Employer Must Fully Reimburse Special Driver's License Costs

Date: 2026 0331 Files: 566-33-42743 to 42749 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 30 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME], and [NAME] CANADA AGENCY Employer Indexed as [NAME] v. Parks Canada Agency In the matter of individual grievances referred to adjudication Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For the [NAME]: [NAME], counsel For the Employer: [NAME], counsel ADVANCE \y 657 Heard via videoconference, October 9, 2024. (FPSLREB Translation )

REASONS FOR

DECISION (FPSLREB TRANSLATION)

I. Overview [ 1 ] This decision deals with seven individual grievances dated 2018. At that time, the [NAME] all challenged the Parks Canada Agency’s (“the employer”) decision not to reimburse the costs of renewing their respective driver’s licences. [ 2 ] According to the [NAME], the employer’s decision contravened clause 54.01 of the [NAME] between the employer and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“the bargaining agent”) that expired on August 4, 2018 (“the [NAME]”). The employer denies any [NAME] contravention. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the employer effectively contravened clause 54.01 of the [NAME]. Therefore, the grievances must be allowed.

II. The facts [ 4 ] The facts of this case are not in dispute and are the subject of a joint statement that the parties agreed to that is accompanied by a joint book of documents. [ 5 ] The [NAME] are all employed by the employer and work in the province of Quebec. As evidenced by their respective offer letters, they occupy different positions at the [NAME], GL-MAN-09, and GL-MAN-10 group and levels. They are essentially welders, carpenters, or canal and waterway maintenance workers. [ 6 ] The terms and conditions of employment for those positions require that the incumbent hold valid Class 5 and Class 3 driver’s licences or that they obtain them within 12 months of being hired. Only 1 [NAME]’s position also requires holding a Class 1 driver’s licence. The licences must be valid for the duration of their employment with the employer. All those requirements are set out in each [NAME]’s offer letter. [ 7 ] In Quebec, a Class 5 driver’s licence, which permits driving a motor vehicle, must be held to obtain a Class 3 licence, which permits driving different types of trucks and vehicles not covered by a Class 5. Certain other conditions and requirements must be met to obtain a Class 3. [ 8 ] Between September 24 and October 31, 2018, each [NAME] asked the employer to reimburse the costs associated with renewing their driver’s licence, which it refused. Therefore, they filed individual grievances, which are the subjects of this decision.

III. Summary of evidence A. For the [NAME] [ 9 ] The [NAME] called only one witness. As of the hearing, [NAME] was the regional coordinator of occupational health and safety, Ontario region and waterways. But when the grievances were filed, he was a canal and waterway maintenance worker for the employer’s [NAME] in a [NAME] group-and-level position. He filed a grievance in 2018 while he was an employee in that position. [ 10 ] During that period, Mr. [NAME]-[NAME] also held bargaining agent positions. Specifically, he was a steward from 2016 and then a local president between 2018 and 2023. [ 11 ] He explained that at that time, members regularly asked him questions about having driver’s licence costs reimbursed. He always replied unequivocally that the employer did not reimburse them and that to his knowledge, nothing in the [NAME] was to that effect. [ 12 ] He recalled that another employee even asked the employer that question at a team meeting and that the employer replied in the negative. He was also not aware of any employee of the employer who had been reimbursed their driver’s licence costs. [ 13 ] Mr. [NAME]-[NAME] became aware of clause 54.01, about membership fees, during a [NAME] training session that he attended in summer 2018. He then realized that the clause’s second paragraph specifically referred to driver’s licence reimbursement when the employer requires a special class of one. [ 14 ] That is why when he then received the renewal notice for his driver’s licence, he requested its reimbursement from his technical services coordinator, who told him that he would have to inquire about it because he had never before received such a request from an employee. Eventually, Mr. [NAME]-[NAME] learned that the [NAME] had rejected his request. He then decided to file a grievance against that decision. [ 15 ] Mr. [NAME]-[NAME]’s understanding of the employer’s position was that it interprets the [NAME] clause in question as meaning that it should reimburse only the cost difference between the Class 5 and the other licence classes required for the position. He pointed out that that cannot correspond to full reimbursement, as the [NAME] states, since the difference in Quebec is zero. Thus, in fact, there can be no reimbursement. [ 16 ] When asked about a May 2003 labour relations interpretation bulletin (“the interpretation bulletin”), Mr. [NAME]-[NAME] said that he had never before seen it and that incidentally, it was not available on the Internet. According to him, the bargaining agent had never approved or endorsed it. B. For the employer [ 17 ] The employer also called only one witness. In October 2018, [NAME] was the human resources manager for the [NAME]. Thus, she advised the unit director and management on human resources issues. [ 18 ] Referring to one [NAME]’s offer letter, [NAME] explained the difference between Class 3 and 5 driver’s licences. She explained that a Class 5 permits operating a regular vehicle, while among other things, a Class 3 permits operating the specialized vehicles in the employer’s workshops. [ 19 ] Referring to a 2018-2019 comparative table from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), [NAME] noted that Class 3 and 5 driver’s licences cost the same in 2018. Therefore, at that time, after consulting the [NAME], the employer concluded that it should not reimburse the entire licence, as the [NAME] requested. She noted that the employer also consulted its Corporate Labour Relations team, to ensure that its position was consistent with the one for all its employees. She was not aware that an employee in Quebec had already been reimbursed for their driver’s licence. [ 20 ] Finally, when questioned about the interpretation bulletin, [NAME] explained that the employer’s labour relations experts in its national office generated it and that it is intended for human resources managers like her.

IV. Summary of the arguments A. For the [NAME] [ 21 ] The [NAME]’ representative submitted that this file is not complex in terms of [NAME] interpretation. He stated that clause 54.01 is clear. Nevertheless, the employer adds approval conditions that limit access and increase exceptions. By doing that, it distorts the clause in question’s subject, to render it obsolete, and its interpretation creates an absurdity since in fact it results in no reimbursement. [ 22 ] The bargaining agent submits that the reimbursement provided in clause 54.01 of the [NAME] does not depend on the licence’s cost or how it is calculated. The only condition for entitlement to the reimbursement is mentioned in the clause’s second paragraph. As soon as a position requires a special class of driver’s licence, it is reimbursed in full. [ 23 ] As for demerit points, the bargaining agent representative agreed that they can significantly increase the licence’s renewal cost. Nevertheless, he submitted that the [NAME] has nothing that states that the reimbursement would not cover that too. He referred to the definitions of the words “reimbursement” and “full”. [ 24 ] Clause 54.01 of the [NAME] should be interpreted liberally, thus favouring ordinary situations and limiting the effects of exceptions. The clause’s purpose is to reimburse a special class of driver’s licence. Adding conditions or terms to it would introduce both a distance from that objective and a restrictive effect. [ 25 ] By limiting the reimbursement to only the cost difference between Class 5 licences and the other classes, the employer does not make a full reimbursement, as the [NAME] stipulates. Moreover, thus, the employer ensures that no reimbursements are issued in Quebec since no such cost difference exists. [ 26 ] If the employer wanted other terms and conditions, it had to put them in writing. To illustrate that suggestion, the bargaining agent referred me to clause 54.02, which contains specific conditions and exceptions. That is not so in clause 54.01. He also referred me to Syndicat des travailleurs de [COMPANY]. (CSN) v. [COMPANY]. , 2014 QCTA 31. [ 27 ] As for the interpretation bulletin, the bargaining agent stated that it never approved or even negotiated or discussed it with the employer. And the employer never shared it. As [NAME] affirmed, it is a working document of the employer. [ 28 ] The bargaining agent concluded by recalling that during [NAME] negotiations, the parties make gains but also concessions. Still, they must respect what the [NAME] sets out once it is concluded. That may not be suitable for the employer today, but it must respect this clause, which is clear. It made a commitment at the national level to make full refunds, which it must now do. B. For the employer [ 29 ] The employer explained that refusing to reimburse the renewal costs of the [NAME]’ Class 3 driver’s licences in no way breaches the [NAME]. [ 30 ] It argued that it is a condition of employment for the [NAME] to hold a Class 5 driver’s licence. Therefore, they must bear the annual renewal cost. Although another employment condition requires also obtaining and maintaining a Class 3 licence, it does not lead to any additional costs for the [NAME]. The Class 3 renewal costs are included in the Class 5 renewal fee. Thus, reimbursing a Class 3 would in fact be equivalent to reimbursing the Class 5 licence, which clause 54.01 specifically excludes. [ 31 ] The employer’s representative argued that the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) should not use the principles of [NAME] interpretation because the clause’s wording is clear. He submitted that the employer applied it to the letter based on its interpretation bulletin. [ 32 ] The employer concluded by recalling that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the [NAME]’s wording, which it cannot add to or modify. C. The [NAME]’ reply [ 33 ] In its reply to the employer’s arguments, the bargaining agent pointed out that the employer justified the validity of its interpretation of the [NAME]’s clause 54.01 by its earlier interpretation documented in the interpretation bulletin. Although the employer affirmed that the clause is clear and that it should not be interpreted, it added things that are not in the clause. According to the bargaining agent, one cannot be in both situations set out in clause 54.01 at the same time, but only in the first or the second.

V. Analysis [ 34 ] It is always interesting to note that although each party stated loud and clear that the relevant [NAME] clause in this case is clear and should not be interpreted, their respective readings as to its application differ greatly. [ 35 ] It is true that in the context of this case, the terms that the parties used when they drafted clause 54.01 of the [NAME] appear simple and that its structure is not particularly complex. Nevertheless, the fact that the parties chose simple words does not necessarily mean that it will be impossible for the parties to interpret them differently, as is so in this case. [ 36 ] Irrespective of the terms and structure, attempting to interpreting a clause becomes unnecessary only when it can objectively have just one possible interpretation. Its application alone is enough. The maxim that a clear clause should not be subjected to any interpretation then makes sense. However, I do not believe that that applies in this case. [ 37 ] Since the parties have arrived at very different results as to how clause 54.01 applies, therefore, they interpret it themselves, and the bargaining agent’s and the employer’s interpretations are not the same. Thus, I must also interpret it, to determine which one is the most likely in this case. [ 38 ] To do it, I must give the parties’ words their ordinary, common, and usual meanings. The rest of the [NAME] must also be considered, as it represents the context in which the words used must be interpreted (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) , 2010 PSLRB 112 at para. 51). [ 39 ] The bargaining agent agrees that in this case, an employee holding a Class 5 driver’s licence is not reimbursed under clause 54.01 of the [NAME]. However, its contention is that if an employee has to pay for a special class of driver’s licence, they must be reimbursed in full. [ 40 ] In response to my questions, the [NAME]’ representative acknowledged that I have no evidence that an additional expense was incurred to obtain a Class 3 driver’s licence with respect to any of the [NAME]’ driver’s licences. However, he suggested that the Class 3 driver’s licence cost is included in the amount paid to renew the licence as a whole, and therefore, the employer should reimburse it. [ 41 ] The [NAME] all work in Quebec, without exception. Therefore, the facts and evidence presented to me and relevant to this case are those that apply in that province. Other conditions or requirements may exist in other provinces. That is why this decision deals only with the [NAME] and their situation in Quebec. It is not intended to settle the debate at the national level, as the parties seem to wish. In any event, I am dealing with individual grievances, not a policy grievance. [ 42 ] In their agreed statement of facts, the parties agreed that all the positions in question require acquiring and holding a “special” class of driver’s licence within the meaning of clause 54.01 of the [NAME] that is different from a Class 5, which is referred to as normal or ordinary. The [NAME]’ offer letters also mention it. [ 43 ] The evidence about the costs to obtain and renew the different driver’s licences is very incomplete, and the parties did not really clarify it or make it more precise at the hearing. However, it is sufficient to demonstrate that in the province of Quebec, the cost to renew a driver’s licence in 2018 was the same for one that included one or more of Classes 1 to 5. [ 44 ] The documentary evidence also appears to set out that the additional cost associated with a Class 6 driver’s licence, for motorcycles, is different, at least in part, from that for just Classes 1 to 5. It is also clear from the evidence that the cost of renewing a Class 1 to 5 driver’s licence is significantly affected by the number of demerit points that can be entered in the licence holder’s file at renewal time. The renewal cost can easily double or even multiply by six, depending on the number of accumulated demerit points. Those two factors will be discussed later in the decision. [ 45 ] Finally, the evidence indicates that a person must necessarily hold a Class 5 driver’s licence to obtain a Class 3 licence. Therefore, the employer’s logic that it has nothing to reimburse the [NAME] for since their terms and conditions of employment require a Class 5 driver’s licence, for which they already pay the renewal cost, leads to the belief that clause 54.01, which the parties negotiated, is unnecessary. So why was it included in the [NAME]? [ 46 ] If the clause is intended to cover only the difference in costs between a Class 5 and the other driver’s licence classes, it does not say so. And if, in fact, the employer is never obliged to reimburse the difference because there is none, as in this case, the clause then becomes useless. [ 47 ] The parties took care to negotiate and include the second paragraph of clause 54.01. It must have utility and meaning. Its words must mean something. Although it clearly indicates that an employee is not reimbursed for the cost of a normal driver’s licence, i.e., a Class 5, it goes on to state that the same employee will receive a full refund if a special class of driver’s licence is required. [ 48 ] The bargaining agent suggests that the second paragraph refers to two different situations and that an employee cannot be in both situations at the same time. Because of the wording that the parties specifically chose in this case, I agree with the bargaining agent. [ 49 ] By giving an ordinary meaning to the parties’ words, I conclude that although the employer cannot reimburse an employee for the cost of a driver’s licence if they hold only a Class 5, if the employer requires them to hold another class of licence, the employee must be reimbursed in full. [ 50 ] The [NAME] defines the word “ complet ” (“[translation] full”) as “[translation] 1. includes all the necessary elements, and nothing is missing … 6. is perfect in what it is, without reservation, restriction, or mitigation ….” Moreover, the same dictionary offers the synonyms “ entier ” ([“translation] whole”), “ integral ” (“[translation] complete”), or “ total ” (“[translation] entire”) for “ complet ”. [ 51 ] When the parties to the [NAME] wanted to subject a refund to specific terms and conditions or wanted to specify what was or was not reimbursed, they did not hesitate to, in detail, as evidenced by the wording of clause 54.02. Also note that that clause immediately follows the clause at issue in this case and is under the same subtitle of membership fees. [ 52 ] It would have been easy for the parties to make it clear in the second paragraph of clause 54.01 that the reimbursement covered only the difference between the cost of a normal driver’s licence class and the cost of a special class if that was their intention. They did not. Also, if the word “reimbursement” was chosen only for the difference or gap between two costs, why was the word “full” added? The objective would have been achieved without adding that word. Yet, they chose to add it. [ 53 ] The employer also defended its interpretation by arguing that it seeks and ensures the uniform application of clause 54.01 of the [NAME] at the national level. It also contended that another interpretation would create inequities between its employees depending on the province in which they are located. If so, it had to prove it. [ 54 ] The only documents presented to me that deal with possible differences in driver’s licence costs between provinces are the interpretation bulletin and [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of National Defence) , 2004 PSSRB 57. [ 55 ] Although the interpretation bulletin states that the cost of driver’s licences is calculated differently depending on the province, it is not acceptable evidence for this purpose. It provides no specific details, it came from the employer, and it dates to 2003, but these grievances were filed in 2018. [ 56 ] With respect to the [NAME] decision, reading it provides a brief overview of what the costs in Nova Scotia in 2002 of different classes of driver’s licences might have been. Again, it is not acceptable evidence to support the employer’s assertion that driver’s licence costs are calculated differently in each province, either today or in 2018. Therefore, the potential inequities that the employer suggested were not proved in this case. [ 57 ] Nevertheless, now consider broadly and hypothetically the employer’s suggestion that if the Board followed the bargaining agent’s proposed interpretation, it would result in its employees being treated differently at the national level. For discussion purposes, assume theoretically that one or more other provinces have different fees. The employer stated that it would reimburse only the difference. That would necessarily result in differential treatment also because, depending on the province, some employees would be reimbursed, while others would not be. [ 58 ] There may also be a greater difference between the cost of two classes in some provinces compared to others. What if the price of a normal licence were lower elsewhere than in Quebec? It would still potentially result in differential treatment depending on the province in which the employee worked. [ 59 ] Again, the employer did not provide any evidence to support its proposal. I must consider that it is equally possible that all the provinces are identical to Quebec and that the price of a Class 5 driver’s licence automatically includes the price of a Class 3 driver’s licence. It is not for me to demonstrate any of those possibilities. The employer had to do it; it did not. [ 60 ] In any event, once again, through its proposal, the employer tried to bring the debate to a national level. I understand that the [NAME] applies to all its employees across the country. However, at the risk of repeating myself, the grievances before me are individual grievances of employees in Quebec, not policy grievances. Therefore, I have to take into account what specifically applies to the [NAME]. I must also consider the evidence before me, which is lacking in several respects. Again, beyond the employer’s assertions, I was shown nothing that would support them. [ 61 ] With respect to Class 6, which permits driving a motorcycle in Quebec, the employer does not require one for the [NAME] in this case. Therefore, its associated costs need not be included in the reimbursement, even in full, under clause 54.01 of the [NAME]. I make this point because although the employer did not make any argument on this matter at the hearing, nevertheless, it referred to it in some of its responses at the different grievance process levels. [ 62 ] While the evidence suggests confusion about some fees for someone holding both Class 5 and 6 licences, it appears that nevertheless, in 2018, there was a way to distinguish the additional costs of having a Class 6 at renewal time. The cost difference could be ruled out since the clause covers only the full reimbursement of what is required. [ 63 ] Finally, with respect to the additional costs of demerit points when renewing a driver’s licence, I agree with the employer that they also cannot be claimed from it. Apart from the fact that that would compensate an employee for their turpitude — or recklessness, as the employer stated — those costs would be solely dependent on the employee’s good behaviour. Therefore, they would not be predictable for or acceptable to the employer. [ 64 ] In addition, those excess costs are not per se necessary to obtain or renew a licence. Quite the opposite. It becomes necessary to pay them solely through the employee’s carelessness, which cannot be imposed on the employer.

VI. Conclusion [ 65 ] The [NAME] had the burden of proving that the employer breached the [NAME]. Since they claim a monetary entitlement, they had to demonstrate specific language in the [NAME] imposing that obligation on the employer (see [NAME] v. Canada Revenue Agency , 2013 PSLRB 55 at para. 27; and [NAME] v. National Research Council of Canada , 2016 PSLREB 76 at para. 180). That is what they did. [ 66 ] However, in its response, the employer failed to shake that logic and convince me that the [NAME] asked for something to which they were not entitled. Although it referred me to the [NAME] , and [NAME] decisions to support its arguments, I find that they do not really help it when applied to the specific circumstances of this case. [ 67 ] Furthermore, the [NAME] decision, which both parties referred me to, resulted from an expedited adjudication. However, as the information on the first page of that decision states, it cannot constitute a precedent. [ 68 ] Moreover, the complete absence of evidence of possible inequity or absurdity at the national level is a cruel rebut to the employer’s claims. In any event, even were such an injustice demonstrated to me, it would not necessarily result in excluding the bargaining agent’s interpretation, as stated in the decision to which it referred me (see [NAME] , at para. 50). [ 69 ] While the employer maintained that the clause is clear and that it should not be interpreted, nevertheless, it referred me to an internal document from 2003 to demonstrate to me that its interpretation is correct. Usually, extrinsic evidence is used only if the clause to be interpreted is ambiguous. [ 70 ] On one hand, it contradicts the employer’s assertion as to the clause’s clarity, but on the other hand, I do not believe that clause 54.01 is ambiguous and requires recourse to the interpretation bulletin. In any event, this document does not serve the employer’s case. It is only its own interpretation, which does not necessarily reflect the parties’ common intent.

VII. Corrective action [ 71 ] I read the [NAME]’ grievances, and I noted that they ask individually for several corrective measures. However, the grievances appear to have been carefully copied from each other. Nevertheless, although the grievances were heard simultaneously, they are individual grievances. Therefore, in principle, each employee’s specific situation could lead to them being awarded different corrective measures. [ 72 ] In addition, no evidence was presented to me during the hearing to support the [NAME]’ claimed corrective measures, and the parties made no related representations. Therefore, I leave it to them to agree to the appropriate remedies. Nevertheless, within the prescribed period, they may refer to the Board any obstacle or question that may arise when implementing this decision. [ 73 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

VIII. Order [ 74 ] The grievances are allowed. [ 75 ] I shall remain seized of these grievances for a period of 90 days from the date of this decision, to deal with any matter relating to its implementation by the parties. March 31, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board