HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-0124.Cameron.78- -_
124/77
-..
CROWN EMPLOYEES :~ 426/W 0688
‘GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
BOARD
Suite 2100.
1'80 Dundas Street West
TORONTO, Ontario
M5G 128
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
Between:
Before:
Far the Grievor:
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. Ralph Cameron
And
(Grievor)
Ministry of Correctional Services
(Employer)
George W. Adams -
Mr. V. P. Harris -
yh&an
Mr. Dan Anderson - Member .
Ms. .Lillian Stevens
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
1901 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
For the Employer:
Ms. Dianne Nagel
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Staff Relations Branch
Civil Service Consnission
Hearing:
March 23, 1978
Suite 2100, 180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario
.
-2-
In this case the parties have agreed the issues before the
Board are:
Does the collective agreement require that the
employer pay:
(2) a shift premium under Article 11 for the same
hours of work for which an overtime premium
is payable under Article 13,
and
(b) a shift premium under Article 4 for the same
hours of work for which a statutory holiday
premium is payable under Article 19?
The relevant provisions of the collective agreement for the
purposes of this grievance are:
ARTICLE 10 - SHIFT SCHEDULES J
10.1 Shift schedules shall be posted not less
than fifteen (15) days in advance and there
shall be no change in the schedule after it
has been posted unless notice is given to the employee
seventy4wo (72)' hours in advance of the starting time of
the shift as originally scheduled. If the employee con-
cerned is not notified seventy-M (72) hours in advance
he shall be paid time and one-half (l*) for the first -
eight (8) hours worked on the changed shift provided that
no premium shall be paid where the change of schedule is
caused by events beyond the Ministry's control.
10.2 Every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid
scheduling the commencement of a shift within
twelve (12) hours of the completion of the employee's pre-
vious shift provided however, that if an employee is required
~to work before twelve (12) hours have elapsed he shall be
paid time and one-half (1%) for those hours that fall within
the twelve (12) hour period.
10.3 A shift may be changed without any premium or
penalty if agreed upon between the employee
and the Ministry.
10.4 It is the intent of the parties that there shall be
no split shifts provided however, that in circum-
stances where split shifts are currently in existence reasonable
efforts shall be made to eliminate the.split shifts.
10.5 The current practice of giving notice of shift
schedules in advance under existing agreements
where notice is in excess of fifteen (15) days shall be main-
tained.
I
-3-
ARTICLE 11 - SHIFT PREMIUM
11.1 An employee shall receive a shift premium of six-
teen cents (16C) per hour for all hours wvrked
between five (5:OO) p.m. and seven (7:OO) a.m. Where more
than fifty percent (50%) of the hours fall within this period
the premium shall be paid for all hours worked.
11.2 Shift premiums shall not be considered as part of
an employee's basic hourly rate.
11.3 Shift premium shall not be paid to an employee
who for mutually agreed upon reasons works a
shift for which he would otherwise be entitled to a shift pre-
mium.
ARTICLE 13 - OVERTIME
13.1 The overtime rate for the purposes of this Agree-
ment shall be one and one-half (1%) times the
employee's basic hourly rate.
13.2 In this Article, "overtime" means an authorized
period of work calculated to the nearest half
hour and peTformed on a scheduled working day in addition to
the regular working period. or performed on a scheduled day(s)
off.
13.3.1 Employees in Schedules 3.7 and 4.7 who perform
authorized work in excess of seven and one-
quarter (7&l hours or eight (8) hours as applicable, shall be
paid at the overtime rate. .
13.3.2 Overtime shall be paid within two months of the
pay period witbin which the overtime was ec-
tually worked:
13.4 Employees in Schedules 3 and 4 who perform auth-
orized work in excess of seven and 'one-quarter
(7%) hours or eight (8) hours as applicable, shall receive
compensating leave of one and one-half (1%) hours for each
hour of overtime worked, at a time mutually agreed upon.
Failing agreement, the Ministry shall reasonably determine
the time of the compensating leave.
13.5 Where there is mutual agreement, employees may
receive compensating leave in lieu of pay at the
overtime rate or may receive pay at the overtime rate in lieu of
compensating leave.
13.6 Compensating leave accumulated in a calendar year
w&ich is not used before March 31 of the follow-
ing year, shall be paid at the rate it was earned.
-4-
ARTICLE 14 - CALL BACK
14.1 An employee who leaves his place of work and is
subsequently called back to work prior to the
starting time of his next scheduled shift shall be paid a mini-
mum of four (4) hours pay at time and one-half (l*) his basic
hourly rate.
ARTICZE 19 - HOLIDAY PAYMENT
19.1 where an employee works on a holiday included
under Article 9 of the Employee Benefits Agree-
ment, he shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1%)
for all hours worked with a minimum credit of seven and one
quarter 17-b) or eight (8) hours, as applicable.
19.2 In addition to the payment provided by section
19.1, an employee shall receive either seven and
one-quarter (7%) or eight (8) hours pay as applicable at his
basic hourly rate or compensating leave of seven and one-
quarter (7%) or eight (8) hoursas applicable, provided the
eiployee opts for'compensating leave prior to the holiday.
19.3 When a holiday ,included under Article 9 of the
Employee Benefits Agreement coincides with an
employee's scheduled day off and he does not work on that
day, the employee shall beg entitled to receive another day off.
19.4 Any compensating leave accumulated under sec-
tions 19.2 and 19.3 may be taken off at a time
mutually agreed upon. Failing agreement, such time off may be
taken in conjunction with the employee's vacation leave or
regular day(s) off. -
19.5 Any compensating leave accumulated under sec-
tions 19.2 and 19.3 in a calendar year which is
not used befdre March 31 of the following year, shall be paid
at the basic hourly rate.
19.6 Notwithstanding anything in Article 19, em-
ployees who are in classifications assigned to
Schedule 6, who are required to work on their day off or on a
holiday included in Article 9 of the Employee Benefits Agree-
ment, shall receive equivalent time off.
ARTICLE 21 - NON-PYRAMIDING OF PREMIUM PAYMENTS
21.1 There shall be no duplication or pyramiding of
any premium payments or compensating leave
provided by this Agreement.
As we understand the facts giving rise to this grievance Mr.
Cameron worked both overtime hours and on one or more holidays between the hours of
II
tc -5-
five (5:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. It would appear that the over-
time was sometimes worked in the form of a full additional shift, which
in Mr. Cameron's situation means either 8 or 12 hours, and at other
times for a period of hours amounting to less than a full shift. During
the months of July and August 1977 work was scheduled around three shifts
(7:OO a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; 3:OO p.m. to 11:OO p.m.; and 11:OO p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
But in accordance with variations permitted by the collective agreement
Mr. Cameron was in fact working four twelve hour shifts each week followed
by four days off. Accordingly,if he commenced work at 7:00 a.m. he received
twelve hours at straight time with the last two hours that fall after 5:OO p.m.
attracting an additional 16& in accordance with Article 11. However when he
was assigned overtime work in addition to these hours on any particular day,
and such additional hours fell between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00.a.m.,
he was paid time and one-half for these hours but not the additional 166 per
hour under Article 11.
The Board was not told the number hours Mr. Cameron worked on the
holiday or holidays during the period in question. But for the purposes
.
of this grievance we will assume that the assigned work was also either in
the form of a complete shift or in lesser hourly amounts.
The union argued that the purpose of a shift premium is to compen-
sate an employee who works hours that are inconvenient and that interfere
with his living arrangements. Under this collective agrdement such hours
are designated as those between 5:OO p.m. and 7:OO a.m. It was further
submitted that the purpose of overtime is intended to discourage the employer
from scheduling work for an employee beyond the regular hours of work and in
addition to compensate him for long hours. In this regard the decision in
‘I
:? -6-
Re texaco Canada Ltd. and Oil, Chemical ~& 'dtomic Workers, 'Local .9-599
(1975), 10 L.d.c. (2d) 221 (Shine) was relied on. Accordingly, the
union submitted that because the purposes~of these two kinds of "premium"
pay were distinct their concurrent payment could not constitute a
"duplication or pyramiding" of premium payments within the meaning of
Article 21. .The same argument, was made for the concurrent payment of
shift premium and holiday pay.
The employer argued that the payment of shift Premiums in
addition to either overtime or holiday pay constitutes a duplication or
pyramiding of premium payment which is clearly prohibited by Article 21.
For the proposition that a duplication of premium payments would result
if the grievance was upheld,the employer, relied upon Re Retail, Wholesale
6 Department Store union , Local 440 and dult Milk Products Ltd. (1962) 12
L.A.C. 279 (Anderson], Re Bakery and Conf&tionery Workers, Local 403 and
Trent Valley Bakeries (1966)‘ 17 L.A.C. 380 (Curtis); Re Allied Construction
Council and Hydra Electrio Power Comission of Ontario (1966) 18 L.A.C. 43
Ufanrahan); Re U.A.W. and Gardner-Denver Co. (Canada) Ltd. (19681, 19 L.A.C. -
409 (Palmer). Re International Chemical Workers, Local 32 and Lever Deter-
gents Ltd. (1972), 24 A.A.C. 396 (Brown).
Alternatively, it was argued that the scheduled overtime did
not constitute a "shift" within the meaning of Article 11 and therefore
could not attract "shift" premium pursuant to that provision. Moreover
it was submitted that any reference to "shift" in the agreement is a
reference to a regularly scheduled shift and thus the assignment of
work on a holiday in the form of a shift could not attract a shift
premium under Article 11. In addition, it was submitted that Article
:.’ -7-
19 amounted to a complete description of the monies or compensating
leave owing for work on a holiday and it contained no reference to
shift premium.payments.
DECISION
The resolution of this grievance, to a very great extent, is
dependent upon the meaning of Article 21 which is entitled "non-Pyramiding I
of Premium Payment." Unfortunately the suggested interpretation of
either party has merit because those who drafted this clause saw fit to
rely on terms the natural meanings of which are not precise. When is a
premium payment duplicated? Does this mean the double payment of the
same or a similar premium; or is it the payment of more than one premium
for the same hours; or is it a reference to the multiple payment of monies
over and above an employee's basic wage rate arising out of a ,single
situation? Indeed the provision raises a question as to just what is
meant by the term ~"premium payment" in that the only reference to the
term "premium" is found in Article 11. And since dictionary definitions
are of little assistance to us it is therefore necessary to have recourse
to the arbitral jurisprudence in an attempt to gain some greater insight
into the precise problem the parties had in mind when drafting this
provision. Collective agreements are drawn up against a background of
reported decisions and where terms of art have been relied upon (and the
term "pyramid" clearly falls into this category) which have a meaning
in this jurisprudence, it is reasonable to assume the parties intended
this result. The question therefore becomes whether the jurisprudence
provides a specific meaning for the terms relied upon in Article 21?
-a-
IIl Re dllied Construction Council and H.E.P.C. of Ontario
(1961), 12 L.A.C. 105 (Donley) the.question arose whether employees
were entitled to both overtime pay and shift premium when required to work
overtime extending beyond the normal working hours of a shift for
which a shift premium was paid. In holding that both payments were
required the majority of the board of arbitration reviewed the different
purpose of each premium and concluded that that payment of each would
not result in the employee being paid twice for the same hours.
Its reasoning in this regard was as follows:
It would seem to me that a regular shift which is
worked by a man who is allotted thereto, is his normal
working hours, and, that if he is assigned to a regular
shift for which a shift premium is paid, that those are
his normal working hours. Presuming that these are his
normal working hours, or that this is his normal regular
working period, then if he is required to work in excess
of the number of hours for which he would be required to
work during his normal working period, the excessive hours :
would constitute overtime, and such overtime, in my opinion,
would be overtime of his normal working hours, which would
be the shift hours, upon which the said shift premium
would be paid, and he would, therefore, in my opinion,
be entitled not only to the shift premium, but he would
also be entitled to the overtime based upon the standard . day rate as the overtime is the extension of his shift,
and he would be entitled to be paid therefor.
An employee'on a second shift which carries a shift
differential is entitled to that differential on all
hours worked on the shift, hours which are in the control
of the Commission. If he is kept on the shift for such
number of hours as also involve the Commission in over-
time premium, he does not lose the shift premium simply
because overtime also becomes applicable. The reasons
why shift premiums and overtime are paid are not the
same. Shift premium is paid because an employee is work-
ing on a cycle of hours which are regarded es abnormal.
overtime is paid for working beyond a normal span of
regularly prescribed hours, whether the regular prescrip-
tion be on a day ahift or a night shift. The employee iS
not being paid twice for the same hours; he is being paid
separately for his abnormal shift service, and separately
for being kept on his shift beyond the normal span. The
shift premium and overtime premium have their individual.
justifications, and it would require an express negation
to justify the Connnission in withholding what the agree-
ment so plainly grants.
5
- 9 -
To say that there is nothing in the agreement that would
give any other meaning to the words "overtime" and shift
differential", than the commonly understood meanings as set
out in the Hydro-Electric Power Commission award heretofore
mentioned, would be to narrow the definition to a degree
that would be unreasonable, particularly in the light of
the words of the concluding paragraph of art. 1 - "when
night work or other shift work is involved etc." Gmpbasis>
It is true that a shift differential is applicable only
when an employee is required on shift work, but if an
employee is required to work an extension of that shift work,
then he is working overtime on that shift, and as stated
above, he is not only entitled to the overtime rate,
but he is also entitled to the shift differential.
This case then, while not using the terms "duplication" or
"pyramiding", concluded that the payment of both a shift premium and
overtime does not result in an employee being paid twice for the same
hours and in coming to this conclusion it relied upon its understanding
of the distinct purposes of each form of payment.
Ill Re Retail;Wholesale & Department Store Union, Local 440
and Ault Milk Products Ltd. (1962) 12 L.A.C. 279 (Anderson) the grieVOr
worked seven days including a Sunday and eight hours each day. The col- .
lective agreement provided for time and oneehalf for all hours worked in
excess of forty-eight each week and the same provis.ion provided that all
time worked on Sunday was to be paid at time and one-half the employee's
regular rate of pay. On behalf of the grievor it was contended that
he should be paid times and one-half for all hours worked in excess of
forty-eight and that, in addition, he should be paid at time and.~one-
half for the work he performed on Sunday. In dismissing the grievance
the Board of Arbitration had the following to say.
If the union's submission were to be accepted, then if an
employee started to work on Monday and worked eight hours
each day for Seven consecutive days, he would then require
to be paid for the Sunday work at the rate of one and one-
half times his regular rate of pay for the work performed
- 10 -
:
on Sunday as set out in art. 13(3), and in addition ~to that
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the eight
hours work done on Sunday by reason of the fact that be had
worked eight hours in excess of the 48 hours within the week.
This would in effect mean that for the work performed on
Sunday be would be receiving double time his regular rate, and
it seems to the board that if overtime rates are to be
pyramided in this fashion the contract must make it
abundantly clear: or in other words, the contract must
provide that the one and one-half times the regular rate
paid for Sunday work is a premium rate and does not affect
the calculation of overtime for work performed in the week
in excess of 48 hours. Nowhere in art. 13 is this made clear.
It might be argued that if the contract is to be inter-
preted that work performed on the seventh day is not .to
be used in deciding whether an employee works in excess
of 48 hours in each week that the effect of this is that
the seventh day, which is normally the employee's day off
when the contract provides for a regular work week of six
days, will be paid for at straight time, and that this is the
interpretation which should not be placed upon the contract.
This might be so if it were not for the fact that when work
is performed consecutively in any seven days, one of them
must be Sunday, and the contract provides that all work
performed on Sunday will be paid for at one and one-half
times the employee's regular rate of pay.
~. :.a’)
If a contract is open to two interpretations and one
interpretation involves the pyramiding of overtime and the
other interpretation does not.involve pyramiding of overtime,
the board of arbitration, in the absence of specific wording
in the contract should accept the interpretation which does not
provide for the additional penalty payments by reason of pyramid-
ing overtime.
Here we have the term "pyramid" being used but the fact situation
is quite different from the facts at hand. In A&t Mflk~ the board seemed
concerned about a time and one-half premium payment being paid twice for
what it feared would be the same 8 hours (assuming that those hours
in addition to the forty-eight fell on the Sunday). Moreover, and
this was probably because the provision in question was entitled "Hours
of Work and Overtime", the board characterized the Sunday premium as an
"overtime" premium and thus went on todevelop a rule of construction against
-
- 11 -
"the pyramiding of overtime." In the facts at hand we are not con-
fronted with the duplication or pyramiding of overtime but rather the
payment of a shift premium along with either overtime or holiday pay.
However we would note that if the purposive approach fol-
lowed in the H.E.P.C. case (~onley) had, been applied, the Ault Milk charact-
ization need not have been inevitable. For example it might be argued
that time and one-half for all Sunday work is to penalize an employer
for scheduling work on this particular day regardless of how many hours
an employee has worked on the day, whereas overtime pay is to penalize
the employer for scheduling more than forty-eight hours of work in a week
no matterijhat day the overtime occurs on. Moreover under that particular
agreement the work week could have commenced on any day of the week so that
the hours worked after forty-eight need not have been the hours the employee
worked on Sunday. Thus it might have been argued that the purpose of
Sunday premium pay being quite distinct from that of weekly overtime pay,,
the parties must have intended the employer to pay both penalties when
both purposes were contravened. But 'this approach was not foliowed, The
arbitrator was obviously concerned with the possibility of time and one-
half being paid on time and one-half with the result that in some situations
an employee might be~able to claim more than twice his normal wage rate
for a Sunday. In the arbitrator's opinion such a result would be so
unusual that the parties would have specifical,ly addressed the issue
had they so intended. Thus where the'form of premium was very similar
and the monetary result most unusual, the board of arbitration
concluded that a duplication or pyramiding of
- 12 -
premium payments was involved and that an agreement should be construed
against such a result unless the parties have clearly provided otherwise.
A similar issue arose in me ~aksry and,Confectionery workers,
meal 403 and Trent valley Bakeries (1966), 17 L.A.C. 380 although the
collective agreement in that case provided that, while Sunday work would
be paid for at time and one-half, "no other premium except the normal
shift premium shall apply over and above the one and one-half times."
Thus in dismissing the grievance the arbitrator relied on this parti-
cular provision in addition to the rationale applied in Ault Milk Products.
The:relationship between shift premiums and overtime againarose
in Re Allied Construction Council and Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario (1966); 18 L.A.C. 43 (&~~ahan) and the board of arbitration dis-
~missed a claim that both premiums should be paid. In coming to that
conclusion the board was of the view that a "shift" premium was paid for
inconvenient hours regularly worked on a shift and that "overtime,"
being extra working time, was not referable to any particular shift.
From ~this viewpoint the board formed a clear line separating regular
periods of work and the hours of work that follow, causing it to con-
clude that "{for those extra hours another type of premium pay <had>
been negotiated." Accordingly it held that ' 'never the twain shall
meet' unless the parties declare such on intention." The purpose of
shift premiums and overtime developed in this case then are in complete
OppOSitiOn to those expressed in Re Allied Construction Council land
H.E.P.C. of Ontario (1961) 12 L.A.C. 105 (Donely). In Arbitrator
Hanrahan's opinion a shift premium is paid on those hours regularly
.
7
- 13 -
worked at less desirable times during a day. And in his view the word
"shift", connoting "that portion of the day ordinarily scheduled as a
day's work," demonstrated a contractual intention to confine the premium
to those hours. On the other hand henoted that "overtime" is applicable
to any shift and for such extra hours the parties have negotiated a
different type of premium pay i.e. time and one-half.
However irl Re Printing Specialties and Paper Producti union,
Local 466, and Canada Foils Ltd. (1968)~, 19 L.A.C. 181 (O’Shea) the
grievor and two other employees worked on a continuous three-shift
basis but because one of the three was absent, the grievor and the other
. ..~..
operator each worked a continuous 12-hour shift rather than their
regular &hour shift. The collective agreement defined the "Day Shift"
as being from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and the "Afternoon Shift" as being
from 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The agreement also provided that employees
on afternoon and night shifts were to be paid a premium over the rate
..' paid when working on the~day shift. However the company took the posi-
tion.that the shift premium was not to be paid on overtime hours worked
as an extension of any regular shift and paid the grievor only overtime
for those hours in excess of his regular working hours. In upholding
the grievances the note indicates the arbitrator was of the opinion that
shift premiums and overtime serve different purposes ,and that they therefore
should be applied independently. However it appears he also went 6n to
find that the grievor had been working a portion of the afternoon shift,
replacing the absent employee, and thus it could be argued that the
grievor was not merely working an extension of his regular shift but
rather was replacing another employee on the afternoon shift. Thus both
provisions were triggered.
- 14 -
IIl Re United Automobile Workers and Gardner - Denver Co. (Canada)
Ltd. 11968). 19 L.A.C. 409 (Palmer), - additional eight hour shifts were
scheduled by the company during the hours of the normal afternoon shift
but on a day during which an afternoon shift was not usually scheduled.
In dismissing the grievance the arbitrator noted both that "the weight of
authority" was against the view of ~onley C.C.J. in me H.E.P.C. of Ont.
and that the shift premium was payable specifically for "the afternoon
shift" and the hours in question were overtime hours, not part of that
regularly scheduled shift. In this respect the arbitrator wrote:
Having considered these arguments, I am of opinion that
this grievance must be dismissed. -Initially, it should
be pointed out that the weight of authority is against
the union position. Aside from the cases quoted above,
similer attempts to gain shift premiums end overtime
have been rejected in Re U.E.W. and Phillips Electrical
Works Ltd., 3 L.A.C. 1171 (W.S. Lane, ChainWIt 1952):
Re U.E.W., Local 2900, and John Inglis Co. Ltd., 4 L.A.C.
1457 (J.C. Anderson, chairman, 1953); Re United Glass &
Ceramic Workers, Lot. 203, end Dominion Glass Co. Ltd.
IS L.A.C. 8 (R. W. Reville, chairman, 1964); and Re U.E.W.,
Local 531, end Northern Electric Co. Ltd., 16 L.A.C. 208
(R.W. Reville, chairman, 19651. Indeed, it might be con-
sidered that Judge Donley's award related closely to the
fact that the overtime in guestion appeared to be a cant- b
inuation of the shift, although admittedly the language
is broader. In any event, the case goes against the tide
of other decisions.
A mere counting of cases, of course, cannot-be deter-
minative of such a matter, although it does give some
guidance as to the expectations of the parties es to
the meaning of some phrases in their agreement. The
provisions in question do, however, raise clearer answers
to this grievance. First, it should be noted that the
payment of premiums under art. 24.01 is for "afternoon
shifts". Clearly, such a phrase is ambiguous: #rs&ct" .'
can relate to a certain period of time during any day
or it can relate to the regular periods of daily time
set aside each week for a regular tour of duty by an
employee. Where such an ambiguity exists arbitral juris-
prudence has held that the company, as the defendant in
the case, can rest on either alternative to defend itself.
Such an approach would, therefore, be decisive in this
matter. It should be pointed out, however, that the
parties themselves have used the latter meaning in the
letter of NOvember 12, 1965, and therefore it would
appear that the words, as used by the parties, support
the company position.
This grievance, therefore, is dismissed.
.~ c,
- 15 -
However a drastically different approach was taken in
. . .
Re Milk fi Bread Drivers, Local 647, and Silverwood Dairies Ltd. (1969).
20 L.A.C. 406 (Weatherill) where the relationship between shift premiums
and overtime was also in issue. The collective agreement provided for
15c per hour for employees whose regular shift started before 6:00 a.m.
or after 12 noon and the 156 was payable for "all who worked on any
<such> regular shift." The union had grieved that the employees were
entitled to the off shift premium in respect of overtime and that the
overtime was to be calculated as time and one-half of the hourly rate
including the off shift premium. The arbitrator held that both the
off shift premium and overtime were payable but that the overtime was
to be calculated on the hourly rate excluding the shift premium. In con-
trast to the previous case it is,of note that in coming to this con-
clusion the arbitrator held that overtime could be part of a "regular
shift" and in this regard he wrote:
In our view, overtime may well be a part of a "regular
shift". Where an employee works on a regular shift, and then
continues into overtime, he is still properly said to be . working on that shift. The off shift premium, if any, is
payable for "all hours worked" on such shift, including the
overtime hours. Accordingly, it is OUI conclusion that the
union is entitIed to succeed on the first issue.
On the issue of the appropriate calculation he had the following to say:
The second issue before us is whether the overtime payment
for hours on which the off shift premium is payable is to be
calculated after adding the premium rate to the regular hourly
rate. The collective agreement in art. 9 C (i) provides
simply that the payment is to be at "time and one-half".'~The
question arises as to what is the hourly rate which is to be
multiplied by one and one-half. Counsel for the company
argued that the phrase was "impossible of construction",
and sought to introduce evidence of past practice to show
the construction which the parties had, by their conduct,
placed upon these words. rn fact the evidence, if admitted,
Gould show the construction which the company had placed
on the agreement,~ and over which there had been no grievance.
As on the first issue, we would have difficulty in finding
here any agreement of the parties to give these words any
"special meaning".
- 16 -
It is our view, as on the first issue, that the collective
.aqreement is capable.of construction and of reasonable appli-
cation. The reference to payment of "time and one-half", in
a collective agreement,, is surely a reference to payment in
accordance with the hourly rates set out in that agreement.
The provision for overtime payments for hours worked after
eight in the day or forty in the week is quite separate from
the provision for payment of a shift premium, payable in
respect of hours worked at certain times of day (or, as here,
for hours worked on shifts commencing at certain times of
day). The "rate of time and one-half" is also referred to in
art. 9 C (ii) and (iii) where provision is made for payment
where an employee is called back, or where he works on his
regular day off. In those cases too it seems clear to us
that the reference i.s to the hourly wage rate set out in the
agreement. The "ambiguity" which miqht be thought to arise
from a contemplation of the phrase "time and one-half" in
isolation disappears, in our opinion, when the phrase is
read in the appropriate context. Accordingly, on the second
issue, it is our view that the company's application of the
agreement is correct, and that the grievance must fail.
II'I Re Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 782 and Stosmont,
Dundas & Glengarry County Board of Education (1972), 24 L.A.C. 235 (Palmer)
the grievors worked on Boxing Day, a holiday under the collective agreement,
and the grievors claimed that overtime should be applied twice because
the agreement provided work performed on holidays would be treated as .
overtime and Sunday work would be paid for "at the rate of pay provided
for overtime work." In.dismissing the grievance the majority of the board
observed that the past awards indicated that the "pyramiding" of benefits
was to be avoided where permitted by the language of the agreement.
An interesting case involving a specific provision of an agreement
C+rticle-sfs1) prohibiting the "duplication or pyramiding of overtime pay-
ments and/or off-shift bonus" is Re International Chemical Workers, rocal
32 and Lever Detergents Ltd. (1972) 24 L.A.C. 396 (drown). In that CaSe
the employees had worked a continuous period from 9:45,p.m. on Sunday to
11:45 a.m. on.Monday. The parties agreed upon the compensation paid
-
up to the last two hours but with respect to those hours the union
claimed double time as hours in excess of twelve whereas the company
submitted that to do so would be to include the two hours on Sunday, for
which double had already been paid, in calculating another premium and
that this was precluded by the no "&pl.ication or pyramding" clause
It is of interest to observe that the parties had tried to clarify the meaning
of that clause by agreeing, in the course of a grievance meeting, to the .I
following illustration of the clause's application.
Article III, Clause (5) states that there will be no
duplication or pyramiding of overtime payments.
In essence, this can be restated to indicate that where
nwre than one clause in the Agreement could apply to a situ-
ation and where each of the clauses carry a pay penalty,
only one penalty would be applicable. The penalties from
each of the clauses would not in any way be additive.
An example of this is as follows:
If an employee (except .a Spare Man) were on 'B' shift
and he was advised on Tuesday that his services were
required on 'A' shift Wednesday, the parts of the
Agreement covering the pay penalty are Article III,
Clauses (6) and (7). A penalty for not advising the
employee 48 hours in advance of a shift change, and
also a penalty for asking the employee to work more
than eiqht hours in any 24 hour period. Each penalty
is 1% times the pay rate. Only one penalty is appli- 1
cable.
In dismissing.the grievance the majority of the board of arbi-
tration stated:
The Board must be governed by the terms of the collective
agreement and is prohibited in art. 9 of the collective
agreement from modifying, enlarging or amending that agree-
ment. Article 3(S) clearly prohibits duplication or pyra-
miding of overtime payments. If the definition referred to
by the parties (and set out above) is considered, then art.
3(5/ is included to prevent what the union seeks in this
case. That document states that the penalties are not to
be additive and if the same hours are used for the purpose
of different penalties, then that is exactly what is covered
by 3(5). All the hours involved in the period must be
,;
-.,.
- 18 -
considered in total and it is not open for the union to
use part of that time for one premium purpose and to
include that same time for another premium purpose.
Regardless of any other work , all hours worked on Sunday
are paid for at double'time. We note the reference in
each of 3(5) and 3(8J and 3/9) to "all hours" so that
all hours on Sunday are treated one way and all hours
worked more than eight or 12 treated in accordance
with 3(7) and 3(8) but all three articles provide for
premium pay. Hence, all hours worked on Sunday are
paid for at premium time because it is a Sunday and
to add those hours to those of the regular shift and
any other overtime hours to increase the total of other
overtime hours to attract a higher premium would be
contrary to 3(S). We refer in this regard to Re Retail,
Wholesale & Dept. Store Union, Local 440, and Ault Milk
Products Ltd. (1962), 12 L.A.C. 279 (Anderson), which
was followed in Re Bakery a Confectionery Workers, Local
403, and Trent Val1ey:Bakerie.s (1966), 17 L.A.C. 380
(Curtis).
It has been held that pyramiding of premiums resulting in
double penalties is not permissible eVen in tbe absence
of a clause prohibiting it. The parties here, however,
have made it abundantly clear that such is prohibited by
3 (5) and by their own definition. Article 3(1)'provides
the normal hours for which the company can expect to pay
at straight time. All hours in excess whether before or
after the normal hours are overtime and are paid at premium
rates under the other parts of art. 3, but the company is
not obligated to pay overtiawrates for hours worked during
an employee's normal schedule'bf work. See Re Oil, Chemical
a Atomic Workers Local 9-670, and Canadian Industries Ltd.
(1966), 17 L.A.C. 108 (Little). To count the two hours in
advance of this shift which must be paid for at premium
rates by art. 3191, in determining the 12 hours under art.
3(E) we find, would be contrary to arts. 3111, 3(5) and
3(71. This would be a duplication or pyramiding of oVer-
time payments for the same hours which is precluded by 3(5)
as it would amount to a double penalty if allowed.
We would however note that the .board was dealing with the con-
current application of double time rates and the prohibiting clause made
specific reference to off-shift premiums. This observation takes on
importance because of the lack of consensus in earlier cases dealing
specifically with shift premium and overtime rates and because this
? - 19 -
diversity of arbitral opinion continued after Lever Detergents Ltd. as
Re Borden Chemical Co. (Canada) Ltd. and Allied and Technical Workers,
Local 13491 (19731, 3 L.A.C. (2d) 383 (Weatherill) illustrates.. Ill that
case the relationship between shift premium and overtime was'again reviewed.
In upholding a grievance which claimed the payment under both provisions
the board had the following to say.
Clearly a shift differential is payable in respect
of “work on any shift designated by the company"
as an afternoon or.night shift. The differential is in
addition to "their'regular rate of pay" which we con-
sider, to mean the pay they would otherwise receive. Tt
is not in lieu of overtime nor is it precluded by the
payment of overtime. It is a distinct and separate pay-
ment and (although this is made explicit only in tke
amendment relating to the resinite department), it is
not included in the straight time rate on which overtime
is calculated.
Entitlement to the shift differential arises simply
out of the fact of being at work at a time for which a
differential is payable, that is, an afternoon shift or
a night shift as designated by the Company. It is not
an overtime payment&d the payment of a shift differ-
ential as well as an overtime rate, does not constitute
the "pyramiding" of overtime.~
As far as employees in the resinite department are
concerned, the amendments to the collective agreement -
make substantial changes in their scheduling arrangements
and in their entitlement to overtime. Again, however,
there is no disptite here as to the circumstances in which
overtime is payable. The amendments deal also with the
matter of shift differential the following provision being
added to art. 11.05:
Employees on the 4-day week will be paid a shift
differential. The differential will be the same
regardless of the shift worked and will be the
average of the present rates over 24 hours.
In our view, in the case of the resinite department
employees, as in the case of the others, there is no
significant relationship between entitlement to overtime
and entitlement to shift differential. Where an employee
is at work during hours with respect to which he would be
entitled to a shift differential, then the differential
is payable regardless of whether or not the employee
happens to be working at overtime rates for all or some
of those hours. The mount of the differential remains
constant and is not affected by overtime provisions.
I.
- 20 -
The overtime payment is calculated by reference to regular
straight time rates and by an amendment to art. 11.02, it
is specifically provided that "overtime pay will be calcula-
ted on the straight time base rate not including shift
differential or scheduled overtime allowances". This serves
to emphasize the distinction between entitlement to over-
time and entitlement to shift differential. Certainly
the provision does not have the effect of taking away
entitlement to shift differential for employees working
overtime.
Thus in thl's case the majority of board quite clearly held
that the payment of shift premium and overtime did not constitute "the
'pyramiding' of overtime." And so far as it relied on art. 11.02 of the
.agreement in that case in arriving at that conclusion we note the wording
of art. 11.2 of the collective agreement before this board which reads:
Shift premiums shall not be
considered as part of an employee's
basic hourly rate.
Another case that can be compared with Lever Detergents is
Re General Bakeries Ltd. (G.B. Wonder Division) and Bakery &'Confectionery
Workers' International'llnion of America Local 264 (1973). 3 L.A.C. (2dJ
119 (O'Shea) where the following provision needed interpretation.
A-4 OVERTIME '
Overtime shall be paid at the rate of time and one half
the employee's regular hourly wage. Such overtime
shall be payable to regular full time employees for
authorized hours worked under the following circumstances,
but if applicable under more than one section it will be
paid on the one section involving the greatest excess:
a) In excess of eight ~(8) hours in any day, ('7%hours;
effective 13 August, 19731.
b) In excess of thirty-nine (39) hours in any week, (.37%
hours, effective 13 August, 1973).
c) For work performed on the day observed by the Company
for plant employees as a designated statutory holiday.
d) For work performed on the calendar day publicly cele-
brated as a designated statutory holiday.
e) For hours worked on an employee's scheduled day off.
f) FOr'work performed on the sixth (6th) and or seventh
(7th) day of an employee's work week.
g) For work performed between 0001 hours Saturday morn-
ing and 2359 hours Sunday night.
h) For work performed in excess of thirty-two (32) hours
in a week of one statutory~ holiday, and in excess of
twenty-four (24) hours in a week in which two statu-
tory holidays occur.
(Effective 13 August, 1973~, the work week for purposes
of calculating overtime.will be reduced by 7% hours for
each designated statutory holidayl.
In upholding the grievances of'grievors who claimed that two
days paid at time and one-half under A-4(c) and A-4(e) respectively
should be included in the calculation under A-4(h),the majority wrote:
However, the parties, in the concluding sentence of the
first paragraph of sch. "A"-4 have recorded their agreement
that if overtime is applicable under more than one section
for any hours worked, overtime will be paid pursuant, to the
provisions of one section only. The parties have thereby
agreed that there should be no stacking or (as some describe
it) pyramiding of overtime rates. Accordingly, overtime
may only be properly claimed once for any %ork performed
even though there may be entitlement under mOre than one
section. For example, if a statutory holiday falls on an
employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee will I
only receive time and one-half for the eight hours he is
required to work on the said statutory holiday even though
he would have been otherwise entitled to receive overtime
rates because'he was reguired to work on his regular day off.
However that'ky be, there is nothing in the provisions Of
sch. "A"-4 which makes the various enumerated sections
mutually exclusive. An employee mey claim entitlement
under more than one section in any work week so long as
he is not paid overtime rates more than once for the same
hours worked.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accordingly, even though the work performed on two days
earlier in the week were paid for at overtime rates for
the reasons stated above, the employees are entitled
to be paid overtime rates for their work on Friday,
December 29th, since all the conditions and require-
ments of sch. "A"-4(h) have been satisfied. It is not
correct to say that the payment for work on December
29th, at time and one-half amOunts to stacking or
pyramiding of overtime rates in the circumstances of
this case. This is the first instance during the week
in question that sch. "A"-4(h) has been applied and
s. (h) is the only section applied to the work performed -~~~ . "^L,~
., “’
? - 22 -
We have reached the above conclusions based on the lan-
guage of the collective agreement with which we are here
concerned. While the facts in the instant case are disting-
uishable from the facts in some of the cases to which we
were referred by the company, we recognize that our reason-
ing as set out above may be at variance with the reasoning
in other cases relied upon by the company. However that
may be, in any instance where our reasoning is not in accord
with the reasoning in other cases, we must respectfully
disassociate ourselves from the reasoning adopted in those
other cases. It is our view that our reasons as~set out
above correctly reflect the intent of the parties as expres-
sed in their collective agreement in this matter.
This reasoning was again employed in Re Weston Bakeries Ltd.
' and Milk & Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers & Allied Employees,
tical 647 (1974), 7 L.A.C. (Zd) 269 (O'Shea) where the collective agree-
ment contained the following overtime provision.
ARTICLE 17 - OVERTIME PAY:
17.02 A rate of one and one-half (1%) times an employee's
applicable hourly rate will be paid as follows:
(a) for all time worked in excess of eight (8) hours
in a shift; (Effective August 5, 1973 this shall
be reduced to seven and one-half (7*)~ hours;
(b) for all time work& by an employee when called in on -
his shift off;
(c) for all time worked on shifts between 12:Ol a.m.
Saturday &d 11:59 p.m. Sunday in the case of all
employees, except those mentioned in (d) below;
ld) for all time worked between 12:Ol Sunday to 11:59
, p.m. Sunday in the case of store clerks;
(el for all time worked by an employee on the shift de-
clared by the Company as his paid holiday shift;
(f) for all time worked by an employee on the shift
worked on the calendar day of a Paid Holiday:
(g) for all time worked before an employee who has a
day off has had thirty (30) hours off between the
end of straight time hours orthe day immediately
before the day off and the start of straight time
hours on the day immediately after the day off;
: i
- 23 -
(h) for all time 'worked before an employee who has two
(2) consecutive days off has had fifty (50) hours
off between the end of straight time hours on the
day immediately before the two days off and the
start of straight time hours on the day immediately
after the two days off;
(i) for all time worked in the week of a Paid Holiday
in excess of thirty-two (32) hours and in excess
of twenty-four (24) hours in the week of two (2)
paid holidays; Effective August 5, 1973 this
becomes thirty (30) hours and twenty-two and one-
half (22G) hours respectively.
17.03 Rates shall not pyramid for the same hours worked
and the maximum rate that will be paid to any employee
for any hour&worked shall be one and one-half (1%) times
his hourly rate plus the night shift premium, where
applicable.
In that case the grievors had worked on a statutory holiday
and been paid time and one-half but those hours were not included by
the company for the purpose of determining the total hours worked
that week by the employees. In upholding the grievances the
arbitrator concluded that the pyramiding of rates precluded by
Art. 17.03 was where overtime rateswereclaimed for the same hours .
based on two different grounds. In his view the grievors' claims did
not have this result in that no overtime had'been,paid on the hours
in the week in excess of 32 within the meaning of art. 17.02 (i). In
this respect the majority expressed itself in the following way.
Several of the cases relied upon by the company dealt
with situations where the union claimed payment at overtime
rates for the same hours, based on two different grounds.
Such a claim would constitute pyramiding and was not sup-
ported by the collective agreement. In other cases the
arbitrator concluded (erroneously in our view) that the
claim constituted.py.tamidiny aljd.the'~grievance 'was disniis-
sed. However some of the cases on which the company relied
were diametrically opposed to the reasoning which was
expressed by the present chairman in the General Bakeries
case cited above. These opposing views were considered by
the chairman prior to the preparation of the General Bakeries
- 24 -
award and they did not persuade him at that time. The
elapsed time since the General Bakeries award was released
has not added to the cogency of the reasoning on which the
company relies in this case.
Thus, according to this view, pyramiding only results when more
than one premium rate is applied to the same hours, a view that was followed
in Re Canadian Packers Ltd. and Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Local P417
(1974), 9 L.A.C. (Zd) 11 (Weatherill) of art. 17.02 (i). In this respect the
majority expressed itself in the following way.
Several of the cases relied upon by the company dealt with
situations where the union claimed payment at overtime rates
for the same hours, based on two different grounds. Such a
claim would constitute pyramiding and was not supported by
the collective agreement. In other cases the arbitrator con-
cluded (erroneously in our view) that the claim constituted
pyramiding and the grievance was dismissed. However, some
of the cases on which the company relies were diametrically
opposed to the reasoning which was expreSsed by the present
chairman in the General Bakeries case cited above. These
opposing views were considered by the chairman prior to the
preparation of the General Bakeries award and they did not
persuade him at that time. The elapsed time since the General
Bakeries award was released has not added to the cogency of
the reasoning on which the company relies in this case.
But a different result obtained in Re Weston Bakeries Ltd.
and Bakery & Confectionery Workers, Local 403 (19741, 7 L.d.C. (2d) 326
(arm) where the same chairman as in the Lever Detergents case maintained
that case's approach to the pyramiding of overtime rates in dismissing the
grievances. In the Weston case the grievors claimed that the company had
improperly excluded Sunday work, for which overtime had been paid, from the
calculation of the total hours worked that week. The agreement stipulated
that "overtime premiums shall not pyramid" and the majority applied this
provision in the following manner.
The purpose of 5.8 is obviously to prohibit the use of the
same hours worked to attract separate overtime premiums.
Section 2 allows a premium payment for work on Saturdays and
Sundays and falls within the overtime regulations so stated,
in the agreement. Thus it cannot be construed that work on
Sunday and paid for as overtime can be counted for the purposes
of obtaining a further overtime payment in that week. When
Sunday work is excluded, then it follows that these employees
did not work in excess of 24 hours that week end the work per-
formed on Friday does not attract overtime payment. The work
CI
- 25 -
performed on Sunday is paid because of the day, at time and
one-half and is in this collective agreement considered as
overtime, while s.8 refers to it as a "Sunday premium" that
refers back to an "overtime premium" which cannot be pyramided.
To use those hours to increase the total of the hours worked
in that week to obtain another overtime payment which is
within the time which would otherwise be paid at straight
rates is contrary to s.8.
Finally in Re Texaco Canada Ltd. and Oil, Chemical & dtomic
Workers, tic;71 9-599,(1975), 10 L.A.C. (d) 221 (Shine) a grieVOr claimed
a shift differential in addition to an overtime payment and the collec-
tive agreement contained the following provision.
In addition to the above wages, employees covered by
this Agreement whose scheduled working hours begin before
6:00 A.M. or extend beyond 8:00 P.M. will be paid a shift
differential as follows: , . . . . .
The said differentials shall not form part of the basic wage
ra'~.e and shall not be included in the computation of vacation
pay or contributions to employee benefit plans, and shall not
be subject to overtime premiums.
In upholding the grievance the majority of the board held that the
purpose of a shift differential differed from that of an overtime payment-and
that the parties had anticipated the payment of both premiums by, in art.
XXIIB, providing that the shift differential was not to be used in the calcu- -
.
'- lation of the overtime premium.
When all of these cases are reviewed then, it becomes apparent that
the terms "duplication" and "pyramiding" have not received a uniform defini-
tion by arbitrators in this Province. Some arbitrators take the term to
mean the application of like penalties to the same hours of work. Others see
them as prohibiting the payment of anymore than one premium arising out of one
fact situation. And still others are hesitant to' find a duplication or pyramid-
ing of premiums where the purposes of the premiums are different regardless Of
whether the same hours are involved. When the cases dealing specifically with
the payment of shift premiums along with the payment of either overtime premiums
or holiday pay are singled out the result is not any different. Indeed,
if anything, arbitrators have, in recent years, tended toward the conclusion
that the payment of shift differential in addition to an overtime premium
- 26 - . "-
'5 , does not involve a pyramiding of premiums because of the distinctly dif-
ferent purposes involved. (See Re H.E.P.C. (Supra) (Donley); Canada Foils
,...~
,..
Ltd. (Supra); - Silverwoods Dairies Ltd. (Supra); Borden Chemical Ltd. (Supra),
and Texaco Canada (supra].): Moreover when contractual language is specifi-
cally drafted to deal with this specific situation there seems no general
tendency in one direction or the other(Compare the language in Lever:
Detergents Ltd. (Supra) with that in Trent Valley Bakeries (Supra)). Of
course each case, to a greater or lesser extent, is a product of the
particular language contained in the,agreement under which the dispute
arises but, it seems that arbitrators have reviewed these general problems
first in .light of their understanding of the purposes of premiums involved
and then they have found contractual language that either confirmed or rebut-
ted that understanding.
In the collective agreement before us we have already noted that
art. 11.2 stipulates that shift premiums shall not be considered as part of
the employee's basic hourly rate which is at least some indication that the
parties anticipated the concurrent payment of shift premiums and overtime or
other premiums. The employer argued that this stipulation could have_ been
for another purpose not including overtime pay but the provision does not
say this and this "other purpose" was never detailed in argument. And in
the~?fexaco case where the parties were very precise in drafting a similar
provision they referred to vacation pay, contributions to employee benefit
plans and overtime premiums. -
Moreover the shift premium provision in the preceding collective
agreement between these parties was reproduced in the Morin case and appeared
in the following form.
ARTICLE 13 - SHIFT PREMIUM
13.1 An employee shall receive a shift premium of
sixteen cents (16C) per hour for all hours
worked between five (5:OO) p.m. and seven (7:OO) a.m.
Where'Ynwre than fifty percent (50%) of the hours fall
within this period the premium shall be p&d for all
hours worked.
. ‘7
?
- 27 -
13.2 Any premium to which an employee may be
entitled shall be calculated on the employee's
basic hourly rates exclusive of shift premium end there
shall be no pyramiding or duplication of premium payments
01 compensating leave nor shall the same hours be counted
as pert of the work week and also es hours for which an
overtime or holiday premium is applicable.
13.3 Shift premium shall not be paid to an employee
who for mutually agreed upon reasons works a
shift for which he would otherwise be entitled to a shift
premium.
It can be seen that art. 13.2 has been considerably altered.
In that article it was abundantly clear that shift premium was to be
paid in addition to other premiums but the latter premiums were to be
calculated on an employee's basic hourly rate. And this was so even
though the same provision went on to preclude the pyramiding or dupli-
cation of premium paymentsi Accordingly at that time the prohibition
against the duplication of premium payments could not have been directed
at the concurrent payment of shift premiums and some other premium.
Do the alterations to this provision found in the current agreement
change this approach to the payment of shift premium? We do not think SO.
The ideas contained in art. 13.2 of the preceding agreement now appear to
be found in somewhat shortened form in art. 11.2 and art. 21.1. This
change seems to have been for the purpose of streamlining the agreement
and not to alter fundamentally the payment of shift premium. Surely if
the parties had intended to do that they would have done so specifically.
The employer also submitted that the reference to a "shift"
in art. 11.03 is an indication that the hours for which a shift premium
are to be paid must be referable to a specific shift. However, in numerous
recent cases arbitrators have held that overtime hours in excess of an
employee's shift are referable to that shift. Moreover in art. 11.1 the
premiums are not expressly related to shifts but rather to "all hours
worked between five (5:OO) p.m. and seven (7:OO) a.m.
- 28 - F
I We would also note that art. 11.3 is identical to art. 13.3 of
the preceding agreement between the parties and 13.2 of that agreement
was very clear that shift premiums and other premiums could be paid for'
the same hours. In our view if the parties had intended to alter this
result they would have done so specifically and not by merely relocating
the ideas contained in art. 13.2 and expressing them more concisely.
We also note that art. 13.1 of the current agreement makes it clear that
overtime is to be paid with respect to an employee's basic hourly rate
which avoids some of the computation problems encountered in the earlier
cases (i.e. Silverwood Dairies Ltd. (supra))and this is again some indica-
tion that shift premiums and overtime can be paid concurrently.
Thus when all these provisions are combined with the more recent
tendency by arbitrators to view shift premium and overtime provisions as
having quite different purposes, it is the Board's view that in agreeing
to art. 21.1 the parties did not believe the concurrent payment of a shift
premium and overtime pay to involve a duplication or pyramiding of premium
payments. Accordingly the answer to the first question before the Board is
that the employer is required to pay both a shift premium and overtime pay
where both provisions are applicable.
The Board is of the opinion that the second question must also
be answered affirmatively provided the grievor is scheduled to work the
number of hours that would normally constitute a shift. While such a
shift would not be a regularly scheduled shift there is nothing
in art. 11:OO indicating that this must be the case. The employer made
reference to the term shift as it is used in art. 10 and submitted that
given the nature of art. 10 the parties must have intended it to be a
reference to regularly scheduled shifts. The Board, as held in the
Horin case ( 74/77 ), agrees with this suggested meaning for the purposes
of art. 10 but this does not mean the term is used in a uniform way
throughout the agreement. The term shift commonly means a fixed period
of time constituting a normal day's work, although this definition can be
~narrowed when the context of its use requires. In Morin the Board was
satisfied that in art. 10 the parties were referring to regularly scheduled
shifts but we see no reason to impute this limitation in art. 11.
The Board retains jurisdiction to entertain any differences
with respect to compensation should the parties be unable to agree upon
the specific amount.
. .
Dated at Toronto this day of 1978.
George W. Adams Chairman
I concur
V. P. Harris Member
I concur
Dan Anderson Member