Chief wanted to add all unused vacation days to take him to retirement but contract stipulated only six weeks could be carried over each year
A retiring Ontario police chief is entitled to get paid for statutory holidays he worked, but paying him for all the vacation time he didn’t take is asking too much, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.
Raymond Marentette was a member of the police department in Amherstburg, Ont., from January 1981 until Dec. 31, 2005. In June 2002 he was appointed chief of police and the community’s police services board worked out an employment agreement that stipulated if “extraordinary exigencies” prevented Marentette from taking his full complement of vacation days, he was entitled to carry over a maximum of six weeks each year. The agreement also outlined 13 statutory holidays to which he was entitled to take off with pay and 40 hours time off with pay each year in lieu of overtime.
In September 2004, the parties agreed to a revised employment agreement to take him to his intended retirement date of Dec. 31, 2005, which reiterated the six-week maximum for vacation carryover. The time off in lieu of overtime provision was increased at Marentette’s request.
However, Marentette indicated he wanted to push back his retirement date until after his birthday in March 2006 for pension reasons. He suggested he would use his outstanding vacation credits — which he calculated to be 753 hours since 2000 — and unused statutory holidays — 147 hours in the same period — to push him to his desired retirement date.
The police services board rejected the request, pointing to the contract stipulation that he could not carry over more than six weeks of vacation per year. Marentette filed a claim for his unused vacation and holiday pay, which he calculated to be worth $46,548.
The court found both the original and revised employment contracts clearly stated the carryover limit of six weeks but did not specify what happened if the police chief worked holidays to which he was contractually entitled to take off with pay. It also found the parties had an understanding he would be paid for working holidays over and above his regular salary and this did not have a carryover provision.
However, Marentette seemed to think he could carry over six weeks of vacation for each year and add them up at the end, which was an erroneous assumption, said the court.
“If Marentette is correct that he was entitled to accumulate unused vacation over and above the six weeks allowed for in the employment agreement he would in effect be earning overtime remuneration which would be contrary to his amended employment contract,” said the court. “In my view the claim of Marentette to be compensated for unused vacation time in excess of six weeks is an attempt to renegotiate the contract.”
