WSIB ‘not comfortable’ meeting with union rep accused of fraud
When a union representative faces criminal charges, can an employer ban them from meetings?
On March 6, 2026, alternate chair Michael McFadden of the Ontario Labour Relations Board gave a final answer.
It ruled that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had overstepped when it refused to sit across the table from a charged but unconvicted union representative.
‘Form 10’ conditions for union rep
The Ontario Compensation Employees Union, CUPE Local 1750, represents roughly 3,700 WSIB employees. Article 1.07 of the parties' collective agreement explicitly grants the union the right to have a national representative present at all meetings with management. That right does not disappear simply because charges have been laid.
The representative at the centre of the dispute, identified only as "CN," had been assigned exclusively to WSIB union business since the summer of 2024. He faced two Criminal Code charges. The first was fraudulently impersonating a WSIB executive officer referred to as "AF" to obtain an advantage for the OCEU — namely, to gain support amongst the OCEU membership and the public that might affect any vote on any agreement or offer.
The second was causing a disadvantage to AF by encouraging her dismissal from the WSIB. CN was arrested but released on his own recognizance by signing a "Form 10," with conditions requiring him to:
- not communicate, directly or indirectly, with AF
- stay 200 metres away from two WSIB office locations in Toronto and Hamilton
- not be within 200 metres of any place he knows AF may live, work, go to school, or otherwise be — "no exception."
Those conditions, the union argued, did not prohibit CN from attending meetings where AF was simply not present.
And the Board agreed.
‘Not comfortable’ with meeting union rep
On the evening of Feb. 12, 2026, WSIB vice president of labour relations Garen Simmonds emailed OCEU president Harry Goslin, stating the WSIB was "not comfortable" having CN attend any WSIB/OCEU meeting at this time. The next morning, CN joined a scheduled settlement mediation by Zoom. WSIB personnel refused to participate.
The employer then confirmed it would boycott any meeting at which CN was present, in person or virtually, including meetings where AF would not be in attendance. The WSIB argued the criminal charges "reveal an attempt by CN to fatally undermine the basic trust that is the foundation of the labour relations between the parties."
However, the board found the employer had not established that granting the union's requested interim order would cause it irreparable harm.
Balance of convenience
The board did not dismiss the gravity of the allegations. It acknowledged plainly that "it is difficult to argue with the WSIB's proposition that the conduct described in the criminal charges is very serious and does strike at the core of the labour relations relationship between the parties."
But the board found that the OCEU had established a risk of irreparable harm, specifically the loss of CN's representation services and his deep institutional and experiential knowledge of the many issues the parties were currently facing, including matters still unresolved following the settlement of the renewal collective agreement in the summer of 2025.
The balance of convenience, the board concluded, favoured the union. It took two steps: It issued the most limited order it could, requiring the WSIB to participate in meetings and hearings where CN was present as an OCEU representative except where doing so would violate the Form 10 restrictions; and it directed that the hearing of the underlying unfair labour practices application be scheduled on an expeditious basis.
The Board's ruling was unambiguous. "On an interim basis… the WSIB must cease and desist from refusing to participate in OCEU meetings and hearings at which CN in his capacity as an OCEU representative will or may be present, subject to the restrictions set out in the Form 10."
