HOPE, Local 2220 v. Chartwell Wynfield Retirement Residence, 2026 CanLII 29466 (ON LA)
Danna Morrison, Arbitrator — March 11, 2026

A retirement residence union challenged the Employer’s refusal to increase Dietary department staffing after occupancy levels rose following an earlier staffing optimization process. The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the collective agreement or the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Background

The Wynfield is a 103-bed retirement residence in Oshawa operated by Chartwell Retirement Residences. In early 2023, Chartwell implemented a staffing optimization process that changed Dietary department staffing levels, including eliminating prep cook lines, reducing some server hours, adding hours to an evening cook line, and changing meal service to two sittings.

The grievance did not challenge the original staffing reduction. Instead, the Union challenged the Employer’s later decision not to increase staffing after occupancy rose, arguing that the heavier workload and increased stress violated the collective agreement and the OHSA.

The Union alleged that employees had been told the staffing changes would be temporary and reversed if occupancy increased. The Employer denied making any binding representation and argued that staffing and scheduling decisions fell within its management rights.

Decision

Arbitrator Morrison dismissed the grievance. She found that the management rights clause gave the Employer broad authority to direct work, determine hours of work, and schedule employees, subject to the obligation to exercise those rights fairly and consistently with the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the staffing optimization was part of a province-wide process intended to create efficiencies. While the workload was heavier, the evidence did not establish that it was unsafe or unmanageable, and the employees’ evidence showed that work was generally being completed within scheduled hours.

The arbitrator was not satisfied that the Employer had represented that staffing would revert to pre-optimization levels if occupancy increased. She found that the evidence about alleged statements was too vague or was contradicted by the Employer’s evidence.

The OHSA claim also failed. The arbitrator found that a subjective and unsubstantiated claim of stress or heavier workload was not enough to establish a workplace hazard or trigger a requirement for a workplace assessment. The grievance was dismissed.