William Osler Health System v. CUPE Local 145

When a new provincial regulatory body began registering Personal Support Workers, William Osler Health System moved quickly to make compliance mandatory — but the union filed a grievance challenging the requirement as arbitrary and unilateral.

Background

In November 2024, William Osler Health System notified the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145, of a new requirement: all Health Care Aids (HCAs), also known as Personal Support Workers (PSWs), would be required to register and maintain registration with the Health and Supportive Care Providers Oversight Authority (HSCPOA) by March 31, 2025. The HSCPOA was created under the Health and Supportive Care Providers Oversight Authority Act, 2021, with a mandate to register and provide oversight to PSWs. The hospital held an information meeting on January 14, 2025, where it presented a PowerPoint explaining the new requirement and the Authority’s registration pathways. The hospital provided computers, training, paid time during shifts for employees to complete registration, and absorbed all registration costs. By the March 31, 2025 deadline, all but two HCAs at the hospital had registered with the HSCPOA.

In February 2025, the union filed a grievance alleging that the hospital had implemented this requirement without consultation, in violation of the collective agreement, and that the requirement was unreasonable and arbitrary. The union raised concerns about the HSCPOA’s authority to unilaterally set fees, create rules, maintain a public registry, and revoke credentials with limited appeal rights. The union also claimed the hospital had bargained directly with employees rather than consulting the union.

The Collective Agreement Language at Issue

Article L2 – Management Rights:

“The Union recognises that the management of the Health Centre and the direction of the working force are fixed with the Health Centre, and shall remain with the Health Centre, except as specifically limited by this agreement and without restricting the generality of the foregoing; the Union acknowledges that it is the function of the Health Centre to:

a) maintain order, efficiency and discipline;

b) hire, assign, discharge, direct, classify, transfer, promote, demote, layoff, recall, and suspend or otherwise discipline employees provided that a claim by an employee that they have been discharged, suspended or disciplined without just cause, may be the subject of a grievance and dealt with as hereafter provided;

c) establish, alter and enforce reasonable rules and regulations to be observed by the employees;

d) to manage and operate the Health Centre in all respects in accordance with its obligations and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to determine all work procedures, kind and location of equipment to be used, methods to be used, the allocation and number of employees required from time to time, the services to be performed, standards of performance of all employees, work, assignments, not specifically modified elsewhere in this agreement.”

Positions of the Parties

The hospital argued that it had broad management rights under Article L2 to establish new qualifications and implement requirements necessary for hospital operations. The hospital noted that the HSCPOA registration was created by provincial statute; while registration was voluntary in December 2024, the hospital reasonably anticipated it would become mandatory and acted proactively. The hospital emphasised that it provided substantial support: notice at an LMC meeting (which the union attended and did not object to at the time), information meetings, computer access, training during paid time, and cost coverage. The hospital also argued that the union’s grievance was untimely because notice was given at the November LMC meeting, which was reviewed and approved at the December LMC meeting, and the union did not raise concerns until February.

The union argued that the hospital’s decision to require registration was arbitrary and unreasonable because: (1) registration was introduced unilaterally without genuine consultation with the union; (2) the hospital engaged in direct bargaining with employees rather than respecting the union’s role; (3) the requirement was imposed without amendment to the collective agreement or job classifications; and (4) the union had concerns about the HSCPOA process itself, which lacked transparency and appeal mechanisms. The union further argued that the grievance was timely because the requirement to register was the ongoing harm—it continued from the November notice through the March 31 implementation deadline.

Arbitrator McConnell’s Decision

Arbitrator McConnell ruled in favour of the hospital on the merits. The arbitrator found that:

• Timeliness: The grievance was timely. Although notice was given at the November LMC meeting, the “circumstances giving rise to the grievance” crystallised when the requirement became effective on March 31, 2025. The union was entitled to file its grievance in relation to that implementation date and could have filed at any point during the ongoing implementation period.
• Management Rights: The hospital has clear management rights under Article L2 to establish and implement new qualifications for existing and future employees. The article grants the hospital authority to “establish, alter and enforce reasonable rules and regulations” and to determine qualifications for employees. Nothing in the collective agreement restricts the hospital’s ability to require that HCAs become registered with the HSCPOA.
• Application to Existing and New Employees: The hospital may require both HCAs employed before March 31, 2025, and any new hires after that date to register and maintain registration with the HSCPOA. The union did not argue that time-limited employees had different protections, and the management rights provision applies to all employees within the scope of the collective agreement.
• Costs: Although there are currently no registration fees, the hospital is responsible for bearing all costs associated with registration, including processing costs and support. The hospital acknowledged during submissions that registration costs would be its responsibility, and the arbitrator found the hospital acted reasonably in absorbing these costs.
• Non-Compliance: The hospital may take reasonable corrective or disciplinary action against employees who do not comply with the legitimate requirement to register and maintain registration. However, the arbitrator noted that the hospital has taken a non-disciplinary approach to date, and any future corrective action should be determined on the specific facts when it occurs, in accordance with the collective agreement’s just cause provisions.

 

Citation: McConnell, Arb. · 2025 CanLII 135959