Article content continued

So, sound simple enough?

Please keep this fact in mind as we wind up the orchestra: Close, a service delivery agent for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, is classified as a CR-05, earning roughly $50,000 a year. The three hours of disputed pay is about $80.

How far should we go over 80 bucks?

There was a two-day hearing in Sydney. (To be fair, a second case on the same theme was lumped in.)

There was the presence of two lawyers, apparently based in Ottawa. Unless they walked, presumably there were travel and hotel expenses. There was the time and skill of Kate Rogers, the lawyer and adjudicator, who probably does not live in Sydney either.

There was testimony from Close, her husband and one of her several bosses. There were exhibits that showed snowfall and evidence about the length of the driveway and the condition of Mr. Close’s back, her unfamiliarity with the snowblower and questions about the availability of taxis or ride-sharing.

We did not hear what she had for breakfast, which seems a gross oversight. We did hear that she made up the three hours by working later in the days that followed, which seems like a sensible resolution.

But it did not end there. It was resolved on March 2, 2016, more than five years later, when her employer was ordered to pay her the 80 bucks. Five years?

You know, I belong to a union, so I know that defending a contract clause matters and certain principles are worth fighting for, though the costs sometimes seem disproportionate.