Clear Language Trumps Fairness When Interpreting Multiple Collective Agreements
A 7 year battle over a day of paid personal leave has finally reached a conclusion.
The dispute centred around the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement governing a unionized employee of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The employee, during the span of one fiscal year, moved from one position within the Agency to another. Each position was in a different bargaining unit with its own collective agreement. Each collective agreement entitled workers to one paid personal day per fiscal year. The employee took a personal day under each agreement (in the same year). The Agency refused to pay the second day.
The CRA took the position that the paid leave entitlements were Agency-wide and not specific to each contract and each bargaining unit. To allow an employee to take more than one paid day of leave “leads to an unfair result and defies the values and principles of equity, integrity and efficiency…” the CRA contended.
For her part, the employee argued that a plain and ordinary reading of the collective agreement entitled her to a paid personal day, regardless of whether or not she had taken one under another contract. The Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSRLB) agreed and granted her a day’s pay.
After a successful appeal to the Federal Court by CRA which quashed the PSLRB’s decision, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed that decision, reaffirming the right of the employee to be paid the second day. Fairness was not at play where the collective agreement was unambiguous. The FCA held that:
[24] [a]ny perceived unfairness or inequity resulting from the application of the collective agreement [as he interpreted it] should be resolved at the bargaining table.
Employers dealing with multiple collective agreements should take note – it pays to think about the potential interaction between those collective agreements and issues that may arise as employees move within an organization.
Presumably fighting so long and so hard about such a matter makes sense only for an employer with a LOT of employees.
The decision seems OK to me. Under its reasoning, an employee moving from a bargaining unit whose agreement gave a personal day to a unit without a personal day would lose the day if he/she had not used it before the move. So it cuts both ways.
For me, the “spirit” of the provision is to provide a yearly benefit, so while I agree that the interpretation given is reasonable… it’s unfair to the employer and other employees.
Good point Gabriel. Sometimes what is reasonable is unfair and sometimes what is unfair is reasonable. But it is a rare interpretation that two collective apply to the same person at the same time. That is the fundamental issue here. Unless of course you are in favor of or promoting One Big Union – Wobblies resurrected. But the real issue is that the employer wanted the sole right to determine the application of the “benefit”. The employer gave that right up with third recognition by the state of the collective bargaining relationship. As John points out — deep pockets indeed.
I agree entirely Ginger. As far as “one big union”.. well… I’d be opposed.