Arbitrator clarifies scope of document disclosure in layoff grievances

An early 2026 arbitration award will help colleges and union locals understand what information is required to be shared during the academic layoff process.

As part of the academic layoff process being reviewed by Arbitrator Bernard Fishbein, the grievor, a curriculum specialist, was not bumped into a teaching role because the college considered their teaching experience to lack the currency necessary to meet the competence, skills, and experience required to teach.

Note: The decision below is not about the grievance – it is about what documents can be included in the submission to arbitrators by the grievor and the union.

What is the issue

During the document disclosure process, the union requested documents assessing the qualifications of other curriculum specialists and faculty members who were placed or permitted to bump into teaching positions. Those employees all had less seniority than the grievor but were not identified to the arbitrator as the two employees the union and grievor sought to displace.

The union argued the documents were relevant to determining whether the layoff process was done in a discriminatory, arbitrary, or bad faith manner, as the grievor was alleging age discrimination.

What the Collective Agreement says

The Academic Collective Agreement includes detailed provisions governing layoffs, seniority, and displacement. A senior employee may displace a junior employee only if they objectively possess the required “competence, skill and experience” at the time of displacement, subject to brief familiarization.

Article 27.08 requires that, if a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the union must restrict its claim to no more than two identified full-time positions. This requirement has been part of the collective agreement for many years.

What the arbitrator said

The arbitrator upheld the college’s objection and denied the union’s request.

Arbitrator Fishbein found that limiting a grievance to two identified positions is a substantive requirement (not a remedial constraint) and that expanding production of documents beyond those positions would undermine the Collective Agreement. He concluded that the inquiry (and production) should be confined to the incumbents who the union has identified.

What is the key takeaway of this decision

This ruling is limited to whether the union is entitled to the production of documents relating to employees other than the two positions identified for potential displacement.

The decision provides the clearest statement of case law to date that the scope of a layoff grievance under Article 27.08 is limited to the two positions named in the grievance, consistent with the procedural limits set out in the Collective Agreement. This award may be helpful in clarifying scope for future layoff grievances.

Read the complete Academic Bargaining Unit Rights Arbitration Award:

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, Local 556 v George Brown College, 2026 CanLII 4591 (ON LA), <https://canlii.ca/t/khscj>, retrieved on 2026-02-10