A former worker at a seniors home in Ontario has lost her duty of fair representation fight against her union after she alleged they pressured her to accept a settlement and did not act on her reports of discrimination related to her diabetes and Muslim faith.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The case involved F.N., a former employee of Glen Oaks AgeCare, who filed a complaint against the Healthcare, Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 2220, UBCJA.
F.N. alleged that the union failed to properly represent her following her termination on Sept. 9, 2023, including by cancelling arbitration hearings and pressuring her to accept an offer from the employer.
The union denied all allegations and sought dismissal of the application on the grounds that it failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Act. The Board determined that the union’s conduct did not meet the legal threshold for a breach of duty and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.
Allegations and union’s response
F.N. claimed that after her termination, the union pursued grievances on her behalf, including allegations that her five-day suspension and ultimate termination were discriminatory under the Human Rights Code. The matter proceeded to arbitration, with four hearing dates held. However, the union subsequently discontinued further arbitration dates, citing legal advice that the grievances were unlikely to succeed. According to F.N., the union pressured her to accept a financial settlement, which she refused.
In addition, F.N. alleged that the union failed to address her complaints about harassment by coworkers and that her grievances were mishandled. She argued that the union failed to challenge testimony from the employer’s Director of Care, who she accused of providing false information regarding her workplace conduct, including allegations about extended breaks and improper use of her cellphone.
The union, in its response, stated that it had fairly represented F.N. throughout the grievance and arbitration process. It argued that it pursued her case diligently, including securing a preliminary arbitration ruling limiting evidence regarding her disciplinary record. The Union further noted that it had sought legal advice and, based on the legal opinion received, determined that continuing arbitration was unlikely to result in a better outcome than the employer’s settlement offer.
The union also maintained that it had addressed F.N.’s concerns about workplace harassment but found insufficient evidence to support filing a separate grievance on the matter.
Board’s analysis and decision
In assessing the application, the Board noted that under section 74 of the Act, a union breaches its duty of fair representation only if it acts in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The Board emphasized that it does not evaluate whether a union’s decision was correct but rather whether the union acted properly in reaching its decision.
In this case, the Board found no evidence that the union’s decision to discontinue arbitration and encourage settlement was improper. Citing past case law, the Board reaffirmed that a union is entitled to rely on legal advice and consider factors such as the likelihood of success, financial costs, and overall impact on the bargaining unit when deciding whether to proceed with a grievance.
“A union may decide not to file a grievance, or at any time during the arbitration process decide to settle or withdraw a grievance, as long as its decision to do so is not contrary to the duty of fair representation,” the Board stated, citing Parekh v United Steel, 2023 CanLII 33370 (ON LRB).
The Board also rejected F.N.’s argument that the Union pressured her into accepting a settlement. It found that while she may have disagreed with the Union’s recommendation, there was no evidence to suggest coercion or bad faith. Additionally, the Board determined that the Union’s handling of the harassment allegations was not improper, as the Union had assessed the claims and found insufficient evidence to pursue further action.
Given that F.N. did not provide facts capable of supporting a conclusion that the Union breached its duty, the Board dismissed the application without a hearing, stating: “There is nothing in this application that could be said to meet the low threshold required to establish a prima facie violation of section 74 of the Act.”
For more information, see Fouzia Naz, Applicant v Fouzia Naz v Healthcare, 2025 CanLII 14563 (ON LRB).
