Marilyn A. Nairn, Arbitrator — May 21, 2026
A part-time pharmacy technician argued that a 0.5 FTE appointment entitled her to be scheduled for an additional shift when a holiday closure reduced the number of shifts she worked in a pay period. The arbitrator disagreed, finding that neither the collective agreement nor the evidence of past practice created a guarantee of make-up hours.
Background
The grievance concerned the grievor, a regular part-time Pharmacy Technician employed at 0.5 FTE. The issue arose in pay periods where a holiday fell on one of her regular pharmacy days and the pharmacy was closed.
The Union argued that the grievor was being denied her full 0.5 FTE and that the Employer was required to schedule another shift in the pay period when the holiday closure displaced one of her regular shifts. In the alternative, the Union argued that the Employer was estopped from changing an alleged practice of scheduling an additional shift.
The Employer responded that the collective agreement did not guarantee hours of work and that any additional shifts were offered based on operational need. The Employer also relied on the percentage-in-lieu language applicable to part-time employees, which included compensation in lieu of fringe benefits such as holiday pay.
Decision
Arbitrator Nairn dismissed the grievance. She found that the grievor’s 0.5 FTE reflected a regular part-time commitment to be available on a predetermined basis, but did not create an independent guarantee of hours contrary to the collective agreement.
The arbitrator emphasized that the Employer could not unilaterally schedule the grievor on a Tuesday outside her predetermined availability simply to replace a holiday shift. The grievor could agree to such work, but the collective agreement did not require the Employer to offer it.
The arbitrator also rejected the argument that the grievor suffered a 20% loss in the relevant pay period. Like a full-time pharmacy technician, she received a paid holiday on a day when the pharmacy was closed, although the mechanism of compensation for part-time employees was through the percentage-in-lieu payment.
The estoppel argument also failed. The evidence did not establish a relevant practice of scheduling or offering alternate shifts to replace holiday closures, and the arbitrator found that any additional shifts were offered based on operational need.