Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The union challenged the employer's recurring use of mandatory overtime (TSO) in the neonatal unit as contrary to the collective agreement.

• The arbitrator found the employer’s reliance on TSO to be systemic, unreasonable, and abusive, violating contractual and legal standards.

• The Superior Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision, applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and related case law.

• On appeal, the employer argued the arbitrator misunderstood the legal test for abuse of discretion and misinterpreted applicable legislation.

• The Court of Appeal found the arbitrator’s decision intelligible, transparent, and well-supported by the facts and applicable legal framework.

• The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the arbitrator acted within her jurisdiction and that the grievance was rightly upheld.

Background and facts of the case

The case involves a labour dispute between Santé Québec, acting through the CISSS de Laval, and the Syndicat des infirmières, inhalothérapeutes et infirmières auxiliaires de Laval (SIIIAL-CSQ). The union filed a grievance against the employer’s extensive and repeated use of mandatory overtime (temps supplémentaire obligatoire, or TSO) for nurses in the neonatal unit between January and July 2020. The grievance alleged that the employer had, over years, relied on TSO not as an exceptional measure, but as a routine management strategy to fill staffing gaps.

The union argued that this practice violated the collective agreement and imposed unreasonable burdens on its members. It had previously met with the employer to propose alternatives, but claimed no effective corrective measures were implemented. The arbitrator accepted the grievance, concluding that the TSO practice breached the collective agreement and represented an unreasonable and abusive exercise of managerial discretion.

The arbitration and judicial review decisions

The arbitrator considered the contractual obligations under the collective agreement, including Article L-9.09, which requires advanced scheduling, and Article 10.01, governing voluntary overtime. She also reviewed applicable legal standards, including provisions from the Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux, the Civil Code of Québec, and professional ethical codes.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer’s long-standing and systematic use of TSO was no longer exceptional and imposed significant and recurring disadvantages on employees. She found that the employer failed to adequately respond to known staffing shortages, neglected to fill vacant positions, and did not adapt service offerings to its available human resources. The arbitration award characterized this approach as an abuse of the employer’s residual management rights.

The employer challenged the award before the Superior Court, arguing that the arbitrator applied the wrong legal framework and failed to assess each TSO incident individually. The Court rejected this argument, upholding the arbitrator’s use of a collective and contextual analysis and finding the decision reasonable.

The Court of Appeal decision

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal focused on whether the Superior Court correctly applied the standard of reasonableness. The Court emphasized that under Vavilov, appellate courts reviewing administrative decisions must determine whether the decision is justified, intelligible, and falls within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The Court found that the arbitrator’s analysis was thorough, logically reasoned, and well-supported by evidence. It rejected the employer’s arguments that a case-by-case review of TSO instances was required or that a distinct showing of bad faith was necessary to establish abuse. It also dismissed claims that the arbitrator had exceeded her jurisdiction or contradicted herself regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement and relevant statutes.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that both the arbitrator and the Superior Court had correctly applied the appropriate legal principles. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the employer.

Conclusion

The decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot rely on mandatory overtime as a systemic staffing solution and that arbitrators have wide discretion to assess managerial conduct against collective agreements. It affirms that labour arbitrators may adopt a holistic view of recurring employment practices, and that well-reasoned decisions are entitled to deference even amid complex legal and operational considerations.