The dispute arose in February 2012 when the health centre changed its practice of paying a pay bonus to nurses who voluntarily work two or more consecutive weekend shifts. Prior to that, if a nurse was offered an unscheduled extra shift and this resulted in the nurse working two or more consecutive weekends, the health centre paid the nurse one and a half times for the second and every weekend in a row. i) The health centre provides for every second free weekend.ii). (iii) Where a worker is programmed by the health centre for two (2) or more consecutive weekends, he shall be compensated in accordance with Article 14.03 for the time worked on the second [2]] and each consecutive weekend until he obtains a weekend off. The foregoing does not apply if: (A) this weekend was worked by the employee to fulfill certain days of leave requested by such an employee; or (B) the worker has requested only weekend work in writing, such a request for quarterly renewal; or (C) the weekend is made following a shift change with another worker. [emphasis added] Arbitrator Parmar`s decision is supported by the findings of lakeridge Health Corporation and the Ontario Nurses Association (October 25, 2012). The Lakeridge decision was released just days before Arbitrator Parmar`s decision and also included a provision on nurses` right to a wage premium for working for consecutive weekends. The wording of the collective agreement at issue in Lakeridge states: “If a nurse works a second (2nd) consecutive weekend and one or more other subsequent weekends, she receives a bonus …” If we compare this wording with the wording at issue at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre, we immediately notice that the Lakeridge collective agreement uses the word “work” as opposed to the words “is planned” as used in the Peterborough collective agreement. Lakeridge`s employer argued that the word “work” meant planned work, not work created by a nurse accepting an offer of additional work from the employer. In these circumstances, the employer considers that a nurse is not entitled to the successive weekend bonus. The Lakeridge arbitrator used the same collective bargaining techniques used in Peterborough. He rejected the employer`s interpretation and concluded that, subject to the specific exceptions in the collective agreement, a nurse only had to work a consecutive shift to qualify for bonus pay, regardless of the employer`s planning.
The issue at the heart of the complaint, as summarized by Arbitrator Parmar, was whether an employee working on the basis of the acceptance of an additional shift offered by the employer is an employee “planned by the health centre”. The arbitrator began his analysis by invoking the basic principle of the interpretation of the collective agreement, namely that, in order to give effect to the negotiations of the parties, the words must be given their clear and ordinary meaning when read in the context of the specific provision in particular and the collective agreement as a whole. The union regretted the change in the practice of the health centre on the grounds that nurses were entitled to the payment of premiums under the collective agreement. The union relied on paragraph D-3(c)(iii) of the collective agreement, which states that the various outcomes in these cases underscore the importance of the language that the parties to the collective agreement include in their agreements. Arbitrators will generally offer words with their clear and ordinary meaning in the context of the respective provision and the collective agreement as a whole. Minor differences in wording may result in significant differences in the parties` collectively agreed obligations and claims. Arbitrator Parmar concluded his analysis by giving the word “planned” its clear and ordinary meaning, rejecting the union`s argument that the meaning of the word “planned” includes any shift performed by a nurse. He noted that the health centre`s previous practice of paying the premium was not determinative given the clear and ordinary importance of the wording of the collective agreement. He noted that a nurse who works solely on the basis of acceptance of the health centre`s offer to work an available weekend shift is not entitled to bonus pay under the collective agreement. On the 29th.
In October 2012, Arbitrator Parmar published his decision to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre and the Ontario Nurses Association. The arbitration involved a collectively accepted claim about nurses` right to premium compensation for consecutive weekends. This decision is the latest in a growing number of arbitrations over the interpretation of collective bargaining provisions that set time limits for the employer and then provide for bonus pay for employees who work shifts beyond these restrictions. The arbitrator applied the rules of interpretation of the collective agreements and found that nurses were not entitled to the payment of premiums in the circumstances. Lynn Harnden successfully represented the health centre in this case, which provides valuable information on the interpretation of collective agreements. The health centre agreed that if a nurse had to work for consecutive weekends, the nurse was entitled to the premium. However, the circumstances that led to the complaints included the employer offering additional weekend shifts for nurses to accept or refuse. According to the health centre, the obligation under a collective agreement to pay the premium for successive weekends only occurs if a nurse is “scheduled” for consecutive weekends. Arbitrator Parmar noted that the union`s interpretation of paragraph (iii) would give it the same meaning as if it were “when a worker is working.
consecutive weekends. In his view, if the parties had meant that as meaning, they would have used that language. Instead, the parties chose narrower language “planned by the health center.” This choice of words indicated that the parties intended to apply the bonus if it was the employer who took certain measures, not the employee. The arbitrator also commented on the fact that the union`s interpretation allows the word “planned” to be defined differently from the definition used elsewhere in the collective agreement. In these other cases, the union did not indicate that the words “planned” or “scheduled” meant anything other than planning in the normal course of business. Based on the Guelph General Hospital`s decision, Arbitrator Parmar found that the correct interpretation of the word “planned” excludes shifts performed based on a nurse`s offer and consent to work in a particular shift. This conclusion was also supported by the health centre`s argument that the collective agreement made a clear distinction between the hours scheduled in the posted schedule and the “unforeseen hours”. “Unplanned hours” were identified in the collective agreement as hours that become available after the release of the schedule and are then offered to employees. .