An arbitrator has dismissed a grievance filed by the Sudbury Police Association against the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board over the termination of a probationary police officer, citing lack of jurisdiction in the matter.
The Association contended that the Board had unjustly terminated a probationary officer, identified only as Constable [AB] for confidentiality reasons, alleging discrimination and a breach of both the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The Board argued that as a probationary employee, the termination fell under section 44(3) of the Police Services Act, thus outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Arbitrator Laura Trachuk, appointed following an unsuccessful conciliation under section 123 of the Police Services Act, heard the case. The Board hired AB as a probationary officer in December 2019, with the probation period proceeding uneventfully until an incident during a night shift in November 2020.
The arbitration didn’t go into specifics about what happened that night.
Following a series of evaluations and extensions of the probation period to consider medical information, including reports from Dr. Lariviere and forensic psychiatrist Dr. Rootenberg, the Board ultimately decided to terminate AB’s employment in May 2022.
The Association’s grievance, filed in June 2022, challenged this decision, arguing it was discriminatory and violated various statutory provisions, including the Ontario Human Rights Code.
However, the arbitrator concluded that the essential nature of the dispute was the termination of a probationary employee, a matter excluded from collective bargaining by the Police Services Act and, therefore, outside the scope of arbitration.
“The effect of these statutory provisions is that a labour arbitrator does not have jurisdiction over the termination of a probationary employee,” said Trachuk.
The decision highlighted the limitations placed on collective bargaining for police services in Ontario, noting that certain matters, including the termination of probationary police officers, are explicitly excluded from such agreements.
Despite acknowledging the Association’s concerns over alleged discrimination, the arbitrator emphasized that such claims do not alter the fundamental nature of the dispute. The ruling underlined that while the Board must comply with the Human Rights Code, the appropriate forum for challenging such decisions is not through arbitration but other mechanisms like the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
For more information, see Sudbury Police Association v Greater Sudbury Police Services Board, 2024 CanLII 2756 (ON LA).
