- May 25, 2021
- Collective Agreement Interpretation
The Film Council sought a monetary award from the Employer for a breach of the nine hour rule – work in excess of nine hours without any meal or rest breaks. It argued that a simple declaration was insufficient and that compensatory as well as general damages were appropriate. There was no dispute regarding the actual meal provisions set out in the Collective Agreement; however, the Employer argued that the collective agreement did not allow for an award of monetary damages and that the Council could not seek to obtain in arbitration what it had failed to obtain in negotiations (in the last round of negotiations the Council had unsuccessfully sought a $300 penalty for all breaches of the 9 hour rule). The arbitrator granted the grievance in part (finding that he had authority to grant monetary damages under the BC Labour Code), however he rejected the Council’s claim for damages in the particular circumstances of the case (finding that remedy already provided by the Employer – i.e. one hour at triple time – was adequate and that no further monetary damages as requested by the Council were necessary. The arbitrator’s conclusion was based in large part on the fact that his was a case of first instance and that the Employer took the issue of health and safety in the workplace seriously.