ao-d ~~J~ AMHERSTBURG SEPT. 10/90

Transcription

1 OPAC AWARD -, fj" ao-d ~~J~ AMHERSTBURG SEPT. 10/90 BARON, P. G. "INTEREST" ARBIT. IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICE ACT BETWEEN: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE FOR THE TOWN OF AMHERSTBURG (The Board) - and AMHERSTBURG POLICE ASSOCIATION (The Association) RE: Interest Award 1990 BEFORE: P. G. Barton, Arbitrator PLACE: Amherstburg, Ontario DATE: 20 August 1990 APPEARANCES: For the Company: George W. King Counsel Anna M.N. Vannelli Counsel Tom Tack Chief of Police Rocco Pietrangelo Chairman, Board of Commissioners For the Association: Richard I. Houston Spokesman James Saxon President Michael Cox Member Peter Chevalier Member (P.A.O.)

2 .. A WAR 0 On May 1st, 1990 I was appointed by the Solicitor General under section 32(1) of the Police Act to deal with the 1990 interest dispute between the parties. For reasons which will be considered later the negotiations between the parties were brief and relatively unsuccessful. Four matters were agreed upon, however. These four matters appear at tab 2 of the Employer brief and are incorporated in this Award. The parties were not able to agree on a change to Article and that is not included. There are two Collective Agreements in force, one covering the Uniform Officers and one covering the Civilian. The Collective Agreements are very similar and to a large extent the Civilian has been treated comparably with the Officers. The complement of the force is made up of three Sergeants, seven First Class Constables, one Second Class Constable, and one Third Class Constable. There is one civilian. Amherstburg, with a population of some 10,000 people is in the southwest corner of Ontario, some 20 kilometres south of \ Windsor. It claims to be Ontario's oldest town, having been founded in It seems to have a healthy mix of tourism and industry. The principles applicable to interest arbitrations in the police sector have been considered by many arbitrators many times. Questions of total compensation, applicable comparisons, inflation, and replication of freely bargained settlements, have

3 2 been discussed thoroughly. When all is said and done however the most significant principle in these matters seems always to be that of police-police comparisons. This is of particular significance in Amherst~urg because the Association claims that for the last 20 years at least Amherstburg has had a close historical relationship with the City of Windsor. ~ An historical relationship can mean various things. It could mean that over several years two jurisdictions interact in such a way that they each agree to follow the other. It could also mean that a smaller jurisdiction agrees to tie itself to a larger one and to follow changes made in the larger one. Looking at Essex county I can see from the evidence submitted before me that some forces in Essex county have for many years had benefits and salaries which are perhaps higher than forces of comparable size or forces in municipalities of comparable size elsewhere in Ontario. For many years Windsor was something of a ground breaker in interest matters, largely because of the presence of Donald Stannard on that force, and smaller forces in Essex county benefited from this ground breaking effort. A Took at First Class Constable rates in Amherstburg as compared to Windsor, for example, shows that since 1977 the rate has been within $ in each j~risdiction. Until 1988 Amherstburg was slightly below in amounts varying between $91.00 per year and $ per year. In 1989 the Windsor salary settlement was depressed somewhat because of a very large pension increase and Amherstburg Officers made $3.00 per year more than Windsor Officers.

4 L 3 A look at other benefits shows that Amhertsburgand indeed other forces in Essex county have done somewhat better than forces of comparable size elsewhere in the province. In terms of pension, for example, Amherstburg has past service and early retirement. Indeed, the forces of Colchester South, Amherstburg, Sandwich West, Anderton Township all seem to have benefited from a close historical relationship with Windsor over the years and all of them have done remarkably well. What has caused difficulty between the parties this round is that the 1990 Windsor salary settlement was significantly high. This was partly because salaries were suppressed last year because of the pension increase and partly because, in the second year of the two year Windsor Agreement the parties agreed to tie the wage increase to the average negotiated wage of a First Class Constable in London, Waterloo, Hamilton and Niagara Region. The effect of this was a January 1, 5~, July 1, 4.4~ increase in 1990, making a cumulative 9.4~ increase. When the Association claimed in bargaining for a continued historical relationship in Amherstburg, the Commission baulked. Item No.1 - Salaries The Association seeks 9.4 percent across the board to all ranks. The Commission offered 4.8 percent and indicated before me that it was prepared to accept between 5 and 5.5 percent. The Association's case is solely based on the existence of an historical relationship. It agrees that, compared w;thother

5 111.. """ 4 forces of comparable size elsewhere in Ontario its members are quite well served in terms of salary. The present First Class rate in Amhertsburg is $42, The Association claims that Colchester South, Amherstburg, Sandwich West and Anderton, which all work on the same radio net should all be treated similarly. I am dealing here only with Amhertsburg and the sole question in my mind is whether to continue what I see as an acknowledged historical relationship with Windsor. A 9.4 percent increase would bring the 1990 end-rate to $47,034.00, if it were all awarded as of January 1, A January 1st, 5 percent, July 1st, 4.2 percent would make an end-rate of $47, with an annualized percentage increase of 7.22 percent. The Board, ably represented by Mr. King, argued quite strenuously that a force of twelve should not be tied to a force of three hundred. He pointed out that in Ontario the 1990 increase in forces of comparable size, ten to twenty Officers, is about 5.87 percent. Places like Sarnia or Chatham or indeed Essex, have 1990 endrates considerably below $47, I was urged to award an end-rate of something around $45, such as that reached in Essex, some fifteen miles east of Amherstburg. I was also urged to award an amount which would parallel what the parties would negotiate should they have the right to strike. When all is said and done I feel that the Association has satisfied me that the historical comparison is valid. Over the last twenty years in negotiations and in conciliation, Amherstburg has been content to tie itself to its front running

6 L 5 neighbour Windsor. This is a very significant factor and such a historical relationship would I think dominate collective bargaining and would indeed have a strong effect on the parties, should the Association have the ability to strike. Accordingly I feel that in terms of salary the 1990 increase in Amherstburg should be what the Association requests. I feel that alternative one, set out on page 12 of the Association brief is appropriate and award January 1st, 5 percent, July 1st, 4.24 percent. Item No.2 - Schedule C Benefits Under the Group Health Insurance Plan which is 100 percent Employer funded the members have a Plan-T-5 Greenshie1d Extended Health Services coverage which includes $ per family for psychological care. The Association requests an increase to $1, per family. The costing is approximately $1.89 per family per month. In support of the increase it is pointed out that being a Police Officer is a particularly stressful job and counselling is becoming very common. I agree with these sentiments but feel that, because of the salary increase, this request should be denied. Item No.3 - Legal Costs Article 20 of the Collective Agreement, both uniform and civilian, provides for the payment of necessary and reasonable legal costs in defence of charges against.members under the

7 6 Criminal Code or other federal, provincial or municipal enactment except the Police Act and ReQu1ations. The request of the Association is for an Article which would provide counsel for members who are req~ired or subpoenaed to appear before an Inquiry under the Police Act or the new Police Services Act. The effect of the proposal is that only one lawyer would be provided to the Association and coverage would only be where the Acts which are the subject of the Inquiry were done in good faith in the performance of Police Officer duties. The cost would also be limited to necessary and reasonable costs, although on a solicitor and client basis. The background of the request which is essentially PAO drafted is that in 1971 and in 1984 inquiries were held in Amhertsburg and the Association ran up fairly extensive legal bills on behalf of its members. Anderton Township has adopted the proposed clause and Sarnia Township has a somewhat similar if more restricted clause. It is pointed out by the Board that coverage for police inquiries is very rare in Ontario. The Commission is also understandably concerned about the open ended nature of such a clause, given that it is not always within the power of the municipality to prevent an inquiry. Indeed, inquiries are often called when the municipality does not wish them. On balance I feel that the PAO clause is a reasonable and limited one and that it is important to have such a clause because of the increasing number of inquiries being held

8 7 throughout the province. In the result I award the request of the Association. Item No.4 - SDecial A110wances Under the present Collective Agreement Officers who are qualified as Breathalyzer Technicians or Identification Officers receive $ per year extra for having such qualifications. It is pointed out by the Association that these are difficult qualifications to earn and require considerable upgrading to maintain. The Officers who hold them spend a fair amount of time in court and should be paid more, it is argued. The Commission contends that the Association request of an increase from $ to $ per year is excessive. It suggests that the amount be increased to $ only. Given that the amount in Anderton is $ and Sandwich West is $ I feel that a modest increase is called for and, in view of what I have said earlier I feel that an increase to $ would be adequate and so award. Civilian Reauests The Association requested a salary increase, a Schedule C Psychological Care increase and the amendment to Article 20 covering legal costs for the one civilian on the force. Mr. King graciously conceded that salary and benefits of the civilian should be tied td any changes made with respect to the Uniform Officers and accordingly the salary increase will be the same as

9 1liii, 8 for the Uniform Officers and Article 20 will be amended appropriately. The Commission had three proposals for change. Two of these related to Article 9 dealing with vacations and statutory holidays. Article 9.01 of the Uniform Collective Agreement provides that a person qualifies for annual vacation as a "member". What this means is if a person is off work because of illness or injury, even on a long term basis, the person continues to receive vacations. The Employer points out that vacations are earned benefits and a person should be entitled to take a vacation in the year that they are ill or have their accident and in the following year, but not later. This is because the year preceding the proposed vacation would not be one where the member was working and therefore the member would not have earned a subsequent vacation. A similar proposal is made with respect to Article 9.03 dealing with statutory holidays. The Association strongly resists any change in Article 9 and argues that it would be unfair to take away vacations and statutory holidays for people who are injured while at work and Who do not have the right to refuse work on the basis of danger. It is said that people who are off work because of injuries incurred in the line of duty should be no better or no worse off than brothers or sisters who remain working. A similar request was made to arbitrator J. W. Samuels in Owen Sound this year. He rejected the changes as unwise.

10 11 9 For reasons set out in the Association's brief and in arguments I feel that it would be excessive for me to take away these negotiated benefits and decline to award the Commission requests. The Employer also made a request with respect to call-in pay, Article Present call-in pay is quite generous, particularly where the call-in is for a short time. The Employer request would be to change Article to guarantee 4 1/2 hours at regular rate or the amount earned at overtime, whichever is greater. Essentially the argument is that the present clause pays an excessive amount for call-in and discourages call-ins. The Association position is that call-ins in police matters are never for easy jobs, but are always for difficult situations. The parties have negotiated a generous clause to recognize this fact and I should not interfere with it. I agree with these sentiments and decline.to award the Employer request. In terms of retroactivity the salary increases will be retroactive to the dates indicated and other changes will take effect from the day of the Award. I thank the parties for their submissions and their courtesy. DATED AT~ondon, Ontario, this ' day of September, ~\L Peter G. Barton Arbitrator