The issue in this case was whether the Hospital provided sufficient notice of elimination under Article 9.08(A)(a) when it advised the Local that the position held by an incumbent “will be eliminated upon her retirement.”
The arbitrator found that such indeterminate notice was not effective notice, holding that “the Hospital was required to provide written notice of the actual date when the position would be eliminated for the purposes of Article 9.08(A)(a).”
This award confirms the prohibition on indeterminate notice established seventeen years ago in Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 839 (Collective Agreement Grievance), 2001 OLAA No. 54 (Adams). Increasingly, hospitals appear to be testing the prohibition; it is expected that this award will put an end to this trend.
