Employer says PSW threatened to ‘burn this place down’ but worker calls allegation ‘gross misinterpretation’ of remarks, unhappy with union response
A personal support worker at an Ontario long-term care home was fired after a union unit chair reported that she made violent threats following a grievance meeting.
The worker was eventually terminated with cause.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board, in a decision dated March 4, 2026, refused to dismiss the worker's complaint against her union, finding she had an arguable case that it breached its duty of fair representation.
Alleged threats after meeting
The part-time personal support worker (PSW) had roughly two years of service at The Osgoode Care Centre. Her union, United Steelworkers Union Local 8327, had represented her through a series of non-disciplinary meetings about attendance in late 2024.
In March 2025, the employer told the PSW it would no longer schedule her for full-time hours due to continued absenteeism. The union filed a grievance on her behalf and a Step 2 meeting was held on March 26, 2025.
However, the employer stopped the meeting after it was revealed that the PSW was recording it on her cellphone.
What happened next is disputed. After the meeting, the union's unit chair asked the worker how she was feeling. The union says she responded, "I really just want to burn this place down. I'd like to burn your house down too, but you don't live there anymore, right?"
The unit chair understood that the PSW was referring to his mother's house, where he had previously lived. His mother was employed as an HR manager for the care centre. He reported the remarks to the employer, who then contacted police.
Grievances outlined in agreement
The worker offered a different account. In her application, she stated she made "a light-hearted, sarcastic comment" to the union steward: "When I make a mess, I really burn it to the ground." She alleged the unit chair falsely told management "that I had made a direct and violent threat to burn the building down with 100 residents inside," calling it "a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and the context in which it was said."
On March 28, 2025, the PSW was given a chance to explain her side to the union president. Days later, she was placed on a paid suspension. Soon after, her employment was terminated for cause. She contended this action was taken before the employer and the union learned that police had decided not to lay criminal charges, having determined "there was no credible threat."
The union filed grievances for the suspension and the termination. It investigated the circumstances, including interviewing and reviewing contemporaneous notes made by the unit chair, as well as relevant case law, and concluded the grievances were unlikely to succeed. A Step 2 meeting on the termination grievance was held without the worker present.
The union said this followed its "practice," but the collective agreement stated otherwise: "A meeting will be held between the Administrator of the Centre or his designated representative, the employee and a steward within ten (10) days."
Motion to dismiss denied
At the Step 2 meeting, the union negotiated two weeks of pay for the worker, her minimum entitlement under the Employment Standards Act, and arranged for the record of employment to state the termination was due to a "shortage of work." This was done to assist the PSW in securing future employment. The union then withdrew the grievance.c
Accepting the worker’s allegations as true, vice-chair John Martelli said that "it is difficult for the Board to find at this early stage that the applicant enjoys no reasonable prospect of success." He denied the union's motion to dismiss.
Martelli ordered the registrar to reschedule the consultation "as soon as possible, in consultation with the applicant, the responding party and the intervenor."
