In a case that scrutinized the interpretation of holiday pay provisions under a collective agreement, the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) has dismissed an application by the United Steelworkers, Local 1-207, to review an arbitration decision that denied holiday pay for employees not scheduled to work on certain statutory holidays.
The dispute arose from changes introduced by Alberta’s Bill 2: An Act to Make Alberta Open for Business, which amended the Employment Standards Code (ESC) and impacted holiday pay eligibility. The United Steelworkers union argued that the amendments should not alter the holiday pay benefits previously negotiated under a collective agreement with Logistics in Motion, a logistics and transportation company.
At the heart of the conflict was Article 20 of the collective agreement, which outlines the terms for plant holidays and holiday pay. The union contended that employees should receive holiday pay for the 11 designated plant holidays, regardless of whether those holidays fell on their scheduled workdays. They argued that the benefits outlined in Article 20 were intended to exceed the minimum standards set by the ESC, including the pre-2019 provisions that mandated holiday pay even if employees were not scheduled to work.
The arbitrator, however, disagreed with the union’s interpretation, concluding that the language of Article 20 did not entitle employees to holiday pay if they were not scheduled to work on the day in question. This conclusion was based on the specific wording of the agreement, particularly the phrase “regularly scheduled to work,” which the arbitrator interpreted as limiting holiday pay to days when employees would normally be on duty.
In its review application, the union challenged this interpretation, asserting that the arbitrator failed to consider the relevant statutory context—specifically, the repealed sections of the ESC that were in effect when the collective agreement was negotiated. They also argued that the arbitrator’s decision was inconsistent with the intended purpose of statutory holiday pay, which they described as an earned benefit that should apply to all designated holidays, irrespective of the work schedule.
The ALRB upheld the arbitrator’s ruling. The board found the arbitrator had appropriately applied the “modern approach” to collective agreement interpretation, which requires an analysis of the language used in its entire context, taking into account the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words in harmony with the agreement’s overall purpose.
“The arbitrator’s reasoning was transparent and is justifiable and intelligible,” the board stated in its decision. It noted that the arbitrator had considered the statutory context, including the changes brought about by Bill 2, but ultimately found that the wording of the collective agreement itself was clear and did not support the union’s broader interpretation.
The board also addressed the union’s argument that the arbitrator’s interpretation resulted in a benefit that was “below the floor” of the minimum standards set by the ESC. The ALRB rejected this argument, noting that the collective agreement’s language was unambiguous and that the arbitrator’s interpretation did not conflict with the current ESC provisions.
In dismissing the application, the ALRB acknowledged the union’s concerns but emphasized that the arbitrator’s decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective agreement. The board also highlighted that the union’s new arguments, which were not fully developed during the arbitration, could not be raised for the first time during the review process.
The ALRB’s ruling effectively upholds the status quo, confirming that Logistics in Motion is not required to pay employees for plant holidays that fall on their scheduled days off unless they are otherwise eligible under the terms of the collective agreement.
For more information, see United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local 1-207 v Logistics in Motion, 2024 ALRB 78 (CanLII).
