Toronto, ON – October 7, 2026 – Anyone who spends time reviewing grievances is accustomed to that tag “and all other applicable articles or statutes” scrawled at the end of the Nature of the Grievance section. Or perhaps it is even included in the fine print on the standard grievance form itself. One of the most common challenges in labour relations is ensuring that the dispute being arbitrated is actually the dispute that was filed. A recent decision involving Humber River Health and Teamsters Local 419 provides an important reminder of why grievance wording matters, why issues should be clearly identified during the grievance process, and why thorough documentation remains one of employers’ strongest tools.
We also admit to having a particular interest in this one: the employer was represented by Protea’s own Jacob Wagner. More importantly, the case offers a useful, practical lesson for employers responding to grievances: identify the real dispute early, confirm what is being alleged, and keep a clear record as the grievance moves forward.
From A Scheduling Dispute to Scope Fight
The grievance began with a straightforward scheduling issue. Humber River Health changed weekend shifts for certain part-time clerical employees from 12-hour shifts to 8-hour shifts. The union alleged that the change violated the collective agreement and sought full redress.
By the time the matter reached arbitration, however, the dispute had grown more complicated. The union advanced two arguments:
- The employer was estopped from changing the weekend schedule.
- The scheduling change resulted in bargaining unit work being performed by employees outside the bargaining unit, contrary to Article 13.01 of the collective agreement.
The employer objected to the second argument. Its position was the grievance, that had actually been filed, challenged the shift change itself. It did not put the employer on notice of a separate bargaining-unit-work allegation.
That distinction was not just technical. If the union were permitted to add the bargaining-unit-work allegation at arbitration, the employer would be required to answer a different case than the one it had prepared for, one involving different evidence, different witnesses, and potentially the participation of another union whose members could be affected by the allegations.
The Ruling: A Catch-All Is Not a Blank Cheque
Arbitrator Brian Sheehan agreed with the employer and upheld the preliminary motion. The decision underscores a practical balance: grievances should not be defeated by technical defects, but they also cannot be stretched beyond recognition into something different after the fact.
The Arbitrator confirmed three key points:
- A grievance should be read liberally and not defeated by technical defects.
- Arbitrators derive their jurisdiction from the grievance itself.
- A liberal interpretation cannot be used to expand a grievance to address issues that were never actually grieved.
The decision repeatedly returned to one key question: Would the employer reasonably have understood, from reading the grievance, that a bargaining-unit-work claim was being advanced? The Arbitrator concluded that it would not. The grievance clearly challenged the move from 12-hour shifts to 8-hour shifts and nothing more.
Importantly, the Arbitrator rejected the argument that the phrase "all other applicable articles" was sufficient to bring an Article 13.01 claim within the grievance. While such catch-all language may preserve additional legal arguments related to the same dispute, it cannot be used to introduce an entirely separate violation of the collective agreement that was not reasonably identified in the grievance.
The Arbitrator also found that the proposed Article 13.01 argument would have required a substantially different factual inquiry. The scheduling issue focused on whether the employer had the right to change shifts. The bargaining-unit-work allegation focused on who performed work after the scheduling change, what work was performed, and whether another bargaining unit had become involved. Those were fundamentally different issues.
As a result, the union was not permitted to pursue the Article 13.01 argument at arbitration.
Document, Document, Document!
One aspect of the case that will resonate with labour relations practitioners was a factual disagreement about what was discussed during the Step 2 grievance meeting. The union maintained that it had raised concerns about non-bargaining unit employees performing bargaining unit work, while the employer’s understanding was that the discussion focused only on the possibility or risk of such an outcome.
Although the Arbitrator ultimately determined that those discussions did not change the scope of the grievance, the issue serves as a valuable reminder.
Detailed notes taken during grievance meetings can be extraordinarily important because they:
- Preserve the parties’ positions as they existed at the time.
- Capture whether new theories or allegations were raised.
- Document any clarifications provided by the union.
- Help counsel reconstruct events months or even years later.
- Reduce disputes about who said what during the grievance process.
In this case, the Arbitrator acknowledged that the union had discussed concerns regarding bargaining unit work during the grievance procedure but still concluded that raising concern during a meeting was not the same as demonstrating that the issue was inherent in the grievance itself.
That distinction matters. Good notes may not always determine the outcome, but they often become critical evidence when procedural disputes arise.
Final Thoughts
This decision is a strong reminder that the grievance process exists to give parties a fair opportunity to understand and resolve disputes before they reach arbitration. A party cannot rely on broad, boilerplate language to transform a scheduling grievance into a bargaining-unit-work case years later.
The ruling reinforces the importance of clear grievance drafting, careful issue identification, and disciplined documentation throughout the grievance process.
Questions? If you have questions about grievance scope, documentation practices, or how this decision may affect your workplace, please get in touch with the Protea team. We would be pleased to help.
