Nothing in collective agreement prevented employer from cutting worker's hours to avoid her becoming full-time
A Saskatchewan employer did not commit an unfair labour practice by reducing a part-time employee’s hours to prevent her from becoming full-time under the collective agreement, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled.
Extra Foods operated a chain of grocery stores in Saskatchewan, including a store in Saskatoon which had a collective agreement governing the scheduling of full-time and part-time employees. The agreement stipulated that if a part-time employee worked basic full-time hours for 13 consecutive weeks — excluding the summer months and fill-ins for leaves — then a full-time position would be created and the employee would have first choice of filling it.
Karen Ironside was a part-time worker who worked full-time hours for 12 straight weeks beginning in October 2007. In the 13th week, she was not given full-time hours to avoid creating a full-time position. The union filed a grievance, accusing the employer of acting in bad faith and manipulating the scheduling to avoid the full-time position.
An arbitrator found there was nothing in the collective agreement that prevented Extra Foods from scheduling part-time employees to avoid the creation of full-time positions. The agreement also stated Extra Foods had “the right to plan, direct and control store operations, direction of the working force, discharge employees for just cause and those matters requiring judgment as to the competency of the employees.”
The arbitrator also found Extra Foods felt its business operated more efficiently with more part-time employees and purposely avoided circumstances where the full-time provision kicked in. While the company purposely avoided giving Ironside full-time hours for a 13th consecutive week, it was permitted to do so under the collective agreement, said the arbitrator, since anything not specified in the agreement was “in the hands of the employer.”
The union appealed to the court, but the court agreed with the arbitrator.
Though the union suggested the purpose of the scheduling provision was to create more full-time positions, the court disagreed, finding it was designed to identify circumstances when a full-time position is created.
“A provision in the collective agreement saying ‘If A happens, then B results’ does not mean ‘The union and the employer must cause or allow A to happen.’,” said the court. “(The provision) means only what it says, without an obligation on either party to cause or allow the consecutive 13 weeks to occur.”
