Superior Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Refusal to Hear Grievances Alleging Unsafe Work Requirements
In a significant ruling for labor law and workplace safety, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld an arbitrator’s decision to dismiss four grievances brought by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). The grievances alleged unsafe working conditions during a COVID-19 outbreak at the Ontario Correctional Institute in 2020. The court’s decision, Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2025 ONSC 1801, underscores the importance of adhering to established legal processes in labor disputes.
The case began when OPSEU filed grievances under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the collective agreement, citing four specific concerns:
1. The employer’s alleged failure to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) when inmates showed influenza-like symptoms.
2. The employer’s alleged failure to provide necessary information about workplace hazards, including daily updates on positive COVID-19 tests.
3. A work refusal by correctional officers after the employer allegedly failed to provide masks for inmate transfers in early April 2020.
4. The employer’s alleged failure to notify the Joint Health and Safety Committee about employees contracting occupational illnesses.
The employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing issue estoppel, abuse of process, and collateral attack. In May 2024, an arbitrator at the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) agreed, refusing to hear the grievances. The union then sought judicial review of this decision, but the Superior Court dismissed the application.
The court ruled that the arbitrator correctly applied the two-part test for issue estoppel. The arbitrator found that the union had already chosen a process to address these issues and that requiring them to follow through was not unfair. The court also agreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation of collateral attack, noting that the union had bypassed the statutory appeal mechanism when challenging an inspector’s decision under OHSA.
This ruling highlights the courts’ willingness to uphold arbitrators’ decisions when they are reasonably and correctly applied. It also emphasizes the importance of following established procedures in labor disputes, even in the context of health and safety concerns.
Court’s Decision and Its Implications
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision to uphold the arbitrator’s refusal to hear the four grievances has significant implications for labor law and workplace safety. The court’s ruling, Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2025 ONSC 1801, provides clarity on the application of legal doctrines such as issue estoppel and collateral attack in labor disputes.
The arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the grievances was based on the doctrines of issue estoppel and collateral attack. The court upheld this decision, finding that the arbitrator correctly applied the two-part test for issue estoppel. The first part of the test involves determining whether the same issue was previously decided, whether the parties were the same, and whether the decision was final and binding. The second part involves weighing whether it would be unfair to apply issue estoppel. The court agreed with the arbitrator’s assessment that requiring the union to follow through with its chosen process was not unfair.
Regarding collateral attack, the court found that the union had attempted to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The union had challenged an inspector’s decision through the grievance process rather than using the proper appeal mechanism. The court agreed with the arbitrator that this constituted a collateral attack, as the union was seeking to overturn the inspector’s decision through an improper channel.
The union had argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) would likely have deferred to the grievance process and that the arbitrator’s decision might deter unions from accessing OHSA protections. However, the court dismissed these arguments as speculative. The court found no evidence to support the union’s claims and emphasized that the OLRB’s deference to the grievance process was not guaranteed.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in labor disputes. It also highlights the courts’ willingness to uphold arbitrators’ decisions when they are reasonably and correctly applied. The decision serves as a reminder that unions and employers must follow the proper channels for addressing workplace disputes, even in the context of health and safety concerns.
The case also underscores the balance between procedural fairness and the need for finality in legal decisions. By upholding the arbitrator’s decision, the court emphasized that parties must respect the processes they choose to resolve disputes. This ensures that legal decisions are not endlessly revisited, maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
In summary, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Solicitor General) reinforces the importance of procedural adherence in labor disputes. It highlights the courts’ support for arbitrators’ decisions when they are reasonably applied and the need for unions and employers to follow established legal processes, even in matters of workplace health and safety.
Conclusion
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision to uphold the arbitrator’s refusal to hear the grievances brought by OPSEU underscores the significance of adhering to established legal processes in labor disputes. The court’s ruling in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2025 ONSC 1801 emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and finality in legal decisions. This case highlights the balance between ensuring workplace safety and maintaining the integrity of legal procedures, reinforcing the need for unions and employers to follow proper channels for resolving disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the outcome of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Solicitor General) case?
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the grievances filed by OPSEU, reinforcing the importance of following established legal processes in labor disputes.
Why did the court dismiss the grievances?
The court dismissed the grievances based on the doctrines of issue estoppel and collateral attack. The union had already chosen a process to address these issues, and bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism under OHSA constituted a collateral attack.
What are the implications of this ruling for labor law?
This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures in labor disputes. It highlights the courts’ support for arbitrators’ decisions when reasonably applied and the need for unions and employers to follow established processes, even in workplace safety matters.
What legal doctrines were applied in this case?
The key doctrines applied were issue estoppel and collateral attack. Issue estoppel prevents the same issue from being revisited, while collateral attack involves challenging a decision through improper channels.
