Grievance Handling -- How to interpret contract language

Is The Language Clear And Unambiguous?

Determining whether the contract clearly states what was intended can be very frustrating. In a dispute, each side is inclined to make a clause mean what they want it to mean. When the company interprets a clause to mean one thing and you think it means something else, you need to make an effort to look at the language objectively.

Try to read the clause the way some stranger who knows nothing about the case and has no interest in it would read the language. Essentially, that's what happens when the arbitrator comes in. The arbitrator has nothing to gain or lose, so he or she can be objective.

Look at this language: "Shift workers will be given 20 minutes from their regular shift for eating lunch, at the convenience of the management." It seems pretty clear. But would it apply to people who work only days?

Ambiguous language is the type of unclear language that can be understood two different ways and both readings are reasonable. For example, "Employees must report any absence for illness or injury prior to the beginning of their shift" is ambiguous. The company would no doubt say it means you need to call in every day you will be out, but it is reasonable to read it as meaning you could call in once for a multiple day absence.

An arbitrator will consider several factors when interpreting language that is unclear or ambiguous.

1. What was the intent of the parties when they negotiated? Courts have consistently ruled that what the parties believed they were agreeing to overrules a strict reading of the actual language. If you intend to use this factor to interpret the language, you'll need to look back at the bargaining committee's notes, initial demands, how the language differs from previous contracts, and other documents relating to what people were thinking while at the negotiating table.
2. Does one interpretation deprive a worker of other contract rights? The arbitrator will disregard any interpretation of the contract that would break a law or violate a worker's civil rights.
3. Has either party permitted a certain interpretation over a period of time without protest or appeal? This criterion can work for both the company and the worker. If you let the company get away with using their interpretation of the language for several years before anyone files a grievance, don't expect the arbitrator to take your side.
4. What has been the company's past practice in similar situations? What is normal practice in the industry?
5. Would one interpretation bring harsh or nonsensical results? Arbitrators opt for resolutions they believe will bring just and reasonable results. For example, if the contract reads, "workers must call in sick every day of an absence for illness or injury," it would be harsh and unreasonable to expect a person in a coma to call in sick every day.
6. If two interpretations of the language seem equally reasonable, the arbitrator will probably not assess a penalty