Toronto Western Hospital is at the centre of a bizarre “cash-for-jobs” scandal in which prospective employees were apparently forced to pay up to $2,000 to land a part-time housekeeping position — in a scheme allegedly co-ordinated by the department’s manager and chief union steward.

The claims were outlined in a recent decision by labour arbitrator Paula Knopf, who ruled that a union grievance demanding a third-party investigation into the “unusual set of allegations” could proceed, after the hospital tried to quash the complaint.

The arbitration hearing did not make any findings about the credibility of the allegations, but was intended solely to decide whether the grievance could move forward.

While the existence of a cash-for-jobs scheme doesn’t appear to be in dispute, the hospital and the union representing department staff, CUPE Local 5001, are now clashing over the details of who was involved and what to do about it.

The complaints date to 2015, when several workers say they paid their chief steward, identified only as “J.L.,” between $1,500 and $2,000 in exchange for a promise to be interviewed for part-time cleaning positions with a starting wage of about $21 an hour. The steward also provided them with interview questions in advance. The employees said they were told by the manager’s assistant that they would be offered the positions, and they were subsequently hired.

J.L. was terminated this year after the hospital conducted an internal investigation into the affair.

“You (have) been identified as the individual who had offered your services as a procurer of jobs at UHN for a fee,” says his termination letter, which is cited in the arbitration decision.

“It is the hospital’s position that you have engaged in unethical and illegal behaviour using your influence and knowledge of hospital procedures to co-ordinate the hiring of several individuals.”

Alexa Giorgi, a spokesperson for Toronto Western, which is part of the University Health Network, told the Star in an emailed statement the organization did not comment on matters before arbitration.

According to the arbitration decision, a former hospital employee identified as B.L., is expected to testify in future proceedings that she paid the steward $1,000 before receiving an interview and $1,000 after receiving a job offer from the manager’s assistant. The employee claims at one point she got into an argument with J.L. and threatened to expose the scheme. She was terminated shortly thereafter for “unusual and unauthorized activity.”

The ruling says B.L. will allege that her signature was forged on an ensuing memorandum claiming that all matters related to her termination were settled and that she would receive a reference letter. The employee is also expected to say she had to pay a further $100 to the chief steward to receive a reference letter from the manager, who is identified as M.B.

While the union’s grievance doesn’t dispute the former chief steward’s involvement, it claims that he was co-ordinating the scheme with M.B., noting that the steward had “no authority to hire and had no legitimate input into hiring decisions.”

Although M.B. was interrogated as part of the hospital’s investigation, the hospital said there were no notes from its interview with her, according to the ruling. M.B. denied any involvement or wrongdoing, and as a result her employer “decided that nothing implicated (her) in the allegations.”

“While the employer does not challenge the legitimacy of the union’s concerns, the hospital asserts that its investigation and the termination of J.L. have resulted in there being ‘no more mischief left to remedy,’” the arbitration ruling reads.

In addition to an independent investigation, CUPE’s grievance is asking the hospital to reimburse workers who had to pay to secure their jobs, and to ensure union members will not have to deal with any managers who were involved in the scheme.

“CUPE wants to protect the integrity of the job hiring process at UHN,” said Wassim Garzouzi, a lawyer with Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, which is representing CUPE. “The purpose of the third-party investigation is to ensure that all persons involved are identified, held accountable and that going forward, meaningful changes are introduced to eliminate these practices.”

The hospital argued that the grievance should not be allowed because the workers were not yet employees with union coverage when they paid the cash.

That argument was slapped down by Knopf, who said if all the allegations are proven, they could have created a “vulnerability and ongoing jeopardy” for anyone who secured a job through the scheme, hindering their ability to fully exercise their workplace rights.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Demanding money in return for a job is essentially an extortion scheme that affects both the payor and the payee,” she noted.

“Since these are all issues that affect the whole of the bargaining unit and the rights of the union, this is properly before me as a policy grievance.”

The next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 23.