Compass Group Canada Ltd. at Runnymede Health Centre v. SEIU, Local 1 Canada, 2026 CanLII 56933 (ON LA)
Sheri Price, Arbitrator — June 11, 2026

SEIU challenged Compass Group’s calculation of short-term disability benefits under language that provided for two-thirds of wages up to EI benefit levels “plus $150.” The arbitrator dismissed the policy grievance, finding that bargaining history supported the Employer’s interpretation of the disputed phrase.

Background

The grievance alleged that the Employer’s calculation of sick leave benefits breached Article 24.01 of the 2022–2024 collective agreement. The disputed language provided for a 1-4-39 STD plan paying two-thirds of wages up to the maximum EI benefit level “plus one hundred fifty dollars.”

The Employer interpreted the phrase as increasing the maximum weekly cap by $150. At the time of the grievance, the EI weekly maximum was $638, so the Employer’s interpretation produced a cap of $788.

The Union argued that the $150 was payable on top of either two-thirds of wages or the EI maximum, whichever was lower. The parties agreed that the wording was ambiguous and that either interpretation could be supported by the plain language.

Decision

The arbitrator found that the Employer’s interpretation reflected the parties’ intention. Because the language did not favour either party on its face, the arbitrator considered the context in which it was negotiated.

The bargaining history showed that the language was added as a compromise in response to a Union proposal to remove the EI benefit-level cap entirely so that all employees would receive two-thirds of weekly earnings while on STD. On the Employer’s interpretation, the compromise achieved that result for part-time employees and full-time employees in two of three bargaining unit classifications.

The Union’s interpretation would have resulted in most bargaining unit employees receiving between 80% and 98% of weekly earnings while on STD, well above the two-thirds level the Union originally proposed. The arbitrator therefore concluded that the Employer’s interpretation most closely reflected the negotiation context.

The grievance was dismissed.