Back to Article:

Arbitrator strikes down company’s imposition of mandatory generics

Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments that are thought to be disrespectful or offensive may be removed by our Benefits Canada admins. Thanks!

* These fields are required.
Field required
Field required
Field required

Denis Garand:

That is a very unfortunate decision. Generic equivalents are the same molecules as Brand name the only difference is the filler. It is possible some individuals react to the filler so what was proposed was sensible.

There has to be more education that moving to generics from Brand name does not take anything away. Buying Brand names is throwing money away.

Tuesday, September 26 at 11:55 am | Reply

Joe Nunes:

Denis, I am not sure the ruling is unfortunate. The union negotiated coverage for prescription drugs and the arbitrator just ruled on what was negotiated.

There may be good reasons for the employer and union to negotiate generic substitution and the collective bargaining process allows both sides the opportunity to explore the option.

Tuesday, September 26 at 1:33 pm | Reply


Yes, and a generic drug is a “prescription drug”, so I don’t see how the employer was in contravention of the CA. A greater concern is having an unsustainable benefit plan. That is the underlying issue and certainly ‘generic substitution’ should be an item high on the list for negotiation via the collective bargaining process. With education, this shouldn’t be a hard sell.

Tuesday, September 26 at 5:46 pm | Reply

Mike Duggan:

Dennis is right and Joe is right and the judge is right. The union bargained for one thing and the company changed it to another. That will be bargained at the next negotiations. And as I’ve learned personally, the “only difference is the filler” with Generics is not always accurate. Doctors prescribe by habit; pharmacists are the experts on the actual drugs, both name brand and generic.

Tuesday, October 03 at 11:10 am | Reply

Join us on Twitter