ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS LIUNA,

Transcription

1 1402/MOL IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN VILLA FORUM ( the employer / Villa Forum ) - AND - ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS LIUNA, Local 1110 ( the union ) CONCERNING AN INTEREST ARBITRATION UNDER THE HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES ARBITRATION ACT, RSO 1990, c H.14 (HLDAA) BOARD OF ARBITRATION Christopher Albertyn Chair Yves Campeau Employer Nominee Sean McFarling Union Nominee APPEARANCES For the Union: Shalom Schachter, Counsel Adrienne Anderson, In House Counsel Nancy Guzzo, OFHCW Business Manager Fil Falbo, Business Agent Gary Legister Julia Spassova Isadora Espela Joyleen Aransevia For the Employer: Ryan Wood, Employer Representative Nicole Desjardins Celia Lisi Hearing held in BRAMPTON on March 4, Executive Session held in TORONTO on March 24, Award issued on May 7, 2014.

2 1 AWARD 1. This is an interest arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c H.14 ( HLDAA or the Act ). 2. Villa Forum is a not-for-profit nursing home owned by the Mississauga Italian Benevolent Association, operated by Chartwell, in Mississauga. It has 160 licensed beds. The union has an all employee bargaining unit of 70 full-time, 54 part-time and 63 casual staff. Term of the agreement 3. The term of the renewal collective agreement is from May 1, 2012 to April 30, Agreed upon items 4. The renewal agreement will consist of the unchanged items from the collective agreement which expired on April 30, 2012, the items agreed by the

3 parties themselves, which are incorporated into this award, and the items we describe below on which the parties made submissions to us. 2 General considerations 5. We have carefully reviewed and considered all of the submissions, and we have taken account of all of the relevant statutory and jurisprudential factors recommended to us by the parties, particularly replication, comparability, total compensation and demonstrated need. 6. Among many other submissions, the union particularly advocated two principles. The first is that the best means to stimulate the Ontario economy is to have higher wages for the working class so that they spend more on goods and services, so stimulating production, and increasing employment. Such stimulus is much to be preferred to austerity. We accept this principle. The second principle the union advanced is that the Teplitsky award for the nursing home sector should not be followed because it was based on a flawed analogy. We do not accept this. Right or wrong, the Teplitsky award determined the wage levels for the nursing home industry for the period relevant to the term of the agreement covered by this award. We seek to replicate the agreement the parties would themselves have

4 3 come to. This award cannot be a trend setter; to replicate collective bargaining it must follow the clear pattern for the industry, the pattern set by the Teplitsky award. 7. The union also argued that additional increases should be given to housekeeping, dietary and laundry employees and to the cooks as catch-up to comparable rates in other not-for-profit nursing homes. We are not persuaded that the comparisons warrant catch-up. 8. Unless directly dealt with in this award, all outstanding employer and union proposals are dismissed. All items awarded are effective from the date of the award, save for the wage increases that are retroactive to the dates specified. Issues in Dispute on which an award is given Seniority 9. Article is to read: Seniority shall be defined as length of continuous service with the employer in the bargaining unit since date of last hire and shall be calculated for full-time employees as last date of hire and part-time employees as one year of service shall equal 1800 hours worked.

5 4 Vacation 10. Article is amended to provide that after 15 years of service, 5 weeks vacation at 10%. Sick leave 11. There is to be a new Article 17.01(g), to read: If the employer requires proof of illness the employer shall reimburse the employee for the reasonable costs upon proof of payment. Benefits 12. Vision is increased to $180 every 24 months. 13. Uniform allowance is amended to 7c per hour for all hours worked. This payment is to be made in the first payroll in January of each year. Premiums 14. The weekend premium is increased to 20c per hour.

6 5 Letters of Understanding 15. The Letter of Understanding Re. Article 7.01b is amended by the deletion of the second paragraph. Wages 16. We award the following wage payments, retroactive as stipulated. For the period from May 1, 2012, we award as follows: Within two full pay periods immediately following the date of the release of this award, employees will be entitled to a lump sum payment calculated on the basis of 1% of the employee's straight time hourly rate of pay for each hour paid in the period of May 1, 2012 to and including April 30, Vacation hours, paid holiday hours and sick pay hours are to be included in the total paid hours. 17. For the period from May 1, 2013, we award as follows: Within two full pay periods immediately following April 30, 2014, employees will be entitled to a lump sum payment calculated on the basis of 1% of the employee's straight time hourly rate of pay for each hour paid in the period of May 1, 2013 to and including April 30, Vacation hours, paid holiday hours and sick pay hours are to be included in the total paid hours. 18. Any employee who left or who leaves their employment in the period May 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014 is entitled to the prorated amount.

7 6 Seized 19. Pursuant to s.9(2) of the Act, we remain seized of the implementation of this award until a collective agreement is in effect between the parties. DATED at TORONTO on May 7, Christopher J. Albertyn Arbitrator I partially dissent. Yves Campeau Yves Campeau Employer Nominee

8 7 I partially dissent: Partial Dissent of Union Nominee I have read the Award and find it necessary to dissent with respect to two issues. A) Wages I respectfully disagree with the Award as it pertains to wages. I concur with the overall critique of the Teplitsky SEIU award articulated by Arbitrator Tim Armstrong in his Idlewyld Manor and SEIU, Local 1 Canada award. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that the Teplitsky award as been oft replicated, it in simply unconscionable, in my view, to impose wage freezes on long term health care workers who are among the least compensated and most vulnerable workers in Ontario. It is trite to observe that since the economic crisis of 2008, fiscal restraint appears, for the most part, to have been solely the burden of those who can least afford, it particularly in the health care sector. I also note that in this case the industry is not for profit long term care homes. The overwhelming number of homes that followed the Teplitsky award are for profit long term care homes. Within the not for profit homes sector the evidence contained in both parties briefs provided for some outcomes containing wage increases, particularly in 2012, rather than containing lump sums. I would have awarded % increases in line with what Chair Armstrong awarded in the Idlewyld Manor and SEIU, Local 1 Canada decision. In my view, a similar increase is justified and would provide a very modest increase for lower paid, predominantly female employees whose services are greatly needed but yet whose value appears to be consistently denied in our society. B) Payment in Lieu of Benefit Part-Time Employees With respect to part time employees, I would have awarded an

9 8 improvement in the payment in lieu to part-timers. There is no justification for paying part-timers less per hour than is paid to fulltimers. This is not just a case of equal pay for work of equal value; it is a case of identical pay for identical work. In order to treat part-time employees fairly, the pay in lieu of benefits should be equal to the hourly cost of providing benefits. When pay in lieu does not approach the true cost of benefits it creates an economic incentive for the employer to utilize more parttime employees regardless of the impact on operational outcomes such as continuity of care. The high level of part-time workers in this facility belies this point. Finally, I note that there was no challenge to the submissions by the Union that the pay equity job rate is the total of all compensation received including benefits and that paying parttimers overall less than full-timers deprives them of their entitlement to pay equity. Rather, the Employer focused on the replication principle and in this regard I note that there are number of homes that provide for superior payment in lieu of benefit provisions to those contained in this collective agreement. For the foregoing reasons, I would have awarded increases for employees who receive pay in lieu of benefits. Sean McFarling Sean McFarling Union Nominee