What is a Grievance?

A grievance is an alleged violation of one or more terms or conditions contained within a collective agreement. The grievance process is how unions and management can resolve issues about the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of the collective agreement. It is also a mechanism to ensure that both parties are following the mutually agreed upon collective agreement. An employee or the union might file a grievance about any of the collective bargaining agreement’s agreed-upon clauses.

Here are some examples of what might be grieved:

• An employee has concerns about the way their manager allocated opportunities for overtime.
• The union disagrees with management’s application of seniority in the promotions clause. The union believes that based on how the clause is written, seniority should have more priority than qualifications.
• An employee objects to the level of discipline they receive for a minor violation of company policy.

A grievance may be filed for any alleged violation of a clause in the collective agreement. However, if the collective agreement is silent on a matter — meaning there is no article or language about it — it is a management right and, therefore, not something that can be grieved. For example, in our first scenario above, if the collective agreement does not specify how opportunities for overtime are allocated in the collective agreement, it is a management right to decide and, thus, not subject to grievance. However, according to Suffield and Gannon (2016), there may also be circumstances where an action appears to be a management right, but it might conflict with another clause in the collective agreement. In a situation like this, the union may grieve the employer’s action to resolve this discrepancy in the agreement and potentially introduce new, clearer language as a remedy.

Another inherent principle related to the grievance process is the work now, grieve later rule, sometimes referred to as obey now, grieve later (Suffield & Gannon, 2016). Essentially, this means that if an employee and/or the union believe that the employer has violated the collective agreement, the employee is expected to continue working knowing they can later grieve the action or inaction of the employer. So long as their health and safety are not at risk and the employer’s actions are legal, the employee cannot withdraw their labour. They will, however, have the opportunity to file a grievance against the employer afterwards. This ensures the workplace is not disrupted and prevents illegal strikes.

Benefits of Grievances & Arbitration

One of the key benefits of the grievance arbitration process is that it provides both parties with a legal way to resolve their differences. In a non-union setting, the employer may implement a grievance process, but it will not necessarily have legal backing. In a unionized setting, employees no longer have the right to sue the employer for their actions because they have the legal right to a grievance arbitration process. This means the employer is obligated to respond to formal complaints filed by the employee and/or the union within the stated timelines in the collective agreement. Employees also benefit by having a formal way to challenge management’s actions and decisions, giving them a sense of control over their work and workplace conditions. While this significantly benefits employees and the union, it also benefits management because they have a mechanism for direct communication and consultation (Suffield & Gannon, 2016). This communication channel can also help ensure consistency in the application of rules and processes by managers, which may reduce turnover as employees feel they have a voice for discontent in the workplace (Suffield & Gannon, 2016).

Types of Grievances

There are three main types of grievances one might encounter in a unionized workplace:

1. Individual Grievance — This is the most frequent type of grievance, occurring when an employer’s action (or inaction) directly affects an individual employee. Common issues include disciplinary actions or denial of specific requests, like leave requests. For example, if an employee believes a leave request was unfairly denied, they might file an individual grievance.
2. Group Grievance — A group grievance is filed when an employer’s action impacts multiple employees in the same way. For instance, if an employer improperly applies a contractual term affecting a particular group of employees, they might collectively raise a group grievance. An example could be a misinterpretation of contract work criteria that negatively affects a group of employees.
3. Union or Policy Grievance — This type is initiated by the union on behalf of all employees, addressing an employer’s action (or inaction) that potentially violates the collective agreement and impacts everyone. For example, if the employer’s interpretation of vacation accrual during a leave is perceived as violating employment standards legislation, this might result in a policy grievance as it affects all employees in the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Process

Labour relations legislation in Canada requires that every collective agreement has a process to resolve disputes that might arise about its interpretation or application. While each collective agreement will have variations in the steps, all grievance processes must have arbitration as an option. This ensures that even if the parties cannot resolve the dispute during the grievance process, there is a final avenue to resolve differences through a neutral third party. Most grievance processes follow a similar stage of steps and responses. Below is the outline of a typical grievance process.

Step 1: Informal Discussion

The process often begins with an informal discussion between the employee (and sometimes a union representative) and their immediate supervisor. The goal is to resolve the issue without the need for a formal grievance. Many issues can be resolved at this stage if both parties are open to dialogue. Usually, the employer will have a time limit to respond. If the issue cannot be resolved, the process moves to Step 2.

Step 2: Filing a Formal Grievance & Initial Meeting

If the issue is not resolved informally, the employee (with the union’s assistance) submits a formal written grievance. This document details the complaint, the specific violation of the collective agreement (or other terms), and the remedy sought. The grievance document will typically be sent by a representative from the union grievance committee or executive team to the human resource department or the relevant manager.

The employer representative (HR and/or manager) will then review the grievance and begin to investigate. The union will also conduct their own investigation. This may involve identifying the facts, collecting data, interviewing relevant parties and witnesses, and examining the collective agreement’s terms. Management will then arrange a meeting between the union, the affected employee (optional), and representatives of management. This will usually include a shop steward or business agent and usually the manager and an HR representative. After the meeting, the employer will provide a written response, either accepting or rejecting the grievance or proposing a resolution. Sometimes, a resolution is agreed to during the meeting and confirmed in writing afterwards. If the grievance is denied at this step, it will be referred to Step 3.

Step 3: Higher-Level Review and Discussion

If the grievance is still unresolved after Step 2, it may be escalated to higher-level management or a union official. This is typically the final stage before arbitration, allowing both sides to have another opportunity for resolution. Again, a meeting will be scheduled and potential resolutions proposed by either party. If it is an individual grievance, the employee may again be present, but often a senior union representative and the shop steward will attend this meeting without the employee. Management may involve a more senior HR representative at this point and/or include a senior manager, director, or even the CEO. Again, management will respond after the meeting in writing, either accepting a proposed resolution or denying the grievance once again. If the grievance is denied, the parties will then have to decide to move the grievance to arbitration or propose an alternative dispute resolution process like mediation.

Grievance Timelines

Collective agreements will outline the timelines both parties are required to follow throughout the grievance process. These timelines begin with the employee or union submitting the grievance in a timely fashion. If an employee or the union becomes aware of a violation of the collective agreement, they are responsible for bringing this forward within a certain time frame. This will be spelled out in the collective agreement. Failure to do this might result in the employer refusing to accept the grievance. While this rarely occurs, it can occur without reasonable reasons for a delay. Management also has timelines for responses at each stage of the grievance process. Again, these will be documented in the collective agreement but can be amended by mutual agreement between both parties.

Grievance Meeting Example

This video illustrates a Step 2 grievance meeting between an employer, an employee, and their shop steward. It is based on a fictitious scenario acted out by a group of students and is provided for educational purposes only. As you watch the video, consider what the parties have done well and what they might improve upon.

Arbitration

If management and the union cannot resolve the grievance through the three steps, they will have to decide if they want to refer the dispute to arbitration. According to Suffield & Gannon (2016), arbitration “is an adversarial process in which the parties present evidence to the arbitrator who makes a decision or order on the basis of the evidence.” The process is formal, legalistic, time-consuming, and very costly for both parties, so arbitration is usually chosen as a last resort.

Interest vs. Rights Arbitration

At this point, it is important to clarify that there are two different types of arbitration in labour relations. When we refer to arbitration for a grievance, we are talking about rights arbitration. It is a dispute about the agreed-upon terms in the collective bargaining agreement. We also use arbitration to resolve our differences during collective bargaining. This is called interest arbitration and was discussed in Chapter 10: Collective Bargaining Disputes.

Arbitrators

An arbitrator or arbitration panel will decide the outcome if a grievance is referred to arbitration. Arbitrators are usually lawyers or someone with an extensive legal and labour relations background. In some instances, the parties will agree in the collective agreement on a specific arbitrator, but this can be limiting if the arbitrator is not available. Arbitrators can be in high demand, and thus, the parties may have to be flexible on their arbitrator of choice. When a collective agreement states an arbitration panel is to be used, one arbitrator will be selected by management and another by the union. The third member of the panel will be mutually agreed to. In all cases, if the two parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the labour relations board in their jurisdiction will appoint one if requested (British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2023a).

Arbitrators will preside over the process to determine how to resolve the issue. They will investigate the grievance by reviewing documents, examining the collective agreement, hearing witness testimonies, and considering decisions made by previous arbitrators in similar cases. This usually occurs through a formal hearing that is like a court proceeding. It is not held in a courtroom but is usually away from the workplace, often in a hotel or conference centre meeting room. The arbitrator’s decision is final and binding on the parties. The positive aspect is that the decision will conclude the grievance, and the parties must move forward and implement whatever remedy or decision the arbitrator makes. The downside is that one party likely will not be happy with the outcome.

Legal Elements of Arbitration

Once union and management have agreed to arbitration, both parties will usually hire their own lawyer who will present their case and question witnesses during the arbitration hearing. At the hearing, a formal legal process will unfold that begins with the arbitrator confirming jurisdiction. Before the lawyers present their opening statements, the arbitrator will confirm that they have jurisdiction under the collective agreement to decide the case. McQuarrie (2015) describes the importance of this: “under Canadian labour law, the arbitrator is empowered to rule only on whether an interpretation, application, or administration of the collective agreement is correct; the arbitrator is not empowered to change the terms of the collective agreement.” Before the parties make their opening statements, any other objections to the process, such as timeline concerns or whether the dispute constitutes a grievance, will be brought forward to the arbitrator for consideration (McQuarrie, 2015).

Another element that will be identified before the hearing begins is whether the union or management has the procedural onus to prove their case. In a proceeding like this, the person who brings the complaint forward (usually the union) has the obligation to go first and prove their case, while the other party responds to the allegations. Since unions usually file grievances, they typically have procedural onus during arbitration. However, if the grievance involves discipline or discharge (termination), the onus is reversed, and the employer must go first and prove that they were justified in taking the alleged action against the employee. According to McQuarrie (2015), the reason for this is that it would be challenging for an employee or the union to explain why the employer took these actions as the rationale and evidence are possessed by the employer, not the employee.

The final element determined before the hearing proceeds is the standard of proof. In most arbitrations, the arbitrator will use the balance of probabilities to decide the case. This standard is used in civil proceedings and is less stringent than the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard used in criminal cases. It means that the arbitrator can decide that ‘on balance,’ one party’s case is more reasonable even if it is not perfectly complete (McQuarrie, 2015). In some cases, the arbitrator may require a higher standard of proof, such as when an employee is accused of theft or violence.

Arbitration Proceeding

An arbitration proceeding follows a process similar to one in a courtroom. Once the procedural onus is determined, the party with the onus will go first, and their lawyer (or representative) will make an opening statement. This statement summarizes the case, what part of the collective agreement was violated, and the remedy sought. Then, the opposing party’s lawyer will make their opening statement. The proceeding party will then directly examine their first witness, followed by a cross-examination of that witness by the opposing party. This continues until the proceeding party has examined all their witnesses and presented all their evidence. Then, the opposing party will do the same, calling their witnesses for direct examination followed by a cross-examination of each witness by the proceeding party. Once all witnesses have been questioned and all evidence brought forward, the proceeding lawyer delivers their closing statement, followed by the lawyer for the opposing party. After the hearing concludes, the arbitrator will retire to consider all the evidence and make a decision.

Arbitration Award

Arbitration hearings might take days or even weeks to complete. Once they are done, the arbitrator has to review all the evidence and make a decision that will be binding on the union and management. Some arbitrations can be very complex and can take many months to conclude. Some collective agreements may state timelines for the award, but generally, the arbitrator takes the time needed to make the best possible decision.

According to McQuarrie (2015), the following elements will be included in the arbitration award document:

• Summary of evidence by both parties
• The arbitrator’s assessment and consideration of the evidence
• The arbitrator’s decision and an explanation for their decision (rationale)
• The prescribed remedy if the grievance is justified (upheld)
• Any direction for implementing the remedy (e.g., timelines to implement a reinstatement of an employee)

The arbitrator’s decision is final and binding on the parties. While appeals are possible, they are not usually permitted unless there is an allegation and evidence of arbitrator bias, procedural error, concerns about a decision made outside of jurisdiction, or a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the collective agreement. Appeals are rare and often unsuccessful when accepted. Disagreement with the arbitrator’s decision or remedy is not grounds for an appeal.

Challenges With Arbitration

While arbitration does result in a final decision on a disagreement that management and the union could not resolve on their own, it has several challenges. Scheduling an arbitration involves hiring lawyers and arbitrators who do specialized work and are often in high demand. Simply getting a date to begin an arbitration can be challenging. In many cases, arbitration will not start for months and possibly more than a year after the grievance process is exhausted. This means an employee who has been terminated or disciplined is waiting that long before they know their fate. Arbitration is also very legal and formal, making it expensive and complex.

According to McQuarrie (2015), arbitration was meant to be a less formal process to resolve disputes, where the union and management would represent themselves to a neutral third party who would decide on a matter. Adding lawyers to argue cases and incorporating past decisions has made the process more rigorous, costly, and uncomfortable for employees who may be hesitant to appear as witnesses. Arbitration may also be out of reach for some employers and unions due to the cost, as a single hearing could cost one party tens of thousands of dollars.

The following video highlights some challenges and possible solutions to these problems.

Alternatives to Arbitration

One of the primary benefits of arbitration is that it results in a final decision. However, given the challenges and constraints either party might face in accessing arbitration, it may not be the best way forward. In Canada, the labour relations board (LRB) in each jurisdiction provides alternatives to grievance arbitration that may include mediation, expedited arbitration, and mediated arbitration. Not all jurisdictions provide all three options, but we will discuss each and their benefits and downsides. These options are usually only available if the parties have not yet started a traditional arbitration process.

Mediation

Mediation is an alternative to arbitration in resolving grievances, particularly when both parties seek a less formal, more collaborative approach. In most jurisdictions, mediation involves a mediator or “settlement officer,” who can be requested through the labour relations board (LRB). In some jurisdictions, there is no cost to the parties when the LRB assigns the mediator. Unlike arbitration, where a binding decision is imposed, mediation focuses on assisting both parties to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, often meeting within five to 10 days to expedite the process. The mediator meets separately and jointly with both sides to facilitate communication, clarify issues, and explore potential compromises. Although the process may result in a signed agreement, the mediator does not issue a binding award, allowing both parties to retain control over the outcome.

Mediation’s emphasis on collaboration makes it an effective method for resolving disputes without the potential adversarial effects of arbitration. This approach is also timely, cost-effective, confidential, informal, and collaborative, making it a preferred option for many. However, it does require both the union and management to engage in open dialogue and to be willing to consider alternatives.

According to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board, the reasons listed below might make mediation a good alternative.

Expedited Arbitration

Some jurisdictions also offer expedited arbitration, which is another alternative for resolving grievances. The primary benefit of this method is that it happens more quickly than traditional arbitration. This happens partly because the parties will request an expedited process through the labour relations board (LRB), which assigns the arbitrator to the case based on their availability to proceed. The process is designed for specific, fact-based issues, such as minor disciplinary disputes, allowing the arbitrator to meet with the parties promptly and reach a decision in a shorter time frame. According to McQuarrie (2015), this might not always hold, as the parties might agree to expedited arbitration for all disciplinary matters. Still, it will not be used for issues involving the interpretation of collective agreements, as might be the case with a policy grievance.

Expedited arbitration is less formal and less costly than traditional arbitration, as it avoids many of the legal formalities associated with standard proceedings. Additionally, outcomes from expedited arbitration are non-precedent setting, meaning they apply only to the specific case at hand and do not influence future cases. This approach offers a swift resolution without the potential complications of a lengthy legal process. For example, in British Columbia, an expedited arbitration must conclude within 90 days of the application to the LRB, and the arbitrator must render their decision within 30 days of the hearing concluding (British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2023b).

Mediated Arbitration

Mediated arbitration is a hybrid dispute resolution approach that combines elements of mediation and arbitration, though it is less commonly used and unavailable in all jurisdictions. The process begins with the arbitrator acting as a mediator or settlement officer, aiming to facilitate a mutually agreeable resolution through an informal, collaborative process. The goal at this stage is to reach a settlement without needing a formal arbitration hearing. However, if mediation efforts are unsuccessful, the mediator transitions into the role of arbitrator, proceeding to hear the case more formally and ultimately rendering a binding decision. This method leverages the flexibility of mediation with the finality of arbitration, allowing for a streamlined resolution process that can adapt to the dynamics of the dispute.

References

British Columbia Labour Relations Board. (2023a). Appointment of an arbitrator. https://www.lrb.bc.ca/appointment-arbitrator

British Columbia Labour Relations Board. (2023b). Expedited arbitration. https://www.lrb.bc.ca/expedited-arbitration

Canadian HR Reporter. (2011, May 9). Grievance arbitration: Current standards and how to improve the system [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/_n3WTrWeP70?si=z28B1DZ5zORX4qUg

Canta, W. (2021). Collective agreement between 49th Parallel Coffee Roasters Inc and Teamsters Local Union No. 213: August 1st, 2021 — July 31st, 2025. https://www.lrb.bc.ca/media/19798/download?inline

Government of Saskatchewan. (n.d.). Conciliation and mediation services. Retrieved November 4, 2024, from https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/hire-train-and-manage-employees/collective-bargaining-and-mediation/conciliation-and-mediation

The HR Mentor. (2024, November 4). The grievance [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/3Guqc1vofms

McQuarrie, F. (2015). Industrial relations in Canada (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Suffield, L., & Gannon, G. L. (2015). Labour relations (4th ed.). Pearson Canada.

What Type of Grievance Exercise Answers

1. Group grievance as it affects one team.
2. Individual grievance as the action only impacts one employee.
3. Union or policy grievance as the employers actions potentially affect all employees.