q, -0;»-1 OPACAWARD IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION P. G. Barton, Arbitrator UNDER SECTION 122 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT S.O.

Transcription

1 -'" -~ q, -0;»-1 ~1'J SARNIA-CLEARWATER NOV 1/91 BARTON P.G. -INTEREST- ARE OPACAWARD IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER SECTION 122 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT S.O. 1990, CHAFfER 10 BETWEEN: THE SARNIA-CLEARWATERPOLICE SERVICES BOARD (The Employer) - and THE SARNIA POLICE ASSOCIATION (The Association) RE: COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BEFORE: P. G. Barton, Arbitrator PLACE: Sarnia-Clearwater, Ontario DATE: 19 September 1991 APPEARANCES: For the Employer: James A. Barker Valerie McGarry Joan Link Howard Schooley For the Association: Mike Brown David McMahan Ronnie Van Dam Director of Human Resources City Solicitor Chairman, Police Services Board Deputy Chief, Sarnia-Clearwater Police Force President Bargaining Member Spokesman & Bargaining Member

2 AWAltD On January 1st, 1991 the municipalities of Sarnia and Clearwater merged. The two municipal police forces had amalgamated one year earlier, January 1st, The Collective Agreement between the parties was negotiated in Unfortunately they were unable to agree on the terms of the 1991 Agreement and I was appointed. In the merger the population of the area went up to 72,684 people. The merged area is now covered by 111 Officers, included within the Collective Agreement and affected by this Award. It is clear from the background of negotiations that the parties were trying to. put together a package deal and were unable to do so. A number of items were agreed upon however and those items, which appear at page 6 of the Association brief are included in this Award. In all there were approximately 20 requests, including overlapping requests, and because of their complexity the matter took sometime to resolve. The factors relevant to interest arbitration considerations, particularly in the police sector, have been referred to in many awards and I need not repeat them. The factors which are of major significance to me in this matter are the principle of total

3 2 compensation, police-police comparisons, and the general economic picture in the region. I have also expressly taken note of the matters which I am required to take into account under the Police Services Act. Both the Board and the Association made requests. Bequest Qne - SaJm:i The end rate in 1990 was $45, for a First Class Constable. In 1989 the Officers of Sarnia-Clearwater received %, and in 1990, 7.5% was negotiated for the merged force. The municipalities chosen by the Association for comparison are municipalities with forces of a comparable size anywhere in Ontario. The Association makes the point that the salaries in Sarnia-Clearwater are approximately $ below the average of these municipalities. In addition, Sarnia-Clearwater is the lowest on the list. The Association also points out that 1991 Agreements covering forces within 150 kilometres of Sarnia-Clearwater show an average increase in 1991 of over 7 %. I note that in the figures provided by the Association many of the forces closest to Sarnia-Clearwater were receiving something around 6 %. Based on these arguments, and others, the Association argued for an 8% increase. The end rate would be just over $49,

4 The Board argued strongly that a large increase would never be freely negotiated in this area at this time. It argued that although the CPI was running at a 5 to 6% rate July - to July 1991, the projected inflation rate for 1991 was only 2.9%. It was also argued that settlements in the private sector were in fact going down in mid 1991, reflecting the difficult economic situation which has developed. As pointed out, unemployment, particularly in the chemical valley has increased substantially and attendant welfare costs have skyrocketed. This has put a tremendous pressure on municipalities. In terms of police-police comparisons, the Board looked for municipalities of somewhat comparable size with somewhat similar police budgets. Based on these comparisons it was argued that, in 1990 Samia-Clearwater was somewhat below the average and it was recognized that an increase of approximately 5.8% in 1991 would be required to bring Samia-Clearwater up to the average. It was argued however that, taking the principle of total compensation into effect it would be necessary to reduce this salary increase if other cost items were awarded. Bearing in mind my decisions on other matters which follow, it is my view that an appropriate increase in 1991 for Samia-Clearwater would be January 1, 4%; July 1, 2 %, compounded.

5 u -- 4 Bequest Two - Statutory Hmidan At present Officers working on eight named statutory holidays get time-andone-half. They also get eleven lieu days per year because they get eleven statutory holidays in all. In fact most Officers only work five or six statutory holidays per year and the end result is that it is a matter of chance whether or not they will get timeand-one-half. That chance is determined by whether or not these holidays are listed in the eight of eleven. What the Association requests is that all eleven statutory holidays be listed as eligible for time-and-one-half. The Board suggests that this would cost some $15,000 and is unnecessary. The present system does not seem to be a particularly rational one and is clearly unfair. Accordingly I grant the Association request. With respect to statutory holidays the Board made a request that the Collective Agreement be amended to include a clause which -wouldeffectively force members to take lieu time rather than cash-out. This would be accomplished by requiring Officers to schedule lieu time before a certain date, May 1st and if this was not done the Chief would schedule it.

6 -- -p-- 5 There must be a balance strock between allowing the Officers to stay at work and cash-out, thereby making more money and requiring them to take time off for needed rest and recreation. Normally the decision about which option to chose is left to the individual Officers. Although granting this Board request would clearly have some cost advantages to the Board, I am not prepared to allow the Board to dictate the option which the Officer may choose and decline this request. ~equest Three - Court Time There are three requests by the Association and one request by the Board here. Essentially what is involved is court time on off-duty hours. The Association first seeks to reword and shuffle the wording in Article 23 and clarify the wording in what would be new Article I have no trouble with the clarifying wording described on page 24 as new Article Given my decision with respect to other parts of Article 23 this clarifying wording would not appear as however. The Association seeks a guarantee of eight.hours off after court where the Officer went.to court following a mid-night shift (7:00 a.m.). The problem here is that if an Officer works a 12 hour shift and then has to go to court the following day and then work another 12 hour shift, that Officer will not be functioning at a proper level. In fact, it was suggested that under the present arrangements unless a

7 6 Supervisor was accommodating and allowed the Officer to book off using lieu time that Officer might well have to book off sick. This was recognized as an unfortunate situation. The Board response was that the cost of this item might be approximately $5,300 per year and that the Collective Agreement should be read as a package. I am concerned with any provision of the Collective Agreement which might force an Officer to misuse sick leave in order to avoid working for two and one-half days straight. I think that the Association request in this respect is reasonable and therefore award it. The third request of the Association, was to increase the credit for court time spent while on vacation. The net result of the request would be to increase the minimum guarantee from six hours to fifteen hours. The major objection of the Board to this request was its cost which is estimated at some $12,700 per year. While I agree that having to attend court during a scheduled vacation can be a tremendous imposition, I am not convinced that the present payment is inadequate. I also feel that a considerable number of the problems which do arise in this area could

8 - -- pu_n_-- 7 be resolved by better co-ordination between the force and those scheduling court cases. The Board made a request that the court time clause be changed to eliminate hearings under the Police Services Act. Although Article applies to "legal proceedings arising as a result of the Officers duties as a police officer" and, on its face seems quite wide in its coverage, the request of the Board really relates to attendance at hearings under the Police Services Act of people who have been charged under that legislation. The Board points out that the legal indemnification clause Article 27 excludes coverage for lawyers at Police Services Act hearings. To a large extent this seems to be more of a matter of a scheduling problem than anything else. It seems to me that if an employer wishes to bring an employee in to deal with a matter which arose during that employee's on-duty time, the employer should either do this when the employee is in fact on duty or be required to pay to bring the person in. Thus, I do not agree with the contention of the Board and decline to award its request. The question of indemnification for legal costs is a different question from that of payment for intrusion into off-duty time.

9 H-- Request Four -Assi~ent Pay 8 Article applies to Officers assigned to "a position calling for a higher rate of pay". Articles and apply to assignments to the plainclothes division. Payments under this clause were increased by Arbitrator Joyce in 1989 to $3.00 per day. The Association points out that for awhile the Board interpreted this clause to mean $3.00 per day based on 260 days per year. The result was a uniform premium of $800 per year. This is increased in 1990 to $7.00 per day for Constables and in 1990 amounted to $1, per year. These premiums were apparently paid whether or not the person actually worked in the positions of responsibility mentioned in Articles and In April 1991 the Chief cut back on these premiums by deciding to pay only for time actually spent in the position of responsibility. The Association sought an increase to the premiums in Article to 2.5% above regular salary. This would amount to around $1,300 per year. The Association also sought a change to Article to include Identification Officers and to increase the premium from $4.00 per scheduled working day to 6% above the regular rate of pay. This would not be compounded with any premiums included under Article The Board points out that the purpose of having a premium for assignment to a higher rank or to a different division is to reward the person for extra responsibility. It follows, therefore, that if the person is not in fact.exercising the responsibility of

10 9 the higher position, that person should not be paid. I must say I agree with that principle. With respect to Article I agree that the premium should not be paid unless the person is actually exercising their responsibility. With respect to Article it appears from its wording, that the premium is payable whether or not the person is exercising the responsibility. The section refers to "an additional annual pay differential." I do feel, however, that 6% would be an almost three-fold increase on the present premium and decline to award it. With respect to the question of whether or not it should be paid after six months in the division, rather than twelve, I agree with the request of the Association and so order. The other request with respect to assignment pay related to Coach Officer. The Association requests that any Constable designated as a Coach Officer should receive a 6 % premium for each shift. It was pointed out that Officers can be assigned to coach cadets or new Constables. Essentially new cadets ride around with certain Officers and after they have passed the Alymer courses they are trained by certain designated' Officers.

11 10 - A look at other Collective Agreements shows that this particular premium is not a common one. Given the principle of Total Compensation and the fact that this request is a relatively novel one, I decline to award it. Bequest[jve - ~ andmedicalinsurance The Association requests the addition of a major restorative rider to Article I note that the Association is already covered for orthodontics coverage and that it has Number 9, Blue Cross at current ODA rates. These benefits seem to me to be considerably better than those held by a significant number of Officers in other jurisdictions and therefore I decline to award the request. BequestSix- ~nsurance At present Article requires the Board to pay 100% premiums for group life, dependent life and disability. The coverage is $100,000 with dependent life at $5,000, $2,000. The Association wishes to change the fixed amount to three times salary, an increase of about 30%. It also wishes to increase dependent life by approximately three times.

12 The Board takes the position that this would cost something over $20,000 and points out that other municipal employees in Sarnia-Clearwater get two times salary. While I am very sympathetic with the requests of the Association and have pointed out in other Awards that life insurance is a reasonably inexpensive benefit in terms of the benefit received, I am not convinced that the coverage in the jurisdiction is out of line. Accordingly, I decline to award this increase at this time. Bequest Seven - C~owance The Association requests an increase in both the clothing allowance and in the cleaning allowance. The Association requests an increase from $675 to $800 annually in the clothing allowance, and a change in the cleaning allowance from $125 per year to $6.00 per suit with no cap. Considering the merits of the request and the position of the Board, I feel that a 5% increase to all items in Article 16 is justified and so award. The Board makes a request that the clothing allowance which is presently paid two times per year be paid monthly. The stated purpose of this is to reduce costs if a person leaves the particular assignment before the end of the year.

13 12 I am not convinced that the savings are in any way substantial enough to justify the extra work required should such a system be in place and I declined to award this request. Request Ei&bt - Vacations The Association wishes to reduce the eligibility for three, four, and five weeks from four years, ten years, and eighteen years, to three years, eight years, and fifteen. years. A look at the figures supplied by the Association and by the Board suggests to me that the five week entitlement is the only one which seems to be a little bit out of line and I feel it appropriate to reduce it from eighteen years to fifteen years and so award. This will not be retroactive. BequestNine- Statutory~ At present under Article 7.05 an Officer who works on a statutory holiday receives time-and-one-half. In addition, in Article 7.01 an Officer is granted eleven lieu days. Under Article 14, Officers who work more than their scheduled shift

14 uu- - u -- - p receive overtime and Officers called out for duty other than during regular shifts get certain premiums. 13 The Association requests that Officers who are in fact working on statutory holidays should get premiums, in addition to those under Article 7, under Article 14. It is pointed out that if an Officer works overtime on a statutory holiday during which they are scheduled, they only receive the regular time-and-one-half. The Association also points out that if they are called out to work on a non-scheduled statutory holiday, they only get time-and-one-half as well. Essentially the Association wishes to compound the premiums found in the two articles. The Board calls this request excessive. I agree that the premium for working a regular shift on a statutory holiday is adequate. I do feel, however, that should that Officer work overtime, then the regular overtime premiums should apply. Accordingly with respect to overtime I grant the Association's request. With respect to the question of Officers called in to work on statutory holidays for which they were not previously scheduled, I agree that the call-out premium should apply and also award the Association request.

15 u 14 R, The Association requests that Article be changed from a minimum of three hours to a minimum of four hours at the overtime rate for a call-out. The Association also requests as an alternative that, should the three hours be retained, it be credited for the first hour worked and all hours worked after that would be at timeand-one-half. The study of the various forces in Ontario suggest to me that the present callout benefit is adequate an~ I decline to award this request. The Board requests that the method of calculating payment under Article 14 be changed from calculating on a per hour basis to calculating on a quarter hour basis. I am not convinced that the savings in dollars would be sufficient to offset the administrative difficulties that such a clause would cause not only to the Board but also to the members themselves. I accordingly decline to award this request. Bequest Eleven - ~Course The Association requests that the Collective Agreement be changed to add Article which would have the effect of giving the Officer one shift off either

16 d before or after the termination of a training course where the person was required to register at the college on the day prior to its commencement. This is essentially a travel allowance and the Association suggests that this is present practice. It is pointed out that it takes about-two hours to get from Sarnia-Clearwater to Aylmer. I feel that this is an excessively generous allowance but I do recognize that Officers have to register on the day before courses start. This can be particularly difficult if they have been on shift during the day and may involve some inconvenience to them. In addition, if they are not scheduled, some of their off-duty time will be used in travelling. Nonetheless, however, I feel it more appropriate that the premium for this travel reflect the realities and award a clause, the wording of which I leave to the parties, the effect of which will be to provide for two hours at time-and-one-half for any travel on off-duty hours to the police college. Request Twelve - Equipment Article provides that members shall be provided with necessary clothing and equipment. Certain items are listed in Article 11. These Articles" shall be replaced as necessary upon the approval of the Officer in charge of equipment." The Association requests that soft body annour be added to this list. The only difference between the present list and the request with respect to soft body annour is that it only be made available to any Officers who request it. The Association points out that this

17 armour has been provided for its Officers and should now be considered as a standard piece of equipment and should be replaced where it is necessary to do so. 16 In these time of rising peril to the safety.of Police Officers, I feel this is a totally appropriate request and so award. ~equest Thirteen - ~ and Medical Insurance The Association requests change to Articles 20.05, 20.06, and These relate to benefits paid to employees upon retirement. There are essentially three requests made here. Article deals with Officers who retired after August 1, The Board pays certain premium costs for these Officers until age 65 or otherwise. The Association wishes to cover all Officers even though they retired before It points out that the August 1, 1987 date was chosen as a result of negotiation. Presently these earlier retiring Officers participate but at their own cost. The second request refers to coverage. At present under Article Officers who retired after August 1, 1987 only get the premium payment where they are in receipt of an unreduced OMERS pension. The Association wishes to extend the

18 --- n _u- -- uu coverage to people who are also on reduced pensions. This would include people who chose to leave earlier and lose approximately 5 % pension benefits per year. 17 The Association also asks that Article and Article be changed to remove the requirement that a person being covered have principal residence in Ontario. It wishes to extend the proposed benefits and indeed the existing benefits to those who continue to remain in Canada. The Board resists the requests on a number of basis including jurisdictional ones. Given my position on the merits of the requests I decline to deal with the jurisdictional issue. I feel that the date of August 1, 1987, which was the result of negotiation, should be maintained. I have always felt some discomfort at reopening Collective Agreements to provide benefits for people who negotiated certain benefits and made decisions on the basis of the situation as it then existed. For this reason I have always been opposed in principle to increasing benefits to Officers who have already retired. With respect to the question of changing the word "unreduced" to "reduced" in Article I agree that when an Officer chooses to retire earlier than the standard thirty years or under the 85 factor, he or she does suffer penalty in terms of the

19 n _un- n--u- _n- --- n amount of pension. I also agree that, at present, the fact that they may have to pick up their own premium costs for hospital and medical benefits is a factor which they take into account when they leave. It is the case however that many Officers who choose to retire early under what are already generous retirement provisions, do so in order to take up other employment. In many cases the premiums are picked up by other employers. If they are leaving for medical reasons, normally the provisions of the retirement benefits plan cover the payment of these premiums. Thus, I am not really satisfied that there are adequate reasons for awarding these changes. 18 With respect to the question of principal residence, whether or not an insurance carrier will cover a person whose principal residence is outside of Ontario is a matter for the carrier. I do not have any information as to whether or not existing carriers of the extended health plan, the dental plan or the vision care plan which are in issue here allow payment to non-residents. That again seem to me a factor which is to be taken into account by a person who is choosing to retire and it makes some sense to me that if a person wishes an Ontario government employer to contribute to the costs of his or her retirement, the dollars spent on the actual benefits should stay in Ontario. Request Fourteen - Bereavement 1&an

20 19 The Board made a request with respect to bereavement leave. The request related to situations in which a member wished to extend bereavement leave. The Board merely wishes to guarantee that the extensions will be unpaid extensions. The Association suggests that in the last couple of years two extensions have been with pay. Article 8.04 gives the Chief power to extend time limits without indicating whether or not the time will be paid time. I agree that the clause should be made clear so that the extension is unpaid and award the Board request. Request Fifteen - Meal Allowance Article 14 deals with overtime and call-out. Article provides for certain meal allowances after work of a certain number of hours. The Board has no difficulty if Officers are required to stay on after a shift. It recognizes that the meal allowance should be paid in those cases. The concern of the Board relates to Officers who are scheduled for overtime or who are called-in or both to work on scheduled days off. The Board sll;ggeststhat if these Officers have sufficient notice in advance of the requirement to work then it should be unnecessary to pay the meal allowance. The Board wishes to add a clause to Article 14 which reads: "Meal allowance shall not apply to pre-arranged overtime."

21 20 I agree that if an Officer knows at least eight hours in advance that he or she will be required to work at a time when they are originally scheduled to be off duty then they too have some advance notice and the meal allowance is unnecessary. Given that I have increased the premiums for Officers who are caught in such a situation, I feel that the Board request is appropriate but feel that it should be made clear that pre-arranged means a situation in which the Officer has been notified more than eight hours before the start of the work that such work is required. Accordingly I grant the Board's request as amended. I feel that I have now dealt with all of the issues presented to me. I remain seized of the matter should I have inadvertently forgotten to deal with some and should there be problem arising from implementation. Unless otherwise indicated, all monetary items are retroactive to January 1st, DATED AT London, Ontario 'i' tms4 day of November, '~C\I~ Peter G. Barton Arbitrator