On January 14, 2026, Me Amal Garzouzi, arbitrator, replied to the following question: <Does the collective agreement require the employer to notify the union when an employee is terminated during a probationary period? >
The Syndicat des employés du CISSSMO — CUPE 3247 had argued that, under the collective agreement, the employer has an obligation to inform the union when an employee is dismissed, even if the employee has not completed the probationary period.
According to the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest, since the employee on probation does not have access to the grievance procedure in the event of dismissal, the employer would not be required to inform the union.
Arbitrator Garzouzi concluded that the collective agreement is clear and that there is no room for interpretation. He ruled in favour of the union and “ordered the employer to notify the union, within thirty (30) days of this decision, of any termination of employment of an employee during a probationary period, in accordance with the obligations stipulated in the collective agreement.”
This decision confirms that the union has a duty of care in the event of a dismissal, under the collective agreement and sections 47.2 and 47.3 of the Labour Code. Clauses 4.09 to 4.13 of the collective agreement for public sector health and social services workers unionized with CUPE allow the union to fulfill its obligations.
It would be risky to rely solely on the employer’s word to conclude that dismissals during probation meet the required criteria, without the union being able to verify compliance.
Moreover, Arbitrator Garzouzi clearly states this in his decision:
- The employer’s failure could have deprived the union of the opportunity to advise the employee or to verify whether the calculation of the probation period complied with local provisions.
- The employer recognizes that, in cases of abuse, bad faith or discrimination, a tribunal may intervene. However, the union must be informed in order to advise the employee, in particular by verifying whether he or she was still on probation. This information is inseparable from the role of union representation enshrined in the collective agreement.
And as if by chance, we learned on February 2, 2026, via the TVA News site, that a decision by the Arbitration Tribunal dated September 19, 2025 obliges the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux (CISSS) de la Montérégie-Ouest to reinstate Nathalie in her job, since she was “the victim of an injustice.” In this decision of September 19, 2025, Arbitrator Jean-René Ranger concluded that the dismissal was discriminatory and illegal. It ordered the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest to reinstate the worker with full compensation, even though she was on probation.
In addition, there may be disputes regarding the interpretation and calculation of the probationary period. In the past, the Syndicat des employés du CISSSMO—CUPE 3247 has had to file two cases in arbitration over the length of the probation period. In both cases, the union won.
In closing, it is important to consider the end of probation periods as dismissals, even if workers’ rights are limited to contest them. Thanks to this decision, the union will be able to fully exercise its role of representation without the risk of missing problematic situations.