Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2628 v. Northumberland Hills Hospital

When Northumberland Hills Hospital raised employee benefit premiums by nearly 10%, the union filed a grievance — then waited over three months past the arbitration deadline. A stark reminder that mandatory time limits are absolute.

Background

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2628, filed a grievance on April 20, 2023, alleging that Northumberland Hills Hospital violated the collective agreement when it increased the benefit premium to be paid by employees by 9.6% effective April 1, 2023. The union sought complete documentation and reasons for the increase, along with attempts to locate a benefit package comparable to the previous cost to members.

The hospital raised a preliminary objection that the board of arbitration was without jurisdiction to hear the grievance because it was referred to arbitration beyond the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement.

Timeline of Events

• April 1, 2023: Premium increase took effect
• April 20, 2023: Union filed grievance at Step 1
• May 11, 2023: Step 1 meeting held
• May 18, 2023: Hospital provided Step 1 reply, explaining that an annual group benefit renewal review occurred in February 2023, and that the premium increase was recommended due to factors including inflation, an increase in utilization rate among employees, and an increase in dental fee guidelines
• May 19, 2023: Union responded that the employer had not given sufficient documentation and would move forward with the grievance
• May 26, 2023: Hospital asked to hold the grievance in abeyance while obtaining additional documentation from the benefit broker
• June 29, 2023: Hospital sent Step 2 response with documentation from the insurance broker
• October 8, 2023: Union advised it would move forward with arbitration and nominated Joseph Herbert
• November 10, 2023: Hospital raised preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable due to failure to comply with mandatory time limits

Collective Agreement Provisions at Issue

Article 7.07(a):

“Failing settlement under the foregoing procedure of any grievance between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of this Agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, such grievance may be submitted to arbitration as hereinafter provided. If no written request for arbitration is received within eighteen (18) calendar days after the decision under Step No. 2 is given, the grievance shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Where such a written request is postmarked within sixteen (16) calendar days after the decision under Step No. 2, it will be deemed to have been received within the time limits.”

(Emphasis added)

Article 7.15:

“The time limits set out in the Grievance and Arbitration Procedures herein are mandatory and failure to comply strictly with such time limits except by the written agreement of the parties, shall result in the grievance being deemed to have been abandoned subject only to the provisions a Section 48 (16) of The Labour Relations Act.”

(Emphasis added)

The Hospital’s Position

The hospital argued that the union failed to refer the grievance to arbitration within the mandatory 18-day time limit set out in Article 7.07(a). The hospital’s Step 2 reply was sent on June 29, 2023. Under Article 7.07(a), the union had until 18 calendar days after that date to refer the matter to arbitration. The union’s October 8, 2023 email advising that it would move forward with arbitration was far beyond the 18-day deadline. The collective agreement explicitly states that time limits are mandatory under Article 7.15, and failure to comply results in the grievance being deemed abandoned. The hospital contended that the union’s May 19, 2023 response (stating the union “will move forward with this grievance”) was not a proper referral to arbitration because it did not comply with the requirements of Article 7.07(a).

The Union’s Position

The union argued that its May 19, 2023 response constituted notice that it was moving forward to arbitration. The union maintained that the hospital’s May 26 request to hold the grievance in abeyance while obtaining additional documentation effectively tolled (paused) the time limits. The union also argued that the hospital’s subsequent provision of additional information on June 29 constituted a continuation of the Step 2 process, and that the 18-day time limit should run from June 29, not from the earlier Step 1 reply.

Decision

The arbitrators granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the grievance. The board found that the Hospital’s June 29, 2023 correspondence was the Step 2 reply, not the May 18, 2023 response. Therefore, the 18-day time limit for referring the grievance to arbitration began to run from June 29, 2023.

The board rejected the union’s argument that its May 19, 2023 email (stating “will move forward with this grievance”) constituted a referral to arbitration. The arbitrators found that the union’s October 8, 2023 letter was not merely completing a process begun in May, but rather was taking a fresh step. The language of the October letter was more consistent with initiating referral to arbitration than perfecting an earlier referral. Critically, the October letter itself stated “in regards to the following grievance reply sent on June 29/2023,” which was consistent with a mutual understanding that the time limit started from that Step 2 reply.

The arbitrators also rejected the union’s alternative argument that the hospital’s May 26 request to hold the grievance in abeyance effectively tolled (paused) the time limits. The hospital’s email had asked for the grievance to be held in abeyance only “until I received this additional information that I can forward on to you.” When the hospital forwarded the information on June 29, 2023, the time limits resumed.

The board declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limit for the Step 2 meeting, noting that the consequence of failing to hold a meeting or provide a timely reply is that the time limit starts to run from the last date the meeting should have occurred or the reply was due—not that time limits stop running altogether.

The arbitrators acknowledged that the parties appeared to have had a flexible and accommodating relationship, and that the union had been understanding when the hospital had problems meeting time limits during the pandemic. However, the union was not alleging estoppel, and the hospital was entitled to rely on the strict language of the collective agreement even if the union had not always done so.

The board concluded: “We find that the Union did not refer this grievance to arbitration within the time limits required by the collective agreement. We have no discretion to relieve against those time limits and, therefore, have no jurisdiction to hear this grievance.”

The grievance was dismissed for failure to comply with mandatory time limits.

 

Citation: 2026 CanLII 305 (ON LA)