Contract Conflict
<p>My new contract states that
"Effective... you will begin accruing vacation time at a rate of 6% of your annual earnings. This is equivalent to three weeks (120 hours) of paid vacation entitlement on an annual basis."</p>

<p>Being an hourly employee who is not paid overtime, all work time is subject to the 6% accruing rate, and as a result not representative/equivalent to 3 weeks, as my work days can greatly vary (20-84 hours a week). On average, I end up at the end of the year working more than the average 40 hour work week. By giving me 3 weeks, I do not accrue vacation pay at a rate of 6%. </p>

<p>By signing the contract did I agree to wave that it will be accrued at 6% and instead representative of the 3 weeks?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>By signing the contract did I agree to wave that it will be accrued at 6% and instead representative of the 3 weeks?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. You only agreed to an accrual rate of 6% of your annual earnings. The mentioned three-week "equivalency" is rather irrelevant for an employee whose schedule significantly differs from 40 hours/week.</p>

<p>Even if at some point your employer tries to shortchange you by using that "equivalency" as criterion to compute your accruals, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">doctrine of <em>contra proferentem</em></a> would favor your position because the employer is the one who drafted the contradictory clause.</p>

contract-law canada