Universal and not contract out staffing services to Universal or related corporations. The arbitration board declined to determine whether those Minutes had been breached, finding that OLRB enforcement was the more appropriate forum.

After the Union completed its evidence, the Employer elected not to call evidence and proceeded with a non-suit motion. That meant the Union’s evidence had to be assessed to determine whether it established a prima facie case.

Decision

The board found that the Union had established a prima facie case for limited periods only. The evidence showed that certain Universal workers appeared on Richview Manor schedules, worked in the same locations as Richview Manor employees, performed the same type of work as bargaining unit PSWs, and in some cases had timesheets approved by Richview Manor staff.

Those facts created a reasonable, rebuttable inference that the Universal workers were working under Richview Manor’s direction and control during the periods documented. The Employer could have called evidence to rebut that inference but chose not to do so.

The board declared that the Universal staff supplied to Richview Manor for the documented periods were employed by Richview Manor. It ordered the Employer to pay lost union dues for those periods, but declined to order broader relief. Beyond those periods, the Employer’s motion for non-suit was supported.

Both nominees dissented in part. The Union nominee would have drawn an adverse inference from the Employer’s failure to call evidence and would have granted a more substantial remedy. The Employer nominee would have granted the non-suit motion in full.