- May 25, 2021
- Collective Agreement Interpretation
The employer grieved that the local had improperly manipulated the hiring hall mechanism in order to generate premium pay for the “permanent employees” who regularly worked for the employer on what is known as the employer’s “house crew”. The local maintained that the collective agreement did not give the employer the right to choose or veto the individuals whom the local could send to a job, nor allow the employer to demand the cheapest staffing alternative. The arbitrator held that the permanent employees were not entitled to any particular number of hours or assignments beyond their basic pay guarantee, that the employer was entitled to determine the work schedule for its permanent employees and that it could require the local to supply competent members for those periods when the permanent employees were not so scheduled. It was the employer, not the local, that should determine work hours and work assignments.