An arbitrator has dismissed a union grievance claiming Bombardier improperly withheld restructuring packages from employees, finding the union failed to provide evidence supporting its case.
Unifor Local 673 filed the grievance in November 2018, alleging the company violated the collective agreement by not offering restructuring packages to affected members during a workplace reorganization at the Downsview plant.
The union claimed Bombardier manipulated circumstances by laterally transferring employees from surplus positions into Methods positions, allegedly depriving them of restructuring benefits and seniority rights.
Delayed proceedings and evidence gaps
The case faced significant delays, with the initial hearing held in November 2018 but the matter not returning to arbitration until May 2025. The arbitrator had directed the union to provide particulars of its past practice argument, but this was never done.
The union proceeded without calling any evidence, basing its case solely on the grievance itself, the collective agreement, and assertions the employer disputed.
“The Union did not provide particulars of its past practice argument, and did not call any evidence in this case,” the arbitrator noted in the decision.
Key collective agreement provisions
The dispute centred on Schedule C Article 22 of the collective agreement, which outlines restructuring provisions. The clause states that restructuring packages are only available when the number of jobs being eliminated exceeds the number of vacant positions in the bargaining unit.
Under the provision, employees meeting certain age and service requirements could elect early retirement with a $60,000 lump sum payment. Others facing layoff could choose severance packages ranging from one to 2.25 weeks’ pay per year of service, depending on their length of employment.
The union argued the company should have looked at vacancies within the specific work group — Chart 8: Technical Publications — rather than across the entire bargaining unit. It claimed there were nine surplus positions in that group that should have triggered package availability.
Company’s straightforward defence
Bombardier maintained a simple position: there was no evidence the company actually withheld restructuring packages contrary to the collective agreement.
The employer argued Article 22 creates specific entitlements that supersede general collective agreement provisions, and packages are only required when job eliminations exceed available vacancies across the entire bargaining unit.
Since no employees lost their jobs due to the restructuring, the company contended there were clearly sufficient vacancies to absorb the eliminated positions.
Arbitrator’s analysis
The arbitrator found the union failed to meet its burden of proof, noting the absence of evidence to support key factual claims.
“There is no evidence at all to support any of the factual assertions made by the Union in its argument,” the decision states.
The arbitrator interpreted Article 22’s language at face value, finding it refers to vacancies “in the bargaining unit” rather than within specific work groups as the union argued.
“Reading the words of the agreement in their plain and ordinary sense, the provision does not support the Union’s argument,” the ruling explains.
Without evidence of past practice that might support a different interpretation, or proof that insufficient vacancies existed across the bargaining unit, the arbitrator had no basis to find a breach of the collective agreement.
Scope limitations
The arbitrator deliberately avoided ruling on broader issues raised during arguments, including whether the company’s lateral transfers violated other collective agreement provisions or whether employees were qualified for their new positions.
“I decline to opine on the broader issues raised by the Union in its argument,” the decision states, noting that arbitrators “risk doing far more harm than good when they opine on interpretive issues in the abstract.”
The ruling focused specifically on the Article 22 restructuring provisions, as that was the scope of the grievance filed.
The employer sought dismissal for delay, but the arbitrator found this unnecessary given the decision to dismiss on the merits. The union had objected it wasn’t given proper notice of the delay motion.
The arbitrator also noted the union’s failure to follow case management directions contributed to the evidentiary gaps that ultimately doomed the grievance.
For more information, see Bombardier Inc. v Unifor Local 673, 2025 CanLII 47233 (CA LA).
