CUPE, Local 5180 v. Trillium Health Partners, 2026 CanLII 54943 (ON LA)
Bernard Fishbein, Arbitrator — June 9, 2026
CUPE challenged Trillium Health Partners’ revised deadlines for next-day shift exchange requests in Patient Support Services. The grievance followed earlier successful challenges to other Hospital-imposed limits on shift exchanges, but this time the arbitrator found the Hospital’s approach was a reasonable way to administer the collective agreement’s requirement for reasonable written notice.
Background
The collective agreement allowed employees to exchange shifts where reasonable written notice was provided, both employees agreed, there were no overtime consequences, and the exchange was completed within two pay periods. Earlier awards had found that the Hospital could not impose blanket limits on the number of shift exchanges or on multiple exchanges of the same shift.
The dispute arose after the Hospital introduced an electronic scheduling system that allowed employees to submit shift exchange requests online. The Patient Support Services portion of the bargaining unit had grown to more than 1,600 employees, while the Scheduling Department was not a 24-hour operation and had responsibilities beyond shift exchanges.
In October 2025, the Hospital revised its guidance so that next-day shift exchange requests had to be submitted by 3 p.m. on weekdays and by 1 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The notice also allowed employees who could not meet the deadline because of an emergency or urgent situation to seek assistance from their Team Leader.
The Union argued that the deadlines were another unilateral restriction not found in the collective agreement. The Hospital argued that the deadlines were a legitimate exercise of management rights and a reasonable way to administer next-day shift exchange requests.
Decision
Arbitrator Fishbein dismissed the grievance. He found that the case was different from the prior shift exchange awards because the Hospital had not imposed an automatic or blanket prohibition on shift exchanges.
The arbitrator accepted that some cut-off time for next-day shift exchange requests did not, in itself, violate the collective agreement’s reasonable notice requirement. He relied on the increased volume of requests, the size of the bargaining unit, the Scheduling Department’s hours and workload, and the operational consequences of unprocessed or misunderstood shift exchanges.
The evidence also did not support the Union’s characterization of the deadlines as a widespread problem. Of more than 17,000 shift exchange requests reviewed, only 1,493 were next-day requests, the overwhelming majority were approved, and only a small number were refused because they were late.
The emergency or urgent situation process was important to the result. The arbitrator found that the ability to seek Team Leader intervention meant the deadlines were not equivalent to the rigid restrictions struck down in the earlier awards. The grievance was dismissed.