Was the union reasonable in withdrawing the grievance?
A Trillium Health Partners employee who provided medical documentation to her union but refused to allow it to be shared with her employer lost her chance at challenging her termination, after the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled the union acted properly in withdrawing her grievance.
Vice-chair Mireille Giroux dismissed the worker’s duty of fair representation application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 5108 on Feb. 5, 2026, finding no reasonable likelihood the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner.
The case centered on a hospitality associate who went on bereavement leave following her father's death on July 16, 2023, then became ill. The employer made multiple written requests for medical documentation in September and early October 2023, warning that failure to provide it could result in deemed abandonment of employment. The worker did not comply.
When medical documentation becomes a roadblock
Trillium Health Partners terminated the worker on Oct. 10, 2023, under the collective agreement's deemed termination provisions. The provision applied when an employee was absent from scheduled work for more than three working days without notifying the employer and providing a satisfactory reason.
The union filed a grievance five days later and scheduled a Step 2 meeting for Nov. 15, 2023. After the worker missed that meeting, the union rescheduled for Dec. 13, 2022, which she attended.
Following the rescheduled meeting, the worker refused to provide medical documentation to the employer. On Dec. 15, 2023, she emailed the union stating, "I am not gonna cooperate with this matter anymore because I am already dismissed [sic]."
The cooperation paradox
The union sent two emails in January 2024 reminding the worker of her obligation to cooperate in the grievance process, including providing relevant medical documents for the union to send to the employer. The union warned that failure to cooperate could result in reconsidering the grievance.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the worker sent a medical note to the union and authorized its use for her case. However, she "expressly stated that she was not authorizing the union to send the note to People's Health, the employer's medical leave department." She explained: "I don't have ties with the People's Health anymore, that is why I am not gonna cooperate with whatever they are asking me anymore."
On Feb. 2, 2024, the union withdrew the grievance, citing two reasons: The worker had not provided medical documentation to People's Health as requested, and she failed to provide medical documentation substantiating her absence for longer than five days.
Board affirms cooperation requirement
The Board found the union's decision reasonable, noting that "a grievor has an obligation to cooperate in the prosecution of their own grievance. Where a grievor fails to do so such that a union is unable to productively work with them, the union may be entitled to withdraw the grievance (Michael David Kay v Amalgamated Transit Union, 2024 CanLII 114185 (ON LRB), para. 86)."
The decision emphasized that the union had properly informed the worker of her obligations and the consequences. "The application and the undisputed facts show the union informed the applicant of her obligation to cooperate in the grievance process, including producing relevant medical documents, and that failing to do so could result in the union deciding not to proceed with her grievance."
The Board concluded: "There is no reasonable likelihood that the Board would conclude that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner when it refused to pursue the applicant's grievance, as communicated to her on February 8, 2024." The application was dismissed without a full hearing.
