In the Matter of an Interest Arbitration (HLDAA) Between. Waterdown Long Term Care Inc. ( o/a Alexander Place} and. SEIU, Local1 Canada AWARD

Transcription

1 In the Matter of an Interest Arbitration (HLDAA) Between Waterdown Long Term Care Inc. ( o/a Alexander Place} and SEIU, Local1 Canada AWARD Before: For the Employer: For the Union: Dana Randall, Chair lrv Kleiner, Employer Nominee Harold Caley, Union Nominee Patricia Balfour Mary Barber Anna Crocco Helen Nowak Audrey McKay Dennis MacKinnon Stacey Towle Kim Mcleod A hearing in this matter was held on October 3, 2012 in Burlington, Ontario. An Executive Session was held on December 15, 2012 in Vaughan, Ontario,

2 AWARD Introduction This arbitration board has been constituted, pursuant to HLDAA, to settle the outstanding issues in dispute between Waterdown Long Term Care Inc, operating as Alexander Place and SEIU, Local1 Canada for a renewal collective agreement, the term of which, by statute, is February 15,2011 to February 14,2013. (As with too many of these, the term of the collective agreement has expired before the award is issued.) Alexander Place is a 128 bed long~term care facility located in Waterdown, Ontario (near Hamilton). It is owned and operated by Jarlette Health Services. Jarlette operates 6 retirement homes and 12 LTC facilities in Ontario. SEIU represents employees at 4 of Jarlette's 12 L TCs: Alexander Place, Southampton, Roberta Place and Villa Care Centre. This bargaining unit has 31 FT employees and 50 to 60 PT employees (the briefs are far apart on the numbers). They are in the RPN, PSW and HCA classifications, with over 80% of the employees being PSWs. SEIU has had bargaining rights for this unit since This round was the third between the parties. The previous round led to a voluntarily negotiated agreement, which had a term of 38 months (December 17, 2007 to February 14, 2011 ). In this round, the parties met in negotiations on April13, 14 and June 23, 2011 and in conciliation on September 26, 2011, This matter went to hearing on October 3, 2012; and to Executive Session on Saturday, December 15, The intra board submissions were not completed until February 20, Positions of the Parties SEIU came to the hearing with the intention of bringing wages up to those at other SEIU homes in the sector: both to those homes at the central provincial table and to the average of those SEIU homes not covered by central bargaining, especially the other 3 Jarlette/SEIU homes. The Union also sought to achieve a pregnancy and parental leave SUB top-up, which it asserts ls currently enjoyed by the vast majority of Its nursing home bargaining units; it sought to make improvements to health and dental benefits, which it submits are normative; and it sought to improve sick leave entitlements. The Union also sought a number of non-monetary improvements. Speclfically, on the issue of wages, the Union seeks a 2% wage increase effective February 15, 2011; a 2% increase effective August 15, 2011 and another 2% increase effective February 15, In addition, the Union Is seeking "catch-up" to the tune of an RPN and PSW rate increase of $0.50 per hour after the general wage increase on February 15, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~-~-~--~ ~--~ ~ ~[

3 The Union wage argument, certainly for a 2% increase In each of 2010 and was essentially this: to the extent that the Board decides to use, as the main comparator, the Central Nursing Home decisions, the relevant awards/periods to replicate would be those covered by Arbitrator Jesin in September 2010 and Arbitrator Weatherill in September The Union vigorously distances itself from the Teplltsky Award, dated September 27, It submits both that it is "fatally flawed~ and that lts period September 15, 2012 until September 14, has little overlap with the term before the Board. The Employer proposes a 1% salary increase in the first year of this renewal agreement and a wage freeze ln the second year. The Employer acknowledges that, on an initial view, the Jesln and Weatherill Awards might provide guidance for a part of the term of this agreement However, it submits that there have been such "monumental changes in the economic, funding and collective bargain environment[s]" since Weatherill, in particular, that the settlement and award pattern has changed as a result. It has exhibited far more modest outcomes in both the right to strike environment and in major public sector settlements and awards since then. As a result, the Employer asserts that the earlier trends based on Jesin and Weatherill are not appropriate outcomes for either year of the Alexander Place renewal. Rather it submits that the 2012 Teplitsky Award, which provides for 3 years of wage freezes (with a wage re-opener in the 3rd year). should provide the most persuasive guidance, especially with respect to the second year of this renewal. On other sought improvements, the Employer says 'no' on the basis of the same austerity rationale. In addition, the Employer seeks a number of cost savings in the areas of health and welfare benefits and sick leave, which it asserts have become normative in the recent economic climate. General Observations An amazing amount of intellectual energy went into this matter, both from the presenters and from the nominees. And the Board has become wiser, undoubtedly, as a result But the art of replicating a deal is not fundamentally an intellectual exercise. It is more the art of historical imagination. What were the reasonable expectations of the parties when they negotiated in April and June, 2011? The relevant period to examine, it seems to the Board, starts somewhere in 2010 when similarily situated parties were negotiating collective agreements for 2011 and 2012; it cannot be extended beyond January 11, 2012, the date of the no board' report in this matter. As Chair in another interest arbitration Award dated August 5, 2011, I opined that: While the Employer makes no ability to pay argument, we agree with the trite observation that the economic situation in Ontario and private sector labour 2

4 market realities, generally, would have informed the expectations of the parties In this round of bargaining and should inform the crafting of this Award. At a minimum, it mandates both a cautious approach to considerations of total compensation and one open to modest cost savings for the Employer. That observation remains relevant to the current matter. While this Award is late in the bargaining cycle for the sector, the wage trends for years 2011 and 2012 are not well established. The Union relies on a significant pattern in support of 2% each year. The Employer relies on a host of more modest outcomes. The Employer submits that it can do no worse than 1.7 (Jesin) for the first year; and notes that the Union's own comparators: Villa Care and Roberta Place, settled for 1.45% in In the Board's view. the Teplitsky Award Is issued well after the parties' bargaining cycle. The 'no board' in the present matter was issued in January, 2012; the Teplltsy Award not until September, We are also of the view that the most relevant comparators, especially given the heterogeneity of the wage outcomes more generally, are the Jarlette settlements at Villa Care and Roberta Place. In February 2011, SEIU achieved a settlement with both Homes that provided for a 16.5 month term (August 1, 2010 to December 14, 2011) with a 2% wage increase effective August 1, That was in keeping with the Jesin Award to some extent. In fact. it represented an annualized wage increase of only 1.45% for year 2011, In December 2011, SEIU achieved a settlement with VIlla Care for the 12 month term from December 15, 2011 to December 14, 2012 with an across the board 2% increase, In January 2012, SEIU and Roberta Place achieved the same wage and compensation provisions as the Villa Care settlement. Those settlements were in keeping with the Weatherill Award. though they did not slavishly follow the Master. For Instance, they dld nat include the $0.20/hour catch-up he awarded in some classifications. More importantly, for our purposes, the parties did not amend the extant sick leave plan. We see no reason not to replicate the Jarlette/SEIU pattern. No doubt the Teplitsky Award is relevant, but in our view it Is only arguably relevant to the next collective agreement between the parties. Any other improvements awarded are both modest and normative. They are consistent with both the principles of total compensation and the terms and conditions of employment of the other SEIU/Jarlette L TCs. In accordance with the Employer's central submission, we have also awarded some modest cost saving measures; more dramatic ones, like Major Medical co-pays, have been rejected, 3

5 AWARD In determining the outstanding issues in dispute, the Board has carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, been informed by all of the foregoing observations, and relied upon all of the normative and statutory criteria. most notably replication. Any proposal not specifically dealt with below is denied. All amendments are effective the date of the Award/ except for wages, which are retroactive to their effective dates. The new collective agreement shall consist of the expired collective agreement as amended by the following Term 1. all the items agreed to by the parties prior to the October 3, 2012 hearing; 2. any items agreed to by the parties after the October 3, 2012 hearing but before the issuance of this Award; and 3. the Board's award on the remaining issues In dispute as set out herein. February 15,2011 to February 14,2013 (and article is amended accordingly). Wages Effective February 15, 2011 Effective February 15, % across the board increase 2 % across the board increase Other Union Proposals Article 5 (Union Security) The Union's proposal to hold on-site union membership meetings Is denied. Article 15 (Pregnancy and Parental Leaves) The Union's proposal to introduce pregnancy and parental SUB topwups is denied. The other SEIU/Jarlette homes do not provide this benefit. Only one of Jarlette's 12 service work agreements provide both top-ups; 8 provide neither. While SEIU has been successful in achieving this benefit prior to the 2008/2009 recession, since then its introduction has had little traction. 4

6 Article 22 (Health and Welfare Benefrts) The Union's three proposals are awarded as normative. 1. Vision entitlement is increased to $200 every 24 months (from $160). 2. The PT in lieu of benefrts payment is increased from $0.40 to $0.50/hour. 3. The Drug Card is awarded, subject to the requirement that it include a ''positive enrolment" feature. The card is to be introduced as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days after the date of this Award. Article 24 - Sick Leave The Union proposal to Increase sick leave entitlement from 7 to 10 days is denied. Employer Proposals Article Major Medical The Employer proposal to amend the Major Medical Plan to move from the Employer paying 100% of the premium costs to an 80/20 split is denied. Article Dental Plan The Employer proposal to Introduce a $25/$50 deductible is denied. The Employer proposal to limit "bitewing x~rays to every 18 months for adults and every 9 months for children" is awarded; as is the proposal to limit "full mouth x~rays and panoramic film to once every 36 months''. Article Life Insurance for Casual Employees The Employer proposal to amend to restrict life insurance to "part-time employees who have master line rotations'' is awarded. Article 24 ~~ Sick Leave Just as we have denied the Union's request to improve the benefit, we are lmconvinced that we should accede to the Employer's proposal to reduce the level of payment for short term sick leave credits from 100% to 70% (for the first 7 days). Nor are we convinced to award the Employer's alternative, which Is the Weatherlll Award, to wit: 85%, but for 14 days. In the Employer's view, at a minimum, this cost containment is the quid pro quo for following the 2% Weatherill wage increase for We disagree. We are replicating the pattern for the SEIU/,Jarlette Homes. Jarlette settled for 2% in 5 I ~-----~ ~ ~----~-~ I

7 2012 at both Villa Care and Roberta Place. This was well after the Wetherill award. There were no sick pay concessions made by the Union in those settlements and the Plan in those Homes is identical to the Plan before me. Article 29 -Letters of Reprimand and Suspension The Employer's proposal is awarded as normative and commonsensical. We remain seised with respect to the implementation of this Award. DATED AT BARRIE, ONTARIO THIS 13ll1 DAY OF MAY ~a~~ CJ'ana Randall, Chair Partial Dissent. $ee attached lrv Kleiner, Employer Nominee.JJ!issent" Harold Caley, Union Nominee 6

8 Dissent of Em.ployer Nominee I would take issue with the awarding of a 2% wage increase in the second year of the term of this contract. It is clear however from the Award, tha.t the most recent master Award of Arbitrator Teplitsky should be most relevant to these parties in the next r<>und of ba.rga.ining. I must als<> rake issue with the add.itiona.l costs that the Employer will have to bear as a result of the awarded improvements to the vision benefit, the pat1: tim.e payment in lieu amount, and the. introduction of the Drug Card. While the Chairr:nan has awarded two cost containments i.n relation to the dc:~ntal benefit plan, and has imposed a requirement to restrict life i.nsurance to part time ernpl<.)yees who have master line rotations, these cost containments are modest and will not offset the additional costs that emerge as a result ofthe improvements that have been awarded. I would have been more inclined to award the alternative sick leave prop()sal that the Employer refem~d to in.its m.aterials which was the cost containment thttt was awarded hy Arbitrator Weatherill in his SEitJ master Award, when he too awarded the 2% wage increase that he did. This would have resulted in a more balanced award for these parties. Dated this 12th day of May, 2013 lrv Kh~iner - ~ - --~~ E.mployel' Norninee