In an interim decision regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, the Union sought to introduce evidence to interpret various agreements governing CL-215 water bomber pilots, specifically the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.
The Employer argued the agreements were clear and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the 1995 MOU's silence on what agreement applied to the CL-215 pilots created a potential ambiguity or mistake.
Applying the principles of contract interpretation and the parol evidence rule, the Board ruled that extrinsic evidence was admissible to aid in interpreting the 1995 MOU and the term 'irregular hours', but not for the 1991 Minute of Understanding, which was found to be unambiguous.
