Is there any case law where the Arbitrator directed himself to look for some indication in the Agreement that there was a contrary intention?

My reading of the above-noted extracts suggests that the Arbitrator, having concluded that accumulating vacation leave credits while on sick leave was anomalous, directed himself to nonetheless look for some indication in the Agreement of a contrary intention. Having so directed himself, he concluded there was no evidence of a contrary intention. In my view, this approach ignores the plain meaning of the words used and runs afoul of established interpretation principles. In so finding, I return to Complex Services v. O.P.S.E.U., supra, at para.23: The fundamental rule of collective agreement and statutory interpretation is the words used must be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless it is apparent from the structure of the provision of the collective agreement read as a whole that a different or special meaning is intended.