Numéro de sentence arbitrale 97-003

Voir le texte intégral de ce prix ou voir résumé ci-dessous

Award Date:	1997-01-17
Arbitre:	Picher, P. Voir les prix par Picher, P.
Municipalité:	Metro Toronto Voir les prix а partir de Metro Toronto
Région:	Central Voir les prix а partir de Central
Classifications:	Retirement, Management Rights, Social Contract
Plaignant:	Association
Comparutions:	C.M. Mitchell, R. Aveling and others, pour l'Association M. Hines and others, pour l'employeur
Longueur:	77 pp
Référence conventions collective	Art. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 26 Local agreement (SC) Art. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13
Référence législative	Police Services Act ss. 4, 5, 10, 31, 38, 40, 59, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 126, 128, 129 Pensions Benefits Act; Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act; Labour Relations Act s 2(1)(d) Interpretation Act s. 28 (b); Income Tax Act

Sommaire

---

Retirement   Early retirement incentives - Uniform and civilian members - Early Retirement Incentive not breaching express or implied terms of collective agreement - Grievance dismissed.

Management Rights   Fairness - Early retirement incentives - Uniform and civilian members - Employer not in breach of duty to bargain in good faith by unilaterally implementing early retirement incentive - Unilateral program not in breach of express or implied terms of collective agreement - Early retirement incentives not covered by collective agreement - Grievance dismissed.

Social Contract   Uniform and civilian members - Early retirement incentive separate and distinct from expenditure reduction targets under local agreement - Early retirement incentive in local agreement constituting “complete code” only in relation to early retirement incentive under Social Contract - Local agreement not addressing further measures necessitated by further cuts from province - Early retirement incentive not in violation of local agreement - Grievance dismissed.

---

Réalités

The Association objected to the Board's unilateral introduction of an Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) in 1995. The incentive was offered to both uniform and civilian members. The package offered different incentives but included 4 months' salary, employer funded premiums for medical, dental and hospital care to age 65, a paid up life insurance policy of $5000, and in the case of civilian members extra vacation.

The Association had not challenged an earlier retirement incentive introduced in late 1993, after the parties negotiated a local agreement pursuant to the Social Contract Act.

Paragraph 6 of the parties' local agreement under the Social Contract Act contained an early retirement incentive, as one of the measures designed to meet identified Expenditure Reduction Targets.

Argument

The Association argued that the local agreement constituted a "complete code" with respect to early retirement incentives. Hence the 1995 ERI was prohibited by the local agreement. The Association contended that the ERI also violated Art. 4 and 5 of the collective agreement (salary and hours of work), Art. 7 (vacations), Art. 8 (pensions) and Art. 14 (sick pay credits upon termination), as well as the collective agreement as a whole which, according to the Association, fully covered areas of compensation. Moreover, the Board had breached Art. 3 of the collective agreement, requiring bargaining in good faith.

The Board maintained that nothing in the local agreement prevented additional incentives to address further cuts by the province. The Board submitted that the ERI was neither "salary" nor "pension". Instead it was an isolated offer not covered by the provisions of the collective agreement. The subject of incentives was one of many areas left unregulated by the collective agreement. With respect to the duty to bargain in good faith, the Board noted that the Association was not a trade union regulated by the Labour Relations Act. The Board argued that the ERI did not in any way offend any duty of recognition.

# de sentence arbirale

The local agreement addressed only savings going to the Expenditure Reduction Target under the Social Contract. It imposed no constraints on the Board in terms of options for meeting other budgetary obligations.

The compensation offered under the ERI was not "salary" in exchange for work. Similarly, vacation under the ERI was an incentive, not a benefit for service. Nor was the compensation a "pension." The collective agreement did not exhaust the field of payments upon retirement. The whole area of incentives was untouched by the collective agreement. Moreover, the ERI did not violate any implied term of the collective agreement.

The unilateral introduction of the ERI was not in breach of any recognition due the Association. The Board didn't make deals with individual members in any area encompassed by the collective agreement. In short, the ERI was not covered by the collective agreement. The Arbitrator found no unwillingness to bargain, merely an insistence by the Board that it didn't need the Association's consent to the ERI. In fact the Board had discussed the issue to the point of impasse before it took action.

Grievance dismissed.

Voir le texte intégral de ce prix