In a recent article, an Ontario labour arbitrator upheld the dismissal of a long-serving millwright at Maple Leaf Foods Inc. after finding that he breached a binding Last Chance Agreement (LCA) in multiple ways. The decision highlights the enforceability of LCAs and the limitations they place on arbitrators when a breach is proven.
The Terms of the Last Chance Agreement
The grievor, identified as J.W., had been employed for 19 years at Maple Leaf’s Mississauga facility. After a prior disciplinary issue involving time theft, J.W. was reinstated in 2019 under a Last Chance Agreement. The LCA imposed strict conditions, stating that any future infractions—including time theft or failure to comply with company policies—would result in immediate termination. The agreement also limited the arbitrator’s authority, preventing them from substituting a lesser penalty if a breach was found.
February 2020: A Critical Overtime Shift
J.W.’s termination stemmed from his conduct during a 12-hour overtime shift on February 22, 2020. The employer alleged three breaches of the LCA:
- Time Theft: J.W. allegedly spent approximately eight hours away from his assigned duties.
- Safety Violation: He failed to follow mandatory lock-out/tag-out procedures while performing repairs.
- Hygiene Breach: He entered food production areas without washing his hands, contrary to good manufacturing practices.
Video evidence and a subsequent interview supported these claims. As a result, Maple Leaf Foods issued a termination letter on March 10, 2020, citing the violations and the binding terms of the LCA.
Disputes Over Evidence and Policy Enforcement
J.W. denied the allegations, claiming that he worked diligently during the shift and that the video footage didn’t capture all relevant areas. He also suggested that the lock-out procedure was often ignored with management’s tacit approval and argued that handwashing was not necessary for the type of repair he was performing.
However, the arbitrator found J.W.’s explanations unconvincing. Surveillance footage contradicted his claims, showing prolonged absences from his work area. He also acknowledged knowing the lock-out policy and had received training, making his excuses implausible. Similarly, the hygiene protocol was not optional, especially in a food processing facility.
No Room for Leniency Under the LCA
The arbitrator stressed that the case did not require a full just cause analysis. The terms of the LCA were clear—if a breach was found, the penalty was automatic termination. Credibility concerns further weakened the grievor’s defence, and all three breaches were proven on a balance of probabilities.
Because the LCA removed discretion from the arbitrator, there was no opportunity to mitigate the penalty. The grievance was therefore dismissed.
Kent Employment Law’s Insights and Key Takeaway
This case underscores the seriousness of Last Chance Agreements and how they operate as a final opportunity for employees with a history of disciplinary issues. From an employer’s perspective, LCAs can be a powerful tool to manage workplace risk and demonstrate progressive discipline before termination. However, they must be carefully drafted to be enforceable.
For employees, agreeing to an LCA means accepting stricter accountability and understanding that future breaches—no matter how small—may result in termination with little recourse. Before signing any such agreement, it’s essential to seek legal advice to fully understand your rights and the potential consequences.
If you have questions about Last Chance Agreements or workplace discipline, our team at Kent Employment Law is here to help. Reach out for guidance on navigating these complex employment issues.
For more, see Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 175, 2025 CanLII 29918 (ON LA).
