FPSLREB Decisions

[1]   The parties agreed to join the grievances in this case for the purposes of the hearing. The grievances concern the interpretation of the Program and Administrative Services collective agreement. The issue here is the compensation that should be received by the grievors—part-time employees—for work performed on a Saturday. The parties filed the following Agreed Statement of Facts:

[translation]

. . .

1. The 18 employees involved are part-time workers. They belong to the CR group, which is covered by the Program and Administrative Services collective agreement.

2. All of the employees work Mondays through Fridays, although the number of hours they work on any given day varies among the employees . . .

3. They all have work contracts ranging from 20 to 33 hours a week, depending on the employee . . .

4. The employees were called in to work on Saturday, December 15, 2001, because of unforeseen circumstances.

5. The employer paid every employee at the straight rate for the work they did on Saturday, December 15, 2001 because they had not worked more than thirty–seven and one-half (37.5) hours for the week in question . . .

6. The employees filed their grievances in January 2002 (on different dates) claiming that they should have been compensated at the overtime rate (time and one-half) for their work on Saturday, December 15, 2001 as this was a day of rest . . .

. . .

[2]   On April 1, 2005, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, enacted by section 2 of the Public Service Modernization Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, was proclaimed in force. Pursuant to section 61 of the Public Service Modernization Act, these references to adjudication must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35 (the “former Act”).

[3]   In their arguments, the grievors raised the issue of estoppel, which, according to them, supported their case as many of them had been called in to do overtime and had been told that they would be paid the overtime rate. A similar situation had occurred in March, at which time the employer had paid the overtime rate.

[4]   However, the conditions required for an estoppel have not been met in this case so the principle does not apply. Among other things, there must have been an act, to one’s detriment, based on a promise, a clear and unequivocal statement concerning a matter that was negotiated. There was no informed and formal decision on the employer’s part concerning the appropriate rate for this type of situation.  Instead, the grievors had been wrongly informed.

[5]   Both parties acknowledge that the Saturday in question was a day of rest. They also acknowledge that the work week is seven days, from Monday through Sunday. Thus, the grievors were within their work week and continuing to accumulate hours of work for that week.

[6]   Pursuant to the definition within subclause 2.01(b) of the collective agreement, which is applicable in this case, overtime is, in the case of a part-time employee, “authorized work in excess of seven decimal five (7.5) hours per day or thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours per week, but does not include time worked on a holiday”. Thus, part-time workers become eligible for overtime only after working 7.5 hours on any given day or after 37.5 hours have been worked in the week.

[7]   The total number of hours worked by the grievors during this work week was no more than 33 hours. Thus, the straight rate was payable until they reached the 37.5 hours for the week. Overtime would have to be paid for every hour of overtime at the rate applicable for a day of rest.

[8]   For all of the above reasons, I make the following order:

Order

[9]   The grievances are denied.

March 3, 2006.

P.S.L.R.B. Translation

Sylvie Matteau,
adjudicator