CUPE, Local 815.1 v. EllisDon Facilities Services (OTMH) Inc., 2026 CanLII 36211 (ON LA)
Jesse Kugler, Chair — April 17, 2026

A majority of the arbitration board held that an electrician who accepted an unscheduled shift between regular shifts was entitled to call-back pay. The decision rejects the argument that call-back pay applies only where the return to work is mandatory or arises from an emergency.

Background

The grievor worked as an electrician for EllisDon Facilities Services at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. He worked his regular 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. shift on January 2, 2024, and his next regular shift was scheduled for January 5, 2024.

On January 3, after a co-worker called in sick, the Employer offered him that day’s shift. He accepted and worked from 9:30 a.m. to 7 p.m., but was paid straight time for those hours.

The Union argued that the grievor had been “called back to work” between regular shifts and was entitled to double time under Article 15.06. The Employer argued that the shift was voluntary, was not an emergency, and did not trigger call-back pay.

Decision

The majority allowed the grievance. It held that the phrase “called back to work” was not defined in the collective agreement and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The grievor was called by the Employer to come back to work, accepted the shift, and worked between his regular shifts.

A purposive interpretation led to the same conclusion. The purpose of call-back pay is to compensate employees for disruption and inconvenience when their personal time between regular shifts is interrupted.

The majority rejected the Employer’s position that an employee must be compelled to return to work. Article 15.06 referred to being “called back to work,” not being compelled or required to return. The majority also rejected the argument that the provision was limited to emergencies, noting that the word “emergency” did not appear in Article 15.06 even though the parties used that term elsewhere in the collective agreement.

The Employer’s past-practice evidence did not change the result. The evidence did not show the circumstances in which other additional shifts were picked up, nor did it establish that the Union knew of and acquiesced in the Employer’s treatment of those shifts.