An arbitrator has dismissed Algoma Steel’s attempt to stop a case over the termination of a unionized worker’s extended health benefits, clearing the way for a December hearing on the merits.
The dispute centres on the company’s decision to end benefits for a United Steelworkers Local 2251 member who has been off work since a 2015 workplace injury. The employer cut off coverage under the Extended Health Benefit Agreement (EHBA) on March 31, 2025, citing a clause that limits benefits to 36 months for absences tied to occupational injuries where Workplace Safety and Insurance Board payments are involved.
The union is seeking reinstatement of the worker’s benefits and the removal of the clause in question, arguing the provision violates a 1995 agreement to match benefits for production workers to those provided to salaried employees. It also claims Algoma breached “me too” provisions in subsequent collective agreements and is estopped from enforcing the clause.
Dispute over arbitrator’s jurisdiction
Algoma argued the arbitrator, appointed by the Minister of Labour under section 49 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, lacked jurisdiction to consider alleged breaches of earlier collective agreements. The company maintained the appointment was tied to the current collective agreement, in effect from August 1, 2022, to July 31, 2027.
It relied on case law, including Goodyear Canada Inc. and United Rubber Workers, Local 232 and Gananoque Light & Power Ltd. and I.B.E.W., Loc. 636, where arbitrators declined to rule on disputes involving expired agreements.
The union countered with two other rulings — De Havilland Inc. v. C.A.W.-Canada, Loc. 112 (Ibrahim) and Essar Steel Algoma Inc. v. United Steelworkers — which found that section 49 arbitrators can hear matters involving expired agreements if the dispute’s substance is tied to those agreements.
Arbitrator rejects company’s argument
The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding “no rational basis” to distinguish the authorities it cited from the present case.
“The relevant question under section 49 is, what is the substance of the difference between the parties,” the arbitrator wrote, adding that the dispute encompasses facts and alleged commitments dating back to 1995.
The arbitrator concluded their jurisdiction is “not restricted to the current collective agreement but includes any prior collective agreement subsequent to the original commitment that is impacted by the material facts of this dispute.”
The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the case will proceed to a full hearing on December 5, 2025.
For more information, see United Steelworkers Local Union 2251 v Algoma Steel Inc., 2025 CanLII 78677 (ON LA).
