FPSLREB Decisions

The bargaining agent filed a policy grievance to contest the employer's interpretation of clause 28.10 of the collective agreement, which provided for reimbursing transportation expenses when an employee was required to work overtime under the conditions set out in clauses 28.05(b) and (c) and 28.06(c) and was required to use transportation other than normal public transit services. Both parties submitted that clause 28.10 was not ambiguous but that they interpreted it differently. Clause 28.04 provided that “[t]he Employer shall, wherever possible, give at least four (4) hours' notice …” before granting overtime. The employer interpreted that clause as a condition to be entitled to having transportation expenses reimbursed and adopted a policy to that effect. It submitted that in the case law, the phrase “… is required to report for work and reports …” has been interpreted as requiring less than four hours' notice. According to the bargaining agent, this interpretation constituted a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment because the only conditions to be entitled to reimbursement were set out in clause 28.10 and those to which it referred, which did not include clause 28.04. The Board determined that 1) clause 28.10 was not ambiguous, 2) clause 28.10 did not require less than four hours' notice to be entitled to transportation expenses reimbursement, and 3) the employer's interpretation of clause 28.10 breached the collective agreement. It also found that the employer's interpretation constituted an abuse of management rights. The bargaining agent requested that the employees who reported for work under clause 28.10’s terms have their costs reimbursed, but the Board decided that such a remedy was not appropriate in this case.

Grievance allowed.