Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al., 2015 MBQB 6

• Judge: Pfuetzner, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 6;(2015), 314 Man.R.(2d) 200 (QB)

Airports Authority v. PSAC (2015), 314 Man.R.(2d) 200 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.016

Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. (applicant) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada and Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Local 50600 (respondents)

(CI 14-01-88366; 2015 MBQB 6)

Indexed As: Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Pfuetzner, J.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances. At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday. The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement, determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums and allowed the grievances. The employer sought judicial review.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, and returned the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.

Labour Law - Topic 6400

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - General principles - General - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement and found in the employees' favour - The employer applied for judicial review - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that "In construing the collective agreement, the rules of contractual interpretation apply, including the following: (a) It is presumed that all words used are intended to have some meaning and are not intended to be in conflict. (b) Where the same word is used twice it is presumed to have the same meaning. (c) The absence of words may be considered. (d) The provisions of an agreement are to be construed as a whole and words and provisions are to be interpreted in context. (e) The proper analysis is to discern first and foremost whether two provisions are compatible, not to assume that one must trump the other. (f) It is only where permissible construction of provisions leads to a finding of conflict between provisions that the presumption of specific provisions prevailing over general provisions becomes applicable. (g) A clear expression of intention is required to confer a financial benefit. (h) Where part of a document permits two interpretations, the meaning to be attached is that which best harmonizes with the whole of the document. That is, a tribunal charged with the responsibility of interpreting a document must attempt to construe it so that it will be a harmonious whole and effect given to every part." - See paragraph 18.

Labour Law - Topic 6404

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - By context - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday - The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement and determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums - The employer sought judicial review - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, holding that the arbitrator made an unreasonable decision on the application of the law - Article 21.03 of the collective agreement provided that "Employees shall receive an additional premium of one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) effective October 3, 2008 per hour for regularly scheduled straight time hours of work on a Saturday or Sunday." - Article 22.13 provided that "It is understood by the parties that there shall be no pyramiding of premiums under this agreement." - The arbitrator construed the collective agreement in a way that created an unnecessary conflict between its provisions - It was not open to the arbitrator to adopt an interpretation of the word "additional" that resulted in a single word with several possible meanings to override and render meaningless a clause that had only one possible meaning in the context of this collective agreement - See paragraphs 21 to 31.

Labour Law - Topic 6404

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - By context - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday - The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement and determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums - The employer sought judicial review - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, holding that the arbitrator made an unreasonable decision on the application of the law - Article 22.13 provided that "It is understood by the parties that there shall be no pyramiding of premiums under this agreement." - The arbitrator failed to interpret Article 22.13 in the context of the entire collective agreement - The arbitrator's reasons included a statement that Article 22.13 might be applicable in other circumstances and he was not asked to apply it in other contexts - Further, there was no reasonable basis for the arbitrator's suggestion that the prohibition against pyramiding clause in Article 22.13 could apply to the call in or overtime provisions of the collective agreement (Articles 17 and 21) - See paragraphs 32 to 38.

Labour Law - Topic 6404

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - By context - An arbitrator was appointed to determine 65 grievances - At issue was whether employees could receive two premiums for the same hours worked: the shift premium, which was paid to employees for all hours worked between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. as long as the majority of that shift occurred between those hours; and the weekend premium, which was paid to employees for all regularly scheduled straight time hours worked on a Saturday or Sunday - The arbitrator interpreted the relevant provisions of the collective agreement and determined that the employees were entitled to the premiums - The employer sought judicial review - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, holding that the arbitrator made an unreasonable decision on the application of the law - The arbitrator applied a "rebuttable presumption" analysis when the facts did not give rise to the presumption - The rebuttable presumption against pyramiding of premiums applied when a collective agreement did not specifically deal with pyramiding - Here, Article 22.13 of the collective agreement provided that "It is understood by the parties that there shall be no pyramiding of premiums under this agreement." - There was nothing that the parties could have understood Article 22.13 to mean except that the shift premium and weekend premium were not to be pyramided - See paragraphs 39 to 50.

Labour Law - Topic 6638

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Pay or rates of pay - Overtime pay - [See all Labour Law - Topic 6404 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7065

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Interpretation of collective agreement - General principles - [See Labour Law - Topic 6400 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 7].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health (Royal Alexandra Hospital), [2010] A.R. Uned. 66; 2010 ABQB 595, refd to. [para. 7].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 424 N.R. 220; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 7].

Moore (Geoffrey L.) Realty Inc. v. Manitoba Motor League (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 300; 293 W.A.C. 300; 2003 MBCA 71, refd to. [para. 18].

United Food and Commercial Workers' Union, Local 401 v. Real Canadian Superstore (2008), 432 A.R. 212; 424 W.A.C. 212; 2008 ABCA 210, refd to. [para. 18].

Headwaters Health Care Centre v. Ontario Nurses' Assn. (Premium Payment Grievance), [2004] O.L.A.A. No. 332 (Arb.), dist. [para. 40].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Local 2424 v. Continuing Care Employees' Bargaining Assn. (Premiums Grievance), [2002] A.G.A.A. No. 66 (Arb. Bd.), dist. [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th Ed. 2014) (Looseleaf updated 2011, release 18), vol. 1, pp. 4:2000, 4:2100, 4:2110, 4:2120 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Paul D. Edwards, for the applicant;

Andrew Astritis, for the respondents.

This application was heard by Pfuetzner, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on January 20, 2015.