Employees Entitled to Paid Rest Periods During Overtime on Days of Rest

Date: 202 60210 File s: 569- 02- 48521 and 566-02-50259 to 50262 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 13 Federal [NAME] Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal [NAME] Service Alliance of Canada [NAME], and [NAME] and [NAME] (Department of Employment and Social Development) Employer Indexed as Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] (Department of Employment and Social Development) In the matter of a policy grievance and individual grievances referred to adjudication Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal [NAME] For the [NAME]: [NAME], Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Employer: [NAME], counsel ADVANCE \y 657 Decided on the basis of written submissions, filed November 26 and 29 and December 12, 2024, and January 14 and December 8 and 9, 2025.

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Overview of the grievances before the Board [ 1 ] The question before the Federal [NAME] (“the Board”) is whether the [NAME] (“the employer”) breached the relevant provisions of the collective agreement at issue by refusing to compensate employees, who worked overtime on a day of rest or on a designated statutory holiday, for two 15-minute rest periods. [ 2 ] The employer takes the position that only employees who work on their regular workdays are entitled to paid rest periods. Since a “day of rest” or a “holiday” is not considered a regular day of work, employees who work on such days are not entitled to them. Moreover, it submits that since rest periods are not considered worked periods, they should not be paid during overtime. [ 3 ] Considering that the policy grievance and the individual grievances at issue in this decision raise similar, if not identical issues, the parties requested that they be consolidated. The Board granted the requests and ordered that the policy grievance and the individual grievances (“the grievances”) be consolidated. [ 4 ] With respect to the individual grievances, the parties requested that the Board bifurcate the issue of merits and remedies. In other words, the parties requested that the Board address only the issue of the [NAME]’ entitlement to paid rest periods in this decision and that it remain seized to determine the appropriate remedy in a separate decision. The Board granted the request. [ 5 ] For the following reasons, I allow the policy grievance in part and declare that the individual [NAME] in Board files nos. 566-02-50259 to 50262 were entitled to two 15-minute paid rest periods.

II. Summary of the evidence [ 6 ] The grievances involve the interpretation and application of the collective agreement between the employer and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“the bargaining agent”) for the [COMPANY] that expired on June 20, 2021 (“the collective agreement”). [ 7 ] As the facts are not in dispute, the parties filed an agreed statement of facts. They are summarized in the following paragraphs. [ 8 ] At all material times, [NAME], and Mr. [NAME] (“the [NAME]”) worked as Service Canada call centre agents classified at the PM-01 group and level in the Atlantic Region Benefits Delivery Services Branch (BDSB) call centres of the Department of Employment and Social Development. According to the grievance forms, they were part of the [COMPANY] bargaining unit. The bargaining agent represented them. [ 9 ] On April 6, 2020, the BDSB’s acting director asked employees if they were interested in working overtime on Good Friday, April 10, and Easter Monday, April 13, at the call centre, to respond to public inquiries about the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. The call centre was open on April 10 and 13 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and was closed on Saturday, April 11, and Sunday, April 12. [ 10 ] On April 16, 2020, the acting team leader provided instructions to employees who worked overtime on how to enter their [NAME] worked in the pay system. According to the instructions, employees who worked on the days in question were told to submit a request for only 7 hours, rather than 7.5 hours, on the basis that the two 15-minute rest periods were unpaid. [ 11 ] A few weeks later, on May 11, 2020, [NAME] from the [NAME], a component of the bargaining agent, contacted [NAME], Assistant Deputy Minister, Atlantic Region, for Service Canada, about the issue of unpaid rest periods during overtime worked on days of rest or holidays. [NAME] confirmed that rest periods taken during overtime on days of rest and statutory holidays were not paid. She referred [NAME] to clauses 25.05 and 28.03(a) of the collective agreement, which read as follows: 25.05 25.05 a. The Employer will provide two (2) rest periods of fifteen (15) minutes each per [NAME] working day except on occasions when operational requirements do not permit. a. L’[NAME] doit assurer deux (2) périodes de repos de quinze (15) minutes chacune par journée de travail complète, sauf dans les cas où les nécessités du service ne le permettent pas. … […] 28.03 General 28.03 Généralités a. [NAME] is entitled to overtime compensation under clauses 28.05 and 28.06 for each completed period of fifteen (15) minutes of overtime worked by him or her when …. a. L’[NAME] a droit à la rémunération des heures supplémentaires prévue aux paragraphes 28.05 et 28.06 pour chaque période complète de quinze (15) minutes de travail supplémentaire qu’[NAME] accomplit : [Emphasis in the original] [ 12 ] Specifically, [NAME] stated that under clause 25.05, there is no requirement to grant rest periods during overtime worked on a day of rest. This is because such overtime is not considered a “working day” within the meaning of clause 25.05 but rather falls within the definition of a “day of rest” set out in clause 2.01. Secondly, she indicated that since rest periods are not considered worked periods, they “should be unpaid”, in accordance with clause 28.03(a). [ 13 ] A few days later, on May 15, 2020, each [NAME] filed their individual grievance, alleging that the employer contravened articles 25 and 28 of the collective agreement by refusing to compensate them for the 2 rest periods of 15 minutes per [NAME] day worked in overtime on days of rest and statutory holidays. [ 14 ] On August 17, 2020, the bargaining agent filed the policy grievance, alleging that the employer breached articles 25 and 28 of the collective agreement by refusing to provide employees who worked overtime on days of rest and statutory holidays with two 15-minute paid rest periods. [ 15 ] The employer denied all the grievances. In essence, it maintained that based on the language of clause 25.05 and article 28 of the collective agreement, employees are not entitled to paid rest periods during overtime worked on days of rest and statutory holidays. [ 16 ] The bargaining agent referred the grievances to adjudication. [ 17 ] In the context of the policy grievance, the bargaining agent asks the Board to declare that the employer violated articles 25, 28, and 30 of the collective agreement; order the employer to compensate all employees who worked overtime on a weekend, a day of rest, or a designated holiday for the two 15-minute rest periods; and direct the employer to comply with the collective agreement going forward by properly compensating employees for the rest periods in question. [ 18 ] As for the individual grievances, as already explained, the bargaining agent asks the Board to confirm the [NAME]’ entitlement to the two 15-minute paid rest periods and determine the remedy at a later date.

III. Summary of the arguments A. For the bargaining agent and the [NAME] [ 19 ] Although the collective agreement does not define “working day” or specify how many hours constitute a “[NAME] working day”, a contextual reading of it and interpreting the relevant provisions indicate that a [NAME] working day consists of 7.5 consecutive hours within a 24-hour period. Specifically, clause 25.06(b) provides that the normal workday shall be 7.5 consecutive hours, exclusive of a lunch period, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., and reads as follows: Day work Travail de jour 25.06 Except as provided for in clauses 25.09, 25.10 and 25.11: 25.06 Sauf indication contraire dans les paragraphes 25.09, 25.10 et 25.11 : a. the normal workweek shall be thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours from Monday to Friday inclusive; a. la semaine normale de travail est de trente-sept virgule cinq (37,5) heures et s’étend du lundi au vendredi inclusivement; and et b. the normal workday shall be seven decimal five (7.5) consecutive hours, exclusive of a lunch period, between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm. b. la journée normale de travail est de sept virgule cinq (7,5) heures consécutives, sauf la pause-repas, et se situe entre 7 h et 18 h. [ 20 ] A combined reading of clauses 25.05(a) and 25.06(b) indicates that the parties intended to establish that a [NAME] working day, for employees not working variable hours, is 7.5 hours within a 24-hour period. Therefore, whenever [NAME] works a “[NAME] working day” (i.e., 7.5 consecutive hours), they are entitled to two 15-minute rest periods. When the parties intended to exclude the 30-minute meal break from the hours calculated to determine a “[NAME] working day”, they explicitly did so in clause 25.06(b). [ 21 ] Nowhere in the collective agreement it is specified that the two 15-minute rest periods are unpaid. On the other hand, the reading of clauses 25.05(a) and (b) suggests that they are paid. Clause 25.05(b) indicates that the parties deliberately identified and distinguished unpaid benefits. It reads as follows: “The Employer shall provide an unpaid meal break of a minimum of thirty (30) minutes per [NAME] working day, normally at the mid-point of the working day.” [ 22 ] Nothing in the collective agreement suggests that employees are entitled to rest periods only when working a “[NAME] working day” during a weekday. On the contrary. The use of headings provides valuable context to determine the parties’ intention, which was to entitle employees to two 15-minute rest periods during a [NAME] working day, regardless of the day on which the work was performed. [ 23 ] In Kenora Roman Catholic Separate School Board v. O.E.C.T.A (1993), 37 L.A.C. (4th) 28, the arbitrator held that the headings in a collective agreement form part of the instrument itself and can be used as an aid to interpretation. A holistic reading of the collective agreement, particularly Part III, along with the placement, titles, and contents if its articles, demonstrates that the parties intended to broadly regulate the hours during which work is performed. [ 24 ] Specifically, Part III of the collective agreement (articles 25 to 32) outlines the working conditions. Article 25, which addresses hours of work, is divided into the following subsections: “General”, “Day work”, “Shift work”, and “Variable Hours of Work”. A review of the provisions under the subsection “General” (clauses 25.01 to 25.05) demonstrates that the parties intended to establish conditions governing hours of work, regardless of the day on which the work was performed. [ 25 ] The broad language and the heading “General” under which clause 25.05 was drafted suggest that the parties intended to establish a general rule for employees’ rest periods during a “[NAME] working day”. The intention was to entitle employees to two 15-minute rest periods and one 30-minute unpaid rest period. A holistic reading of the collective agreement, in particular clause 25.05(b), indicates that the parties intended for the two 15-minute rest periods to be paid. [ 26 ] For exceptional circumstances, such as overtime or standby work, the parties established specific provisions to address the unique requirements of those situations (see, for example, article 28 (overtime) and clauses 30.06 to 30.08 (work performed on a designated holiday)). This does not mean that the general rules governing, for example, hours of work, non-discrimination, sexual harassment, health and safety, etc., are inapplicable to those specific situations. [ 27 ] Clauses 28.06 and 30.08 set out specific rules governing overtime compensation on a day of rest and compensation for work performed on a designated holiday. Their primary focus is on compensation. These clauses do not exclude other matters related to working conditions, such as the entitlement to rest periods or health and safety. There is no conflict between article 25, which is a more general provision, and articles 28 and 30, which are more specific. [ 28 ] Suggesting that only employees scheduled to work a [NAME] day during the week are entitled to paid rest periods is inconsistent with the underlying philosophy of rest periods and is at odds with contemporary labour rights. By establishing 2 rest periods during 7.5 consecutive working hours, the parties intended to safeguard employees’ mental and physical health. The bargaining agent’s position that employees are entitled to two 15-minute rest periods during a “[NAME] working day” that falls on their rest day aligns with Canadian labour arbitration jurisprudence (see Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario (1970), 22 L.A.C. 135 at paras. 4 and 5). B. For the employer [ 29 ] In essence, the employer takes the position that employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are not entitled to paid rest periods because such days are not considered “working days”. In addition, given that rest periods granted during overtime are not considered worked periods, they should not be compensated in accordance with the relevant overtime provision. [ 30 ] Specifically, the employer argues that clause 25.05 of the collective agreement applies only to a “working day”, not a “day of rest” or a “holiday ”. The terms “working day”, “day of rest”, and “holiday” are not interchangeable and have different meanings (see clause 2.01 for the definitions of “day of rest” and “holiday”). [ 31 ] This distinction is further confirmed by clauses 28.05 and 28.06. The former refers to compensation for overtime performed on a “workday”, the latter to compensation for overtime worked on a “day of rest”. Similarly, article 30, which deals with designated paid holidays, and article 32, which addresses compensation for travel [NAME], reinforce that the terms “working day”, “day of rest”, and “holiday” each have distinct meanings. [ 32 ] Moreover, clauses 25.06(a) and (b) read together suggest that the definition of “normal workday” set out in clause 25.06(b) applies only to regular workdays, namely, Mondays to Fridays. There is no indication that “[NAME] working day” applies universally across all contexts, such as when overtime is performed on a “day of rest” or “holiday”. The use of the term “working day” in clause 25.05 is fatal to the bargaining agent’s position. [ 33 ] The parties could have expanded the ambit of clause 25.05 to overtime worked on a “day of rest” or “holiday”, but they chose not to. [ 34 ] According to the interpretation principles, specific articles take precedence over general articles. Therefore, article 28 and clause 28.09, which are specific provisions governing overtime and breaks during overtime, take precedence over the more general clause 25.05. [ 35 ] Specifically, clause 28.09 provides that employees are entitled to meal breaks when the overtime is worked immediately before or immediately following the scheduled hours of work ; in other words, on a “working day”, and not on a “day of rest” or “holiday”. Had the parties intended to provide employees with paid rest periods when working overtime on a “day of rest” or “holiday”, they would have said so, as they did in clause 28.09 [Emphasis in the original]. [ 36 ] In [NAME] v. [NAME] (Canada Border Services Agency) , 2008 PSLRB 92, a decision that dealt with identical provisions, the [NAME] confirmed that breaks were unpaid when overtime was performed on a “day of rest”. [ 37 ] Moreover, the concept of overtime, as defined in clause 2.01 in the collective agreement, implies work performed by [NAME] outside their normal work schedule. This interpretation is supported by clause 28.03, which ties overtime compensation to completed periods of overtime work. It does not include rest periods. The relevant section of this clause reads as follows: “[NAME] is entitled to overtime compensation under clauses 28.05 and 28.06 for each completed period of fifteen (15) minutes of overtime worked by him or her when …” [Emphasis in the original] . [ 38 ] In this case, the [NAME] would not have performed any “overtime work” during rest periods. [ 39 ] Collective agreements for other groups across the public service explicitly provide for paid breaks during overtime on a “day of rest” or “holiday”. Their absence in the collective agreement in this case reflects a deliberate exclusion and is telling with respect to the parties’ intent. [ 40 ] Effectively, the bargaining agent asks the Board to read a provision for which it did not bargain. A benefit involving a monetary cost to the employer must be clearly and expressly granted under the terms of the collective agreement. A monetary benefit cannot be inferred from the parties’ silence (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Canada Border Services Agency) , 2022 FPSLREB 98 at para. 43; and [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FCA 117 at paras. 34 and 36). [ 41 ] As for the remedy, the employer argues that under s. 232 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act ”), the Board’s remedial jurisdiction is limited to a declaration or an order requiring the employer to interpret, apply, or administer the collective agreement in a specific manner going forward. Consequently, the Board has no jurisdiction to order the employer to compensate all employees who worked overtime on weekends or a day of rest for their 15-minute rest periods. C. The bargaining agent and the [NAME]’ reply [ 42 ] Considering that the parties chose to define certain terms, such as “day of rest” and “holiday”, to provide clarity but did not define “workday” and “working day”, it indicates that they did not find it necessary to distinguish what is commonly understood as a workday from a “day of rest” or a “holiday”. The parties’ intention may also be ascertained from their silence or deliberate omission in defining certain terms. [ 43 ] The employer conflates and employs the terms “working day” and “workday” interchangeably and synonymously. The review of the collective agreement reveals that these terms do not mean the same thing, as their usage reflects distinct context and intentions within the collective agreement. Significantly, the parties do not use the term “workday” in clause 25.05. The analysis of the collective agreement indicates that when the parties intended to refer to what is commonly understood as a regular workday, they used terms such as “workday”, “normal workday”, or “scheduled workday”. [ 44 ] When a specific provision is silent on a matter that is addressed by a general provision, the latter should govern. This interpretation arises from the principle that specific provisions are typically intended to address a particular aspect of an issue and are not drafted to encompass all facets of the subject matter within the collective agreement. [ 45 ] The rationale that the employer advances in its submissions has the potential to produce absurd outcomes. For example, article 62 of the collective agreement provides for wash-up [NAME] before the end of a working day. Given that articles 28 and 30 do not reference “wash-up [NAME]”, then by adopting the employer’s rationale, one might conclude that [NAME] working on a Saturday would not be able to avail themselves of such [NAME]. [ 46 ] In articles 28 and 30, the parties expressly addressed additional paid entitlements, such as paid meals in clause 28.09, which are not encompassed within the collective agreement’s general provisions and are not applicable to employees during their regular workdays. Nothing in the collective agreement abrogates or diminishes the employees’ entitlements afforded to them during their regular workdays when they work on a rest day or designated holiday. [ 47 ] The [NAME] decision that the employer cited is not applicable to this case. It addresses the issue of entitlement to a “paid meal”, which is expressly provided for in a specific provision of the collective agreement. In contrast, the entitlement to the two 15-minute rest periods is conferred by a general and overarching provision (i.e., clause 25.05(a)), which governs both general and specific situations. [ 48 ] In response to the employer’s objection to the Board’s jurisdiction to order retroactive compensation to employees in the context of a policy grievance, the bargaining agent submits that the Board is empowered to render decisions and provide the remedies that it deems appropriate. The only limitation on the decisions that the Board can render is found in s. 232 of the Act . But those limitations do not preclude the Board from ordering monetary compensation for individual members. D. The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision [ 49 ] On November 26, 2025, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada , 2025 FCA 209, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s judicial review application of the Board’s decision, which ordered individual retroactive compensation under s. 232(c) of the Act . In essence, the Court concluded that the decision was reasonable. [ 50 ] Considering that decision, the Board asked the employer whether it would maintain its objection to the Board’s jurisdiction to order individual compensation under s. 232 of the Act . If it was in the affirmative, the employer was to inform the Board whether it wished to file additional submissions limited to addressing the impact of the Court’s decision on its objection. [ 51 ] The employer informed the Board that it wished to withdraw its objection. However, it asked for permission to provide a brief submission relevant to the exercise of the Board’s remedial discretion. The bargaining agent did not object to the employer’s request. What follows is the summary of the employer’s additional submission and the bargaining agent’s response. [ 52 ] In essence, the employer submits that although in its decision, the Court confirmed that the Board has jurisdiction to award individual remedies in a policy grievance, doing so is not always appropriate. To support its argument, it relies on the Board’s decision in Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] , 2025 FPSLREB 78, in which it declined to award individual remedies under s. 232 of the Act because the employees could have availed themselves of the individual grievance process. The employer argues that the same considerations should apply in this case. Moreover, the record does not contain the required evidence to assess personal compensation, except for the employees who filed individual grievances. [ 53 ] The bargaining agent argues on the other hand that although not every collective agreement breach must result in financial compensation under s. 232(c), in this case, it is appropriate for the Board to exercise its broad remedial discretion and order individual remedies. [ 54 ] It argues that the Board’s refusal to order individual remedies in the Public Service Alliance of Canada decision that the employer cited was based on the specific facts of that case. And specifically, it turned on the availability and practicality of the individual grievance process in that particular context. [ 55 ] In this case, unlike in Public Service Alliance of Canada , employees who worked on the specific days at issue were entitled to two 15-minute paid rest periods under the collective agreement. That entitlement was not contingent on fulfilling additional conditions, submitting claims, or management exercising discretion. Had the employer not applied an erroneous interpretation of the collective agreement, the employees would have been paid an additional 30 minutes at their regular rates of pay for each of those days. [ 56 ] Reliance on the individual grievance process cannot be said to have fully safeguarded employees’ rights in this case, considering that some employees might not have even been aware that they were being deprived of an entitlement under the collective agreement. [ 57 ] Moreover, in Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Canada Revenue Agency , 2016 PSLREB 77, the [NAME] allowed a policy grievance about employees’ entitlement to personal leave and ordered compensation for affected employees. [ 58 ] Similarly, in Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] (Canada Border Services Agency) , 2018 FPSLREB 82, the Board allowed a policy grievance about provisions related to compensation and ordered that the affected employees be compensated in accordance with the collective agreement in that case.

IV. Reasons A. The merits [ 59 ] The grievances concern the interpretation and application of the collective agreement. The facts are not in dispute. The employer refused to compensate employees for two 15-minute rest periods, under clause 25.05(a), during overtime worked on a day of rest or a designated holiday. The employer takes the position that such days are not considered working days within the meaning of clause 25.05(a), which is a prerequisite for the entitlement to paid rest periods. [ 60 ] In addition, the employer argues that since employees are compensated only for overtime worked in accordance with clause 28.03, rest periods should not be paid because they are not considered work periods. [ 61 ] To determine whether employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a statutory holiday are entitled to paid rest periods under clause 25.05(a), I must interpret the collective agreement’s relevant provisions in accordance with the applicable rules of interpretation. [ 62 ] Those rules are, (1) the parties are assumed to have meant what they said and to have selected the wording used intentionally, (2) the meaning and intent of the collective agreement is to be sought in its express provisions, (3) the words of the collective agreement must be given their grammatical and ordinary sense, (4) they must be read in their entire context, in harmony with the scheme of the collective agreement, (5) when the same words reappear, they are to be given the same interpretation, and (6) different words are presumed to have different meanings unless doing so would lead to a result that is illegal, absurd, or inconsistent with the overall scheme and structure of the collective agreement (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Justice) , 2021 FPSLREB 30 at para. 84; [NAME] v. [COMPANY] of Energy Professionals , 2015 CanLII 56079 (ON LA) at paras. 5 to 7; and [NAME], Canadian Labour Arbitration , 5th ed., paragraph 4:20).

1. Employees are entitled to rest periods regardless of the day on which they work [ 63 ] The interpretation of the collective agreement’s relevant provisions reveals that that the parties did not intend to limit the entitlement to rest periods under clause 25.05(a) to normal workdays. Rather, the parties’ distinct choice of words indicates that they intended to extend that benefit to employees who work the required number of hours (i.e., a [NAME] working day), regardless of the day on which they work. [ 64 ] Clause 25.05(a) of the collective agreement provides that [NAME] is entitled to 2 rest periods of 15 minutes each per “[NAME] working day”, except when operational requirements do not permit it. [ 65 ] The employer concedes that the rest periods under clause 25.05(a) are paid. However, it argues that they are not available to employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a statutory holiday, for the reasons already outlined. [ 66 ] There is also no dispute as to the interpretation of the term “[NAME]”. Neither the policy grievance nor the individual grievances turn on its meaning. The employer does not suggest that employees, including the [NAME], were not eligible for the two rest periods under clause 25.05(a) because they did not work a “[NAME]” day. [ 67 ] That said, it is noteworthy that while the term “[NAME]” is not expressly defined in the collective agreement, clause 25.06 (see the earlier quote) provides that a normal workday consists of 7.5 consecutive hours, exclusive of a lunch period. [ 68 ] In dispute is the meaning of the phrase “working day” in clause 25.05(a). Does it refer to a normal workday, as suggests the employer, or does it encompass any calendar day on which work is performed, including a day of rest or a holiday? [ 69 ] In labour relations, the phrase “working day” can have different meanings, depending on the context. It may refer to any calendar day that [NAME] actually worked. It may refer to a regular workday of the workplace or a day on which business is ordinarily conducted. Considering that the parties have not defined “working day” in the collective agreement, I must determine its meaning by interpreting the relevant provisions of the collective agreement, including the specific wording that the parties used in clause 25.05, its context, and its purpose. [ 70 ] Article 25 addresses hours of work. It is found in Part III of the collective agreement, which focuses on working conditions. Article 25 is subdivided into subsections, such as “General”, “Day work”, “Shift work”, etc. Clauses 25.01 to 25.05 are found in the “General” subsection of article 25. Their wording is broad and their scope is not restricted to a specific [NAME] of day or day of the week. [ 71 ] For example, clause 25.01 defines a week as “… seven (7) consecutive days beginning at 00:00 hours on Monday morning and ending at 24:00 hours on Sunday …”. It defines “day” as a “… twenty-four (24) hour period commencing at 00:00 hours.” Clauses 25.02 to 25.04 address, in general terms, other working conditions relating to hours of work. Clause 25.05(a), which is at issue, entitles [NAME] to two 15-minute rest periods per “[NAME] working day”, subject to operational requirements. Clause 25.05(b) entitles employees to an unpaid meal break of a minimum of 30 minutes per “[NAME] working day”, normally at the mid-point of the working day. Again, nothing in the parties’ broad language suggests that these entitlements are restricted to a particular day of the week. [ 72 ] Absent a specific definition or restriction of the phrase “working day” in the collective agreement, it must be given its grammatical and ordinary sense. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (11th edition) defines “workday” as “… the period of [NAME] in a day during which work is performed” [emphasis added]. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edition) defines “work” as follows: … To exert one’s self for a purpose; to put forth effort for the attainment of an object; to be engaged in the performance of a task, duty, or the like. The term covers all forms of physical or mental exertions, or both combined, for the attainment of some object other than recreation or amusement.… “Work” or “employ” for purposes of determining employee’s right to compensation means physical and mental exertion controlled or required by employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for benefit of employer and business.… [ 73 ] The Oxford English Dictionary (11th edition) defines “workday” as “a day on which one works”. [ 74 ] Based on those definitions, the ordinary meaning of the word “working day” in clause 25.05 is a day of the week on which work is performed for the benefit of an employer or a business, irrespective of the day of the week on which that work is performed. Had the parties intended to limit the scope of “working day” to a “normal workday”, as defined in the collective agreement, or a “regular day”, they would have done so. [ 75 ] Furthermore, given that it is not in dispute that the purpose of rest periods is to reduce employees’ physical and mental stress and, generally speaking, promote their well-being, health, and safety, it is rather inconsistent to argue that the parties intended to restrict this entitlement to employees working on their regular days. [ 76 ] Nothing in the collective agreement suggests that the parties intended to limit the entitlement to rest periods to employees who work their normal workdays, as defined in the collective agreement, thus excluding employees who work overtime on days of rest or holidays. An interpretation to the contrary would lead to absurd results and undermine the purpose of providing rest periods. Specifically, [NAME] who works a [NAME] shift on a normal workday would be entitled to rest periods, while [NAME] who works the same number of hours on a day of rest or holiday would not. Similarly, the employer’s proposed interpretation of “working day” would have the effect of denying [NAME] who works overtime on a day of rest or a holiday the wash-up [NAME] provided for in article 62 of the collective agreement. Such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of article 62. [ 77 ] Nothing in the collective agreement reveals that the parties intended to tie that entitlement to a specific day on which the work is performed. In other words, it is not driven by the specific day of the week; it is driven by the length of [NAME] worked on any given day and is subject to operational requirements. By choosing a broad and general wording, the parties intended to ensure that all employees who work the required number of hours, regardless of the day of the week, are entitled to rest periods, the purpose of which is to promote employee safety and health. [ 78 ] The employer relies on clause 25.06 to suggest that “[NAME] working day” in clause 25.05 means a normal workday, from Monday to Friday, inclusively. These clauses read as follows: General Généralités … […] 25.05 25.05 a. The Employer will provide two (2) rest periods of fifteen (15) minutes each per [NAME] working day except on occasions when operational requirements do not permit . a. L’[NAME] doit assurer deux (2) périodes de repos de quinze (15) minutes chacune par journée de travail complète, sauf dans les cas où les nécessités du service ne le permettent pas. … […] Day work Travail de jour 25.06 Except as provided for in clauses 25.09, 25.10 and 25.11: 25.06 Sauf indication contraire dans les paragraphes 25.09, 25.10 et 25.11 : a. the normal workweek shall be thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours from Monday to Friday inclusive; a. la semaine normale de travail est de trente-sept virgule cinq (37,5) heures et s’étend du lundi au vendredi inclusivement; and et b. the normal workday shall be seven decimal five (7.5) consecutive hours, exclusive of a lunch period, between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm. b. la journée normale de travail est de sept virgule cinq (7,5) heures consécutives, sauf la pause-repas, et se situe entre 7 h et 18 h. [Emphasis added] [ 79 ] First, clause 25.06, which appears under the subsection “Day work”, is a specific clause. It defines “normal workweek” and “normal workday”. Nothing suggests that the parties intended to limit the ordinary meaning of “[NAME] working day” in clause 25.05(a) by defining, in a separate and distinct clause, the phrases “normal workweek” and “normal workday” (i.e., Monday to Friday, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.). [ 80 ] Put differently, the fact that a “normal workday” is defined as 7.5 consecutive hours, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., from Monday to Friday (the normal workweek), does not mean that the parties intended to assign the same meaning to “[NAME] working day”. On the contrary, the difference in the choice of words (i.e., “[NAME] working day” vs. “normal workday”) that they used suggests that they intended each phrase to have its own distinct meaning. [ 81 ] The parties to the collective agreement are sophisticated negotiators. It can be assumed that they carefully considered the scope and impact of the words that they agreed to include in the collective agreement. The use of distinct terminology (i.e., “[NAME] working day” vs. “normal workday”) in the adjacent clauses 25.05 and 25.06 is unlikely to be coincidental. Rather, it indicates that they intended to specifically distinguish these two concepts. The deliberate use of distinct wording cannot be ignored. It must be given meaning and effect, per the rules of interpretation. [ 82 ] Had the parties intended to limit the entitlement to the two 15-minute rest periods to employees who work on a normal workday, or their regular hours, they would have used, for example, the term “normal workday” or “regular workday”, or something to that effect, in clause 25.05(a) instead of “[NAME] working day”, which, left undefined, has a very broad meaning. [ 83 ] Moreover, the deliberate addition of the word “[NAME]” immediately before the phrase “working day” reinforces the interpretation that “working day” does not mean “normal workday”, as defined in clause 25.06. If it did, the word “[NAME]” would be superfluous, given that a normal workday is already defined as consisting of 7.5 hours. [ 84 ] The parties’ deliberate use of the broad phrase “[NAME] working day” indicates that they did not intend to restrict the entitlement to rest periods under clause 25.05(a) to any specific day. This interpretation allows a flexible application of the entitlement in question and avoids the potentially absurd result of denying it to employees who worked on a day that was not considered their regular workday, such as a day of rest or a holiday. The health, safety, and well-being of employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are equally as important as those of employees who work on a normal workday. [ 85 ] I disagree with the employer’s assertion that the definition of “day of rest” in clause 2.01 somehow suggests that work performed on such a day is not considered a working day within the meaning of clause 25.05(a). The definition of “day of rest” reads as follows: “day of rest” (jour de repos) « jour de repos » (day of rest) in relation to a [NAME] means a day other than a holiday on which that employee is not ordinarily required to perform the duties of his or her position other than by reason of the employee being on leave or absent from duty without permission. désigne, par rapport à un [NAME] à temps plein, un jour autre qu’un jour férié où un [NAME] n’est pas habituellement tenu d’exécuter les fonctions de son poste pour une raison autre que le fait qu’[NAME] est en congé ou qu’[NAME] est absent de son poste sans permission. [ 86 ] This definition simply provides that a day of rest is a day, other than a holiday, on which [NAME] is not ordinarily required to work. The fact that the work was performed on a day of rest does not somehow negate or change the reality that the employee in fact worked on such a day and as such was entitled to the same health and safety protections as [NAME] who worked on a normal workday. [ 87 ] The same reasoning applies to the employer’s argument based on the definition of “holiday”, which reads as follows: “‘ holiday’ (jour férié) means: a. the twenty-four (24) hour period commencing at 00:01 hours of a day designated as a paid holiday in this agreement …”. Put simply, [NAME] who worked on a holiday was not on a holiday; they were working. [ 88 ] For the reasons already outlined, the entitlement to rest periods does not depend on the day on which the work was performed but rather on whether the employee worked a sufficient number of hours to be considered a “[NAME] working day”. [ 89 ] As already noted, the employer concedes that the two 15-minute rest periods provided under clause 25.05(a) are paid, as opposed to the 30-minute unpaid meal break in clause 25.05(b). Therefore, having determined that the entitlement to the benefit in clause 25.05(a) does not depend on the day on which work was performed but rather on the length of the shift, employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are entitled to two 15-minute paid rest periods per [NAME] working day. [ 90 ] Considering that nothing in clause 25.05(a), or in any other collective agreement article, suggests that the two 15 ‑ minute rest periods should be compensated at a premium rate when taken during overtime worked on a day of rest or a holiday, they are to be compensated at the regular rate of pay.

2. Overtime provisions do not bar entitlement to paid rest periods [ 91 ] The employer submits that employees working overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are not entitled to paid rest periods, considering that rest periods are not worked periods. To support its argument, it relies on clause 28.03(a) of the collective agreement, which reads as follows: “[NAME] is entitled to overtime compensation under clauses 28.05 and 28.06 for each completed period of fifteen (15) minutes of overtime worked by him or her when …”. [ 92 ] I note that clause 28.03, unlike clause 25.05, which provides for general working conditions such as rest periods and an unpaid meal break, is a specific provision dealing with compensation for overtime worked. It sets out the applicable compensation formula. It does not abridge or otherwise restrict the general basic working conditions set out in clause 25.05, which the parties agreed to. Nothing in the collective agreement suggests that the parties intended to create second-class working conditions for employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday. [ 93 ] Clause 28.09 of the collective agreement does not support the employer’s argument that the benefit under clause 25.05(a) is not available to employees who work on a day of rest or holiday. That clause deals with a specific set of circumstances in which [NAME] who works overtime immediately before or immediately after their scheduled hours of work is entitled to reimbursement for meal expenses. Clause 28.09 reads as follows: 28.09 Meals 28.09 Repas ** ** a. [NAME] who works three (3) or more hours of overtime immediately before or immediately following the employee’s scheduled hours of work shall be reimbursed his or her expenses for one meal in the amount of twelve dollars ($12) except where free meals are provided. a. L’[NAME] qui effectue trois (3) heures supplémentaires ou plus juste avant ou juste après les heures de travail prévues à son horaire reçoit un remboursement de douze dollars (12,00 $) pour un repas, sauf si le repas est fourni gratuitement. ** ** b. When [NAME] works overtime continuously extending four (4) hours or more beyond the period provided in paragraph (a), the employee shall be reimbursed for one additional meal in the amount of twelve dollars ($12) for each additional four (4) hour period of overtime worked thereafter except where free meals are provided. b. L’[NAME] qui effectue quatre (4) heures supplémentaires ou plus qui se prolongent sans interruption après la période mentionnée à l’alinéa a) ci-dessus reçoit un remboursement de douze dollars (12,00 $) pour chaque période de quatre (4) heures supplémentaires de travail, sauf si les repas sont fournis gratuitement. c. [NAME] with pay, to be determined by the Employer, shall be allowed the employee in order that the employee may take a meal break either at or adjacent to the employee’s place of work . c. Une période payée raisonnable, déterminée par l’[NAME], est accordée à l’[NAME] pour lui permettre de prendre une pause-repas à son lieu de travail ou dans un lieu adjacent. … […] [ 94 ] It is not clear to the Board how this clause supports the employer’s argument that employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are not entitled to rest periods. Clause 28.09 relates to compensation for meal breaks in a specific set of circumstances. It does not have the effect of abridging or otherwise restricting the general working conditions set out in clause 25.05. Moreover, “meal breaks” and “rest periods” have different meanings in the collective agreement, are governed by different provisions, and are subject to different entitlement conditions. [ 95 ] As for the [NAME]’s decision in [NAME] , which the employer cited, it deals with an entirely different issue than the one before me. It is of no assistance. [ 96 ] Specifically, the question before the [NAME] in [NAME] was whether the [NAME] was entitled to a paid meal break, even though he did not work overtime immediately before or immediately following his scheduled hours of work. It determined that given that the [NAME] did not work overtime immediately before or immediately following his scheduled hours of work, the employer was not obliged to pay him for a meal break. That is why the [NAME] denied the grievance. Whether or not overtime was performed on a day of rest was not a consideration in the decision to deny the grievance. I fail to see how [NAME] is even remotely relevant to the grievances before me. [ 97 ] The employer further submits that collective agreements for other groups explicitly provide for paid breaks during overtime on a “day of rest” or “holiday”. Their absence in the collective agreement at issue reflects a deliberate exclusion and is telling of the parties’ intent. To support its argument, it referred the Board to a clause of an unrelated collective agreement, which provides that employees are entitled to a rest period of 15 minutes each for every 3 hours of overtime worked. The quoted clause in question reads as follows: “ 24.20 Overtime Rest Period The Employer shall provide a rest period of fifteen (15) minutes each for every three (3) hours of overtime worked. The assigned break times shall be subject to operational requirements.” [ 98 ] Contrary to the employer’s argument, this clause does not “… explicitly provide for paid breaks during overtime on a ‘ day of rest ’ or ‘ holiday .’” In fact, it does not even mention the words “day of rest” or “holiday”. It simply provides that [NAME] will be granted a 15-minute rest period for every 3 hours of overtime worked. Overtime can be worked on a normal workday, before or following [NAME]’s regular hours, or on a day of rest or holiday. [ 99 ] The second set of clauses that the employer quoted relates to meal breaks during overtime or outside a scheduled shift on a designated paid holiday. I fail to see how those clauses are relevant to the issue before me. Again, meal breaks and rest periods are two distinct benefits, each governed by a separate set of rules. These clauses do not address the issue of entitlement to a rest period on a day of rest or a holiday. [ 100 ] In any event, even if the employer’s cited clauses said what it claims they do, they would still be of no assistance. The mere fact that another collective agreement may expressly provide that employees who work overtime on a day of rest or a holiday are entitled to rest periods does not imply that employees governed by the collective agreement before me are not entitled to such benefit. I am not aware of any interpretation rule requiring me to review the language of unrelated collective agreements to determine entitlements under the applicable collective agreement. The parties’ intention is to be found within the applicable collective agreement.

3. No evidence that the employer breached articles 28 and 30 [ 101 ] Rest periods are, by definition, non ‑ working [NAME]. They are the opposite of work. The clear and unequivocal language in the collective agreement provides that overtime compensation for work performed on a day of rest applies only to periods that are “worked”. The relevant clauses of article 28 read as follows: **Article 28: overtime ** Article 28 : heures supplémentaires … […] General 28.03 Généralités a. [NAME] is entitled to overtime compensation under clauses 28.05 and 28.06 for each completed period of fifteen (15) minutes of overtime worked by him or her when …. a. L’[NAME] a droit à la rémunération des heures supplémentaires prévue aux paragraphes 28.05 et 28.06 pour chaque période complète de quinze (15) minutes de travail supplémentaire qu’[NAME] accomplit : … […] 28.06 Overtime compensation on a day of rest 28.06 Rémunération des heures supplémentaires un jour de repos Subject to paragraph 28.03(a): Sous réserve de l’alinéa 28.03a) : a. [NAME] who is required to work on a first (1st) day of rest is entitled to compensation at [NAME] and one half (1 1/2) for the first (1st) seven decimal five (7.5) hours and double (2) [NAME] thereafter. a. L’[NAME] tenu de travailler un jour de repos est rémunéré au tarif et demi (1 1/2) pour les premières sept virgule cinq (7,5) heures et au tarif double (2) par la suite. b. [NAME] who is required to work on a second (2nd) or subsequent day of rest is entitled to compensation at double (2) [NAME] (second or subsequent day of rest means the second or subsequent day in an unbroken series of consecutive and contiguous calendar days of rest). b. L’[NAME] tenu de travailler durant un deuxième (2e) jour de repos ou un jour de repos subséquent a droit à une rémunération calculée à tarif double (2) (c’est-à-dire le deuxième (2e) jour, ou le jour suivant, d’une série ininterrompue de jours civils de repos consécutifs et accolés). c. When [NAME] is required to report for work and reports on a day of rest, the employee shall be paid the greater of: c. L’[NAME] qui est tenu de se présenter au travail un jour de repos et qui s’y présente touche la plus élevée des deux (2) rémunérations suivantes : i. compensation equivalent to three (3) hours’ pay at the applicable overtime rate for each reporting, to a maximum of eight (8) hours’ compensation in an eight (8) hour period; i. une rémunération équivalant à trois (3) heures de rémunération calculée au tarif des heures supplémentaires applicable pour chaque rentrée au travail, jusqu’à concurrence de huit (8) heures de rémunération au cours d’une période de huit (8) heures; or ou ii. compensation at the applicable overtime rate. ii. la rémunération calculée au tarif applicable des heures supplémentaires. … […] [Emphasis added] [ 102 ] Compensation for work performed on a designated holiday is also limited to hours actually worked. Clause 38.08 reads as follows: Article 30: designated paid holidays Article 30 : jours fériés payés … […] Work performed on a designated holiday Travail accompli un jour férié … […] 30.08 30.08 a. When [NAME] works on a holiday, he or she shall be paid [NAME] and one half (1 1/2) for all hours worked up to seven decimal five (7.5) hours and double (2) [NAME] thereafter, in addition to the pay that the employee would have been granted had he or she not worked on the holiday …. a. L’[NAME] qui travaille un jour férié est rémunéré au tarif et demi (1 1/2) pour toutes les heures effectuées jusqu’à concurrence de sept virgule cinq (7,5) heures et au tarif double (2) par la suite, en plus de la rémunération qu’[NAME] aurait reçue s’[NAME] n’avait pas travaillé ce jour-là […] [Emphasis added] [ 103 ] In its submissions, the bargaining agent did not present any argument or rely on any jurisprudence to suggest that “rest periods” should be deemed [NAME] worked for the purpose of compensation under articles 28 and 30 of the collective agreement. I also note that it did not explain how the employer allegedly breached these provisions. [ 104 ] Because the compensation for overtime worked on a day of rest under clause 28.06 and work performed on a designated holiday under clause 30.08 applies only to [NAME] worked, rest periods taken during such overtime are to be compensated at the regular rate of pay. B. Remedy [ 105 ] The employer did not persuade the Board that in the circumstances of this case, it would be inappropriate to exercise its broad remedial discretion under s. 232 of the Act to order compensation for employees who were not paid for rest periods. The fact that the affected employees could avail themselves of the individual grievance process is not, in itself, determinative of whether the Board should order individual remedies in the context of a policy grievance. [ 106 ] In each of the following cases, the Board and its predecessor allowed a policy grievance and ordered the employer to compensate the affected employees despite the fact that they could have availed themselves of the individual grievance process: Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] (Canada Border Services Agency) , 2018 FPSLREB 82; Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Canada Revenue Agency , 2015 PSLREB 65; and Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) , 2024 FPSLREB 129. [ 107 ] In Public Service Alliance of Canada v. [NAME] , 2025 FPSLREB 78, it was open to the Board, based on the circumstances of that case, to determine that it would be inappropriate to order individual compensation. However, I see no reason that the Board should not order individual remedies in this case. Having found that the employer breached the collective agreement by refusing to compensate employees for their rest periods in accordance with clause 25.05(a), it would be inefficient to require affected employees to pursue individual or group grievances to obtain compensation . [ 108 ] The fact that the record does not contain specific evidence to assess personal compensation is not fatal. If [NAME] falls within the ambit of clause 25.05(a) of the collective agreement, then they are entitled to be compensated for the two 15-minute rest periods at the regular rate of pay, in accordance with these reasons. [ 109 ] In addition, the Board will retain jurisdiction to resolve any issues that may arise in the implementation of its decision. [ 110 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order [ 111 ] The policy grievance in Board file no. 569-02-48521 is allowed in part. [ 112 ] I declare that the employer breached clause 25.05(a) of the collective agreement. [ 113 ] The employer shall compensate employees in the [COMPANY] who, when the collective agreement was in effect, worked overtime on a day of rest, or a designated holiday, for the two 15-minute rest periods, in accordance with these reasons. [ 114 ] The compensation payable to eligible [COMPANY] members by virtue of this order shall be calculated at their regular rates of pay in effect at the [NAME] of the breach. [ 115 ] I declare that the [NAME] in Board files nos. 566-02-50259 to 50262 were entitled to paid rest periods, in accordance with these reasons. [ 116 ] The Board shall remain seized of this matter for a period of 120 days, to address any implementation issues with respect to this order. February 10, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal [NAME]