An Ontario labour arbitrator has dismissed a grievance brought against Mondelez Canada on behalf of a worker who claimed the company failed to accommodate him between 2016 and 2022, finding the dispute had already been resolved by a 2022 settlement the worker refused to sign.
The grievance, filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Locals 175 & 633, sought damages equal to the wages the worker said he would have earned during that period had he been actively employed. The arbitrator allowed the employer’s preliminary objection that there was no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Background
The worker was actively employed at the company’s food production facility on Gladstone Road in Toronto from August 1994 until October 2014, when he went off work because of injuries from a motor vehicle accident. He was placed on an unpaid leave of absence in November 2017.
In May 2021, the union filed a grievance alleging the employer had failed to accommodate the worker under the Ontario Human Rights Code in connection with his return to work after the leave. That grievance was referred to arbitration in February 2022, and the parties entered mediation before a different arbitrator.
The mediation produced minutes of settlement setting out a process to return the worker to his job. The employer and the union signed the document. The worker was expected to sign at a later date but never did. The union signed on the understanding that the worker understood and agreed with the terms.
The worker returned to work in March 2022 and has remained actively employed since. In December 2024, the union filed a new grievance on his behalf, again claiming a failure to accommodate covering the 2016 to March 2022 period.
The worker said he did not understand that the settlement would bar him from claiming damages for the period before March 2022 and that he therefore did not agree to it. The arbitrator noted there was no allegation the employer had failed to do what it agreed to under the settlement.
The positions
The employer argued the new grievance was identical to the one settled in 2022 and that the matter was therefore inarbitrable, or that the union was estopped from pursuing it. As the worker’s bargaining agent, it said, the union had full authority to settle the original grievance, and it was immaterial that the worker had not signed. The employer said it reasonably understood the subject matter had been fully and finally settled.
The union did not deny that the new grievance reflected the same subject matter and remedial requests as the original. It also did not dispute that it generally has authority to settle grievances or that settled matters should not be relitigated. But it argued the worker’s case differed from earlier decisions where settlements were upheld despite a missing signature, saying those cases involved grievors who had agreed to terms and then changed their minds, or who claimed they did not understand the terms. Here, the union said, the worker maintained he neither understood nor agreed to the terms and never intended to release the employer from the wage claim.
The union added that it was not its own understanding that the worker had failed to understand or agree at the time of settlement, but that his status as a party meant the grievance should proceed in the absence of his agreement.
The decision
The arbitrator determined the grievance was barred. Although the worker was named in the title of proceedings, the arbitrator found, the parties to the grievance were the union and the employer. Citing arbitral authority dating back decades, the arbitrator noted that a board of arbitration has no jurisdiction to hear a grievance identical in substance to one already settled.
The union, as the worker’s sole and exclusive bargaining agent, was entitled to enter the settlement, and the worker was bound by the result, the arbitrator found. The absence of the worker’s signature did not prevent a finding that the grievance had been settled, and being named in the settlement document did not give the worker the right to block the union and employer from resolving the matter.
The arbitrator saw no material distinction between a grievor who reluctantly agrees to a settlement and later refuses to sign and one who says he never agreed in the first place. In either case, the arbitrator found, a settlement between an employer and a union ends the dispute.
Sound labour relations require certainty and finality, the arbitrator noted, and invalidating the 2022 agreement years later would create unfairness to the employer and leave employers unable to rely on the finality of agreements reached with unions. Except in narrow circumstances not present in this case, the arbitrator found, agreements between unions and employers should be respected as final.
The grievance was dismissed.
Counsel for Plaintiff
Matthew Jagodits represented United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Locals 175 & 633.
Counsel for Defendant
Connie Cheung and Hope Hengsperger represented Mondelez Canada.
Decision Maker
Rishi Bandhu, sole arbitrator.
For more information, see Mondelez Canada Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, locals 175 & 633, 2026 CanLII 58421 (ON LA).
