Arbitrator rules union employee did not “retire” under the collective agreement
May 21, 2026
An arbitrator concluded that a union employee who left the company at age 44 did not “retire” under the collective agreement and was ineligible for post-retirement benefits as a result.
The dispute hinged on Article 21.2 of the collective agreement, which states:
- Employees Hired Before January 1, 2017
Employees will be entitled to post-retirement benefits (PRB) if they have worked for Portlands Energy Centre for a continuous period of ten (10) years and retire whilst in employment of the company.
- Employees Hired After January 1, 2017
Employees will be entitled to post-retirement benefits (PRB) when the sum of their age (Minimum 55 years of age) and years of service is equal to or greater than seventy-five (75).
After 10 years of service, the 44 year old union employee who had been hired by the employer before January 1, 2017 (the “grievor”) provided notice of his intention to retire to his employer and claimed he was entitled to post-retirement benefits (“PRB”). The employer denied the grievor’s claim to PRB and the union took the grievance to arbitration.
The union claimed that since the grievor was hired before January 1, 2017 and had over 10 years of continuous service, he was entitled to PRBs upon notice of his “retirement” under the first prong of the two prong test. The employer disagreed and took the position that an employee must be at least 55 years old, or in receipt of a pension, in order to be considered to “retire” upon leaving the company. The employer argued that the grievor had simply quit his employment.
The arbitrator determined that since “retire” was not defined in the collective agreement, it must “be interpreted having regard to its plain, ordinary, and everyday meaning” which the arbitrator determined to be the “termination of one’s employment upon reaching a specific age.”
Under this interpretation, the arbitrator found that the grievor did not “retire” within the meaning of Article 21.2 of the Collective Agreement. The arbitrator also took into account that the eligibility criteria before January 1, 2017 was meant to replicate the eligibility criteria in an old collective bargaining agreement, which also supported an age 55 retirement requirement. Consequently, the grievor was not entitled to PRB.
Click on ‘More information’ below to read the decision:
