He maintained that because he sued the individual executive officer rather than his employer organisation, the dispute remained within the court's jurisdiction and did not require resolution through union grievance processes established under the collective agreement.
However, the executive officer sought dismissal of the entire claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the essential character of all allegations concerned workplace conduct covered by collective agreement arbitration.
The executive officer moved for dismissal under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fundamentally concerned workplace matters falling under the Grievance Settlement Board's exclusive authority.
The legal issue discussed the principle that when unionised employees have workplace disputes, those conflicts must typically be resolved through arbitration processes rather than civil courts.
The court cited Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which requires collective agreements to provide for "the final and binding settlement by arbitration, without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement."
The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act 1993, extends this requirement specifically to government employees, directing...
Tamil Nadu Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare M.R.K. Panneerselvam on Saturday (November 22, 2025) accused the Opposition parties of spreading false allegations against the State govern...