The Alliance international des employés de scène (IATSE), section locale 863 (FTQ) (hereinafter the “Union”) challenged the decision of the Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal (hereinafter the “PDA”) not to hire a head of wardrobe for the performances and packing the production of the play “Ils étaient dix d’Agatha Christie”, presented in the 5th hall of the Place des Arts (PDA) on October 23, 24, and 25, as well as February 1, 2, and 3, 2024.
The Union argued that paragraph 5.03 of the collective agreement requires the PDA to hire a head dresser for any theatrical production presented at the PDA, even if the producer does not request one. Two grievances were filed: the first on November 6, 2023, and the second on February 8, 2024.
The PDA, however, relied on paragraph 3.01, which provides an exception to this obligation for touring productions when the producer does not request the service of a dresser because a member of the production performs the tasks normally assigned to the head dresser.
The arbitrator applied the two-step approach established in the Supreme Court decision Uniprix v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc., 2017 SCC 43. First, it must determine whether the disputed provision is clear or ambiguous. If clear, it must be applied as written. If ambiguous, the arbitrator must seek the parties’ common intent.
The arbitrator found that provisions 3.01 and 5.03 of the agreement are clear and unambiguous. Paragraph 3.01 introduces an exception to the general principle of union security, which states that only union members have the right to assist an artist with dressing. This exception allows a non-member accompanying a touring production to perform tasks normally reserved for union members, without being shadowed by one. If additional needs arise, the PDA must first assign a head dresser, and any further needs must be met by union members.
Moreover, while the first paragraph of 5.03 requires the presence of a head dresser on the base team for certain productions, the third paragraph provides an exception when the work covered by the certification is performed by non-members traveling with a touring production and no request is made by the producer.
The combined effect of provisions 2.01, 2.02, 3.01, 3.02, and 5.03 confirms this exception.
The amendments made to 3.01 and 5.03 during the bargaining of the 2011–2016 agreement further reinforce their clear meaning.
The arbitrator upheld PDA’s position and dismissed the grievances.
For Full Decision Click Here