Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association

Significant organizational change is rarely quiet, whether in the public or private sector. However, a key characteristic of organizational change in the municipal context is that, no matter the reason for it—budget constraints due to economic disruption, the need for service modernization, or changing political direction—change unfolds under multiple layers of scrutiny, including from employees, unions, council, and the public. As a result, in addition to being a significant operational undertaking, change in the municipal context is a legal and reputational risk event that requires HR to lead accordingly.

Collective Agreement Terms Can Make or Break a Change Exercise

Restructuring decisions frequently begin with a desired future state. The legal analysis often comes later. In a unionized municipal environment, that sequence invites grievances.

Before finalizing any structural change, HR should conduct a disciplined review of the collective agreement: management rights, job posting requirements, layoff and bumping provisions, and any language governing contracting out or technological change. These provisions will be key in determining what is possible.

For example, eliminating a role and informally assigning its duties to another employee may appear efficient. However, if those duties fall within a bargaining unit and are not properly posted, or if they end up outside of the bargaining unit, the municipality may face a successful grievance and be required to unwind the decision.

Additionally, a defining feature of the municipal context is that a lot of decision-making is public. Often, when collective bargaining is looming (or underway), unions are watching public council meetings, and seeing decisions that will be relevant to the employer’s position made in real time. In practice, this means that some negotiation tools available to unionized employers are limited in the municipal context—the employer may have a view on how something should be operationalized, but the union and bargaining unit may already have their own opinion and interpretation before the employer has even advanced a proposal.

Decision Fairness Is Highly Scrutinized

Because municipal employers operate in a context of heightened accountability and public scrutiny, the importance of procedural fairness in decision making is paramount.

Selection criteria for new roles must be clear, consistently applied, and documented. Decision-making processes must be structured and defensible. Informal or inconsistent approaches will likely create both labour relations risk and reputational exposure, particularly where multiple candidates are affected.

Human Rights Obligations Do Not Pause During Change

Restructuring also often heightens the risk of claims that the municipality has acted in a way that violates its obligations as an employer under the Human Rights Code.

Decisions about role elimination, selection for new positions, or layoffs must be assessed for adverse impact on Code-protected groups. This includes considering whether employees requiring accommodation are disproportionately affected.

A common pitfall is the elimination of modified or accommodated roles without assessing whether accommodation can continue in the new structure. The duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship persists even where the organization is changing, and circumstances must be assessed on a case by case basis, rather than attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all approach.

Change Can Unearth or Cause Psychological Safety Concerns

Organizational change is a predictable flashpoint for workplace conflict. Uncertainty can lead to increased complaints, including allegations of harassment. The manner in which change is communicated and implemented can directly influence whether issues escalate into complaints and trigger the need for investigations.

HR plays a critical role in setting expectations for leadership conduct during periods of uncertainty and ensuring that managers are equipped to address concerns promptly and appropriately.

Communication Is a Legal Tool

Clear, timely, and consistent communication can significantly reduce grievances and complaints in the midst of organizational change. Employees are more likely to challenge decisions when they perceive them as opaque or arbitrary.

At the same time, messaging must be aligned with the municipality’s legal position. Premature commitments, inconsistent explanations, or overly informal messaging can undermine defensibility. Coordination between HR, legal, and senior leadership is essential.

HR is the Architect of Defensible Change

Municipal restructuring will always involve disruption. The goal is not to eliminate that disruption, but to manage it in a way that is legally sound and publicly defensible.

HR’s role is to bring structure to change: grounding decisions in the collective agreement, stress-testing them against human rights and employment standards obligations, and ensuring that the process reflects fairness and consistency.

When HR leads with these considerations, organizational change can withstand scrutiny, whether from employees, unions, politicians, legal decision-makers, or the public.

Written by: Aleksandra Pressey, Partner, Williams HR Law LLP