Court of Appeal rules in favour of Laval nurses on compulsory overtime

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of nurses who have been protesting against compulsory overtime for years, dismissing a motion by the CISSS de Laval relating to this practice.

The Syndicat des infirmières, inhalothérapeutes et infirmières auxiliaires de Laval, part of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), which filed a group grievance against what it considered to be the abusive use of compulsory overtime by the employer, the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux (CISSS) de Laval - now represented by Santé Québec.

In its initial complaint, the union noted that nurses at the neonatal centre had been required to work overtime on at least 47 occasions between Jan. 11 and July 25, 2020.

In its grievance, the CSQ union criticized the employer for systematically using overtime to meet its staffing needs. It complained that the practice had been going on for too long and was having a deleterious effect on all the centre’s employees.

An article in the collective agreement requires the employer to post the work schedule at least two weeks in advance, to indicate the start and end times of the shift, and not to change these times without a valid reason and without giving the employee one week’s notice, unless it is impossible to do so due to the unexpected return of an employee.

The union won its grievance.

The arbitrator ruled that the CISSS de Laval had exercised its right to manage abusively and contrary to the collective agreement, by systematically resorting to overtime.

The challenges

The employer first contested this decision before the Superior Court.

CISSS de Laval argued that the arbitrator should have analyzed the circumstances that gave rise to each case of recourse to overtime, rather than conducting an overall review of the situation.

But the Superior Court judge concluded that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and well-founded.

The CISSS de Laval then turned to the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision once again.

The Court of Appeal has now ruled that “the arbitrator’s decision has the attributes of a reasonable decision. It is amply reasoned, intelligible and the line of reasoning followed by the arbitrator in arriving at the conclusion does not suffer from any deficiency justifying intervention.”

“The arbitrator’s balancing of interests is reasonable and each element of the evidence is judiciously weighed. Her review of the evidence led her to conclude that, despite the employer’s efforts, overtime was imposed to 1) compensate for the labour shortage attributable to recruitment and retention shortcomings, 2) make up for staff absences or temporarily vacant positions that the employer did not replace, and 3) make up for positions left vacant by the employer.

“And,” wrote Justice Jocelyn F. Rancourt, on behalf of his colleagues Mark Schrager and Patrick Healy, “for at least three years, overtime has been used on a regular, constant and recurring basis as a management method, when it should only be used in urgent and exceptional circumstances.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French April 29, 2025.

Lia Lévesque, The Canadian Press