Not Everyone can say “I’m Coming to the Cottage”

Toronto, ON — January 13th, 2026 — A recent decision by Arbitrator Michael Bendel reviews and interprets the meaning of “maximum” in determining how much summer vacation an employee can take under the respective parties’ collective agreement vacation provisions.

Background

The case, Norfolk General Hospital v Ontario Nurses’ Association[1], involves two individual grievances, which were heard together. Both grievances raised the same issue regarding requests for vacation leave under the vacation provisions in the parties’ Local Appendix to the ONA collective agreement.

The union claimed that the two applicable grievors, both Registered Nurses, were improperly denied their requests for vacation leave. The union’s interpretation of the collective agreement was that a minimum of 2 weeks off in the summer was required per the collective agreement language, but that there was no reason to deny additional requested vacation in excess of these 2 weeks. The argument hinged on Article H-1 (g) of the parties’ Local Appendix:

(g) Full-time nurses may take a maximum of two (2) weeks of their vacation entitlement off during the summer months. When all full-time nurses have had the opportunity to schedule their 2 weeks off then any time remaining will be granted on the basis of seniority.

The employer disagreed with the union’s position.

The Argument

In written submissions, the union took the position that when the whole scheme of the collective agreement was considered, the word “maximum” in Article H-1 (g) of the local agreement referred to “the limit up to which ONA members most often may go with respect to weeks of vacation in the summer period out of the greater quantum that every ONA member is entitled to under Article 16.01 [of the Central Collective Agreement]”.[2]

In contrast, the employer argued that the provision established a maximum period of two weeks that an employee could take as vacation leave during the summer months, and not a minimum; this was to ensure equitable access to vacations for all employees during the coveted summer months.[3] The employer also noted, having reviewed several dictionary definitions of the word “maximum” and the use of the word “maximum” 21 times in the Central Collective Agreement, that maximum does not mean the minimum.[4]

The Decision

Given Arbitrator Bendel’s view that the language of the impugned provision was “so clear and obvious”, he chose to not opine on an interpretative approach but rather focused on the plain meaning of the text.[5]

Arbitrator Bendel summarized his interpretation of the language as follows:

1) In the first instance, full-time nurses may opt to take no more than two weeks of their vacation entitlement during the summer months;

2) If, after all full-time nurses have had the opportunity to exercise that option, the employer can accommodate additional vacation leave absences during the summer months, requests for those absences are to be granted on the basis of seniority.[6]

Arbitrator Bendel stated that “there was no justification” to change the plain meaning of the word “maximum” as there was no guarantee that every full-time employee who wants two weeks of vacation leave during the summer months” will receive it.[7] He went on to state, “the obvious purpose of the first sentence of the provision is to ensure that access to a basic level of summer-time vacation leave should be made available equally to all employees, regardless of seniority, and the obvious purpose of the second sentence is to ensure that, if the employer has the possibility of accommodating further summer time vacations, seniority should be the criterion for ranking employees’ requests for the further vacation days.”[8]

Arbitrator Bendel did not provide any weight to the union’s argument that the whole “scheme of the collective agreement” ought to be considered when understanding this provision. IIn his view, the vacation provision was clear and self-evident and did not require any further interpretation inquiry.

The grievances were dismissed.

Tips for Employers

1.      A plain reading of the text often wins the day. Why make it complicated? Arbitrators and decision makers won’t.

2.     Say what you mean. Clear and concise drafting of collective agreement provisions benefit everyone and avoids the trap of multiple interpretations.

3.     Vacation scheduling is difficult. Be sure to review your company’s respective collective bargaining agreements to ensure compliance and train your schedulers accordingly. Start early and map it out. Everyone wants to go to the cottage!

If you have any questions about this decision, your collective agreement language or any other workplace issues facing your team, please reach out to this author or the Protea team.