Ontario board dismisses complaints from 4 former employees of OPG excluded from settlement worth thousands
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has ruled that a union did not breach its duty of fair representation when it negotiated a Bill 124 settlement that limited compensation to workers still actively employed, excluding retirees who worked during the wage restraint period.
Vice-Chair Jerry Raso dismissed complaints from four former Ontario Power Generation employees who argued the Power Workers' Union discriminated against them by accepting an agreement that provided a $10,000 lump sum payment and 2.5% wage increase only to those employed on specific eligibility dates in 2024.
The Dec. 30, 2025 decision provides guidance for employers and unions across Ontario's public sector as they navigate remedy negotiations following court rulings that declared Bill 124 unconstitutional. The wage restraint legislation had capped annual compensation increases at 1% for three years for most employees of a large range of public sector employers.
Active versus retired: drawing the line on eligibility
Ontario Power Generation offered its final position on Bill 124 remedies during 2024 collective bargaining: an additional 2.5% increase applicable to wages earned on or after April 1, 2024, and a $10,000 lump sum payment to each regular and term employee employed on the Nov. 20, 2024 ratification date. The Power Workers' Union had initially sought compensation for all employees affected during the 2021-2022 collective agreement period impacted by the wage restraint legislation, but the employer refused.
James Webdale and Douglas Hamilton were not employed on either eligibility date and received neither benefit. Denis Pooley and Steve Fegyverneki received the wage increase but not the lump sum payment as they had retired before ratification. The union put the offer to a membership vote after considering whether it could successfully pursue broader remedies through arbitration or court action.
The union's decision was influenced by uncertainty about whether the 2020 collective agreement language permitted reopening wage negotiations and a July 2024 arbitration decision involving a related employer. That arbitrator "awarded a wage increase for active employees attributable to the Bill 124 moderation period, but awarded no retroactive wages for any employees whatsoever, active or not."
Good faith standard met despite competing interests
The Board rejected claims that limiting benefits to active employees constituted age discrimination. As the decision stated, "The distinction between those who received the two benefits and those who did not was not one of age but rather the distinction was between "active employee " v "non-active employee on two specific dates." The exclusion applied to anyone not employed on the eligibility dates "for any reason including voluntary resignation, lay-off for shortage of work, termination for cause etc."
Applying established legal principles, the Board found the union met the required standard of acting with "complete good faith and honesty of purpose" in concluding the collective agreement. The decision emphasized that unions have wide discretion in collective bargaining and in weighing competing interests of different bargaining unit members. The Board defers to unions in these circumstances "because the union is in a unique position to assess the competing interests of employees and the labour relations realities of the situation."
The ruling noted that violations require evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or extreme carelessness. Here, "the PWU did act in good faith. It did attempt to obtain the same remedy for all former employees during bargaining for renewal of the 2024-2027 collective agreement with respect to Bill 124."
See James Webdale, and Douglas Hamilton v Power Workers' Union
