An Ontario arbitrator has ruled that a hospital can add regular shifts to work schedules that include extended shifts without triggering collective agreement voting requirements. It dismissed a union grievance that sought to block West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville, Ont., from implementing a five-hour night position.
The Oct. 24 decision clarifies when employers must consult employees under letters of understanding that govern extended shift arrangements. The arbitrator found that model agreements for extended shifts apply only to the implementation and modification of extended shifts themselves, not to the addition of regular shifts.
“The Model Agreement cannot be construed to require a vote, where the vote does not either implement, amend, or otherwise modify an extended shift schedule,” the arbitrator wrote.
Meal break coverage dispute
The case arose after Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada filed a policy grievance in July 2023. The union alleged the hospital violated the collective agreement when it posted a five-hour night shift for switchboard clerks without holding an employee vote.
Switchboard clerks at the hospital have worked 12-hour shifts for many years. Day shifts run from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., while night shifts run from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
The union had filed a separate grievance in January 2023 alleging switchboard clerks working the night shift could not take meal breaks. The hospital responded in June 2023 by creating a five-hour position from 11:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. to provide coverage. Part-time staff filled the new shift.
Extended shift agreement provisions
The dispute centred on interpretation of a Letter of Understanding called the Model Agreement Extended Shift Arrangements. Under the collective agreement, a regular working day is 7.5 hours with a half-hour unpaid meal break, making the 12-hour shifts “extended shifts.”
The Model Agreement states: “The local parties hereby agree, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour, that extended shifts will be implemented under the following terms and conditions. In all other respects the collective agreement shall apply.”
The agreement requires that “all eligible scheduled full-time and regular part-time staff working in the affected unit/department that is considering extended shift schedules will be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed schedule.”
Where 75 per cent of participating employees vote in favour of extended shifts, “the new schedule will be implemented on (6) a six-month trial basis and will be reviewed by both parties,” according to the agreement.
Union argued schedule amendment triggered vote
The union submitted that no amendment can be made to an existing extended shift schedule without triggering a vote. It argued the Model Agreement’s reference to “the affected unit/department” includes all staff on any schedule that also includes extended shifts.
Even though the new five-hour shift is not itself an extended shift, its inclusion amends the switchboard schedule, requiring a vote, the union contended.
The union relied on an arbitration award involving Cambridge Memorial Hospital. In that case, an arbitrator ruled a vote was required when the hospital changed the pattern of 12-hour shifts worked by registered practical nurses.
Hospital maintained right to add regular shifts
The hospital agreed the Cambridge case was correctly decided. However, it argued the Model Agreement does not apply when introducing a five-hour shift.
The hospital submitted that adding a five-hour shift to a schedule — even one that includes extended shifts — is within its rights under the collective agreement. The part-time staff filling the five-hour night shift are not working an extended shift, it noted.
The hospital pointed to language throughout the Model Agreement indicating it applies only to employees working extended shifts. As counsel for the hospital remarked, “you don’t need Ministry of Labour approval to introduce a 5-hour shift.”
Decision turns on purpose of model agreement
The arbitrator found the Model Agreement was established for one specific purpose: to define terms and conditions for implementing extended shifts that differ from those otherwise set out in the collective agreement.
The arbitrator noted the agreement’s second and third paragraphs make clear that votes must be on extended shift schedules specifically. Staff must be given an opportunity to vote on “the proposed schedule” when the department “is considering extended shift schedules.”
The vote the union sought was not a vote on an extended shift schedule but rather for or against a five-hour night shift, the arbitrator found. While the switchboard schedule includes some extended shifts, those shifts are not modified by adding the five-hour shift.
“Regardless of the outcome of any vote that might be held concerning the addition of the 5-hour night shift, the extended shift schedule on the Switchboard Schedule would remain unchanged,” the arbitrator wrote.
Cambridge case distinguished
The arbitrator found the Cambridge Memorial Hospital case distinguishable from the present situation. A vote was ordered in that case because the hospital had modified the schedule of employees working extended shifts.
In the West Haldimand case, there was no amendment or modification to the schedule of employees working extended shifts.
The arbitrator addressed the union’s argument that the five-hour shift would be included in schedules contemplated by the Model Agreement. The arbitrator noted the extended shift schedule worked by switchboard clerks was never reduced to writing.
Whether the switchboard schedule could be considered a schedule within the meaning of the Model Agreement was a hypothetical question that did not need to be answered, the arbitrator found.
Provisions specific to extended shifts
The arbitrator pointed to several Model Agreement provisions that indicate it applies only to employees working extended shifts. Article 2 defines probation for “a new employee working extended shifts.”
Article 3.1 states: “The normal or standard extended workday shall be ___ hours per day.”
Article 5.1 defines overtime as “all hours worked in excess of the normal or standard extended workday, as set out in Article 3.1 of the Model Agreement.”
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance. The parties appeared before the arbitrator on Oct. 1, 2025, via Zoom. The facts were not in dispute, so they proceeded directly to argument.
For more information, see West Haldimand General Hospital v Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada, 2025 CanLII 109742 (ON LA).
