Labour relations are built on a delicate balance between the union’s freedom of action and the employer’s management rights. However, this balance can sometimes shift when interactions become personal, repeated, and harmful to the psychological health of employer representatives. A recent interlocutory decision issued in a case where we acted for the City of Drummondville illustrates in concrete terms the means available to an employer to intervene in such a context.
The Decision-Making Context
In this case, two grievances were pending before the arbitration tribunal, one filed by the union and the other by the employer. The latter alleged that certain actions by the union specifically targeted a foreman as well as a human capital business partner and infringed on their psychological integrity, contributing to a harmful work climate.
The employer applied for a safeguard order to immediately stop any behaviour likely to harm the psychological health of these managers until the hearing on the merits. The union filed a similar application against the employer.
The arbitrator reiterated that this measure remains exceptional and must meet three criteria: the appearance of right, the demonstration of serious harm, and the balance of convenience.
After analysis, the tribunal found that the harm alleged by the employer exceeded mere relational discomfort and amounted to a real infringement of psychological integrity, likely to have concrete consequences on the health or career of the individuals concerned.
Conversely, the harm claimed by the union was deemed hypothetical and insufficient to justify an exceptional measure.
The tribunal therefore granted the employer’s application and ordered the union and its executive committee to immediately cease any act likely to infringe on the psychological integrity of the affected managers until the final decision on the merits.
An Important Acknowledgment
This order serves as a clear reminder that the protection of psychological health is not unidirectional. Managers and employer representatives also have the right to a healthy work environment free from vexatious conduct.
In a context where the relative immunity afforded to union representatives often limits the use of traditional disciplinary measures, and where some union actors are not employees of the employer, this decision highlights a strategic lever that is often underused.
Arbitration recourse and safeguard measures can serve as preventive tools to stop the escalation of a toxic climate and preserve the integrity of the individuals involved, without waiting for the outcome of the main dispute.
A Call for Proactivity
The main lesson extends beyond this specific case. Employers must recognize that they not only have the right but also the obligation to protect the psychological health of their managers.
This involves notably the need to:
- rigorously document problematic behaviours;
- intervene promptly through appropriate mechanisms;
- use available recourses when acceptable limits are exceeded;
- avoid normalizing hostile conduct under the pretext of the inherently conflictual nature of labour relations.
Waiting for the situation to deteriorate may lead to human and organizational consequences that are difficult to remedy.
Conclusion
This decision reaffirms that labour relations cannot tolerate union engagement being used as a pretext for behaviours that infringe on someone else’s psychological integrity.
Legal mechanisms exist to restore balance when traditional tools are no longer sufficient. Employers must still have the resolve to use them.
Protecting one’s representatives is not a defensive posture. It is an essential component of responsible governance and a healthy work environment.
Drummondville (Ville) c. Syndicat de la fonction publique, section locale 5223, 2026 CanLII 5000 (QC SAT)
