HomeMy WebLinkAboutO'Marra 14-02-26In the Matter of a Labour Arbitration pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act
Between:
CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES
-and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION
Grievance of Steve O’Marra
OPSEU File No. 2012-5101-0002
Arbitrator: Randi H. Abramsky
Appearances
For the Union: Robin Lostracco Counsel
For the Employer: Sarah Eves Counsel
Hearing: January 20 and Feb. 14, 2014 in Toronto.
2
AWARD
This grievance involves a dispute between the parties as to whether increases to
shift and weekend premiums negotiated for the 2010-2014 collective agreement are to be
paid retroactively to April 1, 2010, or from the date of ratification, April 12, 2012. It
involves an interpretation of the parties’ Memorandum of Settlement and their collective
agreement.
Facts
The parties have a long-standing collective bargaining relationship. The parties’
2002-2005 collective agreement dealt with the issue of retroactivity in Schedule “A”. It
read as follows:
SCHEDULE “A”
April 1, 2002 – 7%, all rates and ranges.
April 1, 2003 – 6.6%, all rates, all ranges.
April 1, 2004 – A general wage increase to all rates and all ranges equal to that
negotiated between the Participating Hospitals and the Ontario Public Employees
Union….
The Employer shall provide full retroactivity based on the foregoing base rate
adjustments on all earnings (exclusive of premium and overtime) between April 1,
2002 and the date of ratification.
The 2005-2007 collective agreement contained similar language, except the
parties agreed to remove the exclusion of overtime from the retroactivity proviso. It
reads:
3
SCHEDULE “A”
April 1, 2005 – 3%, all ranges and ranges, unless otherwise specified below.
April 1, 2006 – A general wage increase to all rates and all ranges equal to that
negotiated between the Participating Hospitals and the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union….
Biomedical Technologists – Hamilton Site
1%, retroactive to April 1, 2005
…
Biomedical Technologists – Toronto Site
3%, retroactive to April 1, 2005.
…
Equipment Specialists – Toronto Site
1%, retroactive to April 1, 2005
…
Quality Assurance Associates – Hamilton Site
The Quality Assistant Associate wage scale shall be that established by the Parties
pursuant to the MOU re: Quality Systems Associates, but shall be subject to the
general wage increases in Schedule “A” above.
The Employer shall provide full retroactivity based of the foregoing base rate
adjustments on all earnings (exclusive of premium) for the term of the Collective
Agreement.
The parties’ Memorandum of Settlement in regard to the 2005-2007 collective
agreement, dated August 9, 2005, continued the terms of the prior collective agreement
“except as otherwise amended hereunder.” It also provided as follows:
3. All provisions mutually agreed to by the parties as contained in the attached
“Agreed Upon Items” documents shall be effective the date of ratification of the
Collective Agreement, unless otherwise specified therein.
The parties agreed to identical language concerning retroactivity in the 2007-2009
collective agreement, in Schedule “A”. It reads:
4
SCHEDULE “A”
April 1, 2007 – 3%, all rates and ranges.
April 1, 2008 – 3.25%, all rates and ranges.
April 1, 2009 – A general wage increase to all rates and all ranges equal to that
negotiated between the participating hospitals and the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union….
The Employer shall provide full retroactivity based of the foregoing base rate
adjustments on all earnings (exclusive of premium) for the term of the Collective
Agreement.
The parties’ Memorandum of Settlement in regard to the 2007-2010 agreement
included the following terms:
5. The parties herein agree that the terms of the Collective Agreement shall be
from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010.
6. The parties further agree that the amendments to the Collective Agreement shall
be effective on the date of ratification except as provided otherwise in these terms
of settlement.
7. Wage increases shall be retroactive to April 1, 2007 on all earnings (exclusive of
premium). Retroactive pay adjustments shall be paid no later than sixty (60) days
from the date of ratification by both parties.
8. Unless otherwise specified, terms set out in the foregoing shall become effective
the date of ratification by the Executive Management Team of Canadian Blood
Services and the membership of OPSEU Locals 5101 and 210 (Professional Unit).
The 2010-2014 agreement used different language – both in Schedule “A” and the
Memorandum of Settlement. Schedule “A” omits the last sentence that had appeared in
the prior agreements – “The Employer shall provide full retroactivity based of the
5
foregoing base rate adjustments on all earnings (exclusive of premiums) for the term of
the Collective Agreement.” Instead, Schedule “A” provides as follows:
SCHEDULE “A”
April 1 2010 – 2.50%, all rates and ranges.
April 1, 2011- Lump Sum as per attached.
April 1, 2012 – Lump Sum as per attached.
April 1, 2013 – 2.75%, all rates and ranges.
The 2010-2014 Memorandum of Agreement, signed on April 4, 2012, provides as
follows, in relevant part:
3. The parties agree that the term of the collective agreement shall be from April 1,
2010 to March 31, 2014.
4. The parties further agree that the Collective Agreement shall incorporate all
terms of the previous Collective agreement including Letters of Understanding
unless modified or changed herein which expired on March 31, 2010, together with
the following amendments attached hereto as Appendix “A”, “B” and “ C”;
5. The parties further agree that, except as specifically stated otherwise, the
Collective Agreement (Appendix “A”, “B” and “C”) shall be effective on the date
of Ratification of the Collective Agreement. Wage increases shall be retroactive to
April 1, 2010 to all employees on the date of the Union’s ratification. For the
purposes of clarity, unless otherwise agreed to in this Memorandum wage rates
shall be rounded to two decimals.
6. All wages shall be retroactive and paid within three (3) pay periods of the
Union’s Ratification. All retroactive payments shall be paid for all hours worked.
The parties both presented their lead negotiators to testify about the 2010
negotiations and the Memorandum of Settlement. Mr. Steve Saysill, OPSEU
Supervisor of Negotiations, Broader Public Sector, testified that the 2010-2014 round
of collective bargaining was his first with this Employer, although he was familiar
with prior bargaining agreement and negotiations though his review of the collective
6
bargaining file. He has been involved in collective bargaining negotiations since
1986.
Mr. Saysill testified that negotiations concluded on April 4, 2012, with the
signing of the Memorandum of Settlement. Once the parties reached a tentative
agreement on the outstanding issues, he prepared the Memorandum of Settlement,
from his template, for the Employer’s team to review and amend. It was his
recollection that it was presented to Mr. Rob Burwash, lead negotiator for the
Employer, through either a USB port or an email. Mr. Burwash made one amendment
to paragraph 5, adding the words “except as specifically stated otherwise.” The Union
team then reviewed the Memorandum of Settlement to ensure that all of the terms
were correct, and a question arose in regard to premiums and whether they would be
retroactive. Mr. Saysill stated that he thought they would be retroactive based on the
change to Schedule “A” – the elimination of the last sentence – so retroactivity no
longer would exclude premium payments. But he wanted to be sure that the Employer
was on the “same page” on that issue and so went to discuss it with Mr. Burwash. He
also did not want to “blindside” the Employer about the premiums. He acknowledged
that there was no discussion during collective bargaining concerning retroactivity.
From his perspective, there was no need to, until that point.
According to Mr. Saysill, this discussion took place in the Employer’s caucus
room and was to clarify that retroactivity was inclusive of wages, overtime, and
premiums. He stated that Mr. Burwash “paused, we talked about it”, there was a
7
“brief discussion” and then he said, “yes, we’re on the same page.” Mr. Saysill then
advised his team that retroactivity included the increase in premiums, and the parties
signed off soon after.
Mr. Burwash had participated in the 2002-2005, 2005-2007, 2007-2010
negotiations, and was lead negotiator for the Employer for the 2010-2014 agreement.
He stated that in the three rounds prior to 2010, the Employer had not applied
premium increases retroactively. The parties had “never negotiated language that
provided for that.” Retroactivity, he stated, applied to wages, overtime, vacation pay
and pay-in-lieu – all things that are a function of the hourly rate, or a percentage of the
wage rate. There was “no particular reason” why the retroactivity language in the
2007 Memorandum of Settlement was not used, except that Mr. Saysill provided the
draft document. He did not compare the 2007 Memorandum of Settlement to the draft
provided by Mr. Saysill. In his view, the word “earnings” as used in the 2007
settlement was more encompassing that the word “wages”, and therefore “all
earnings” required specific language to exclude premiums.
It was Mr. Burwash’s recollection that Mr. Saysill came into the Employer’s
caucus room, with his laptop, to go over the Memorandum of Settlement. He did not
recall a USB port or an email, and stated that the Employer’s computers would encrypt a
document from a USB. He added an amendment to paragraph 5 –“except as specifically
stated otherwise” – and that was the only change. The purpose of this amendment, he
stated, was that the parties had to specifically state what would be retroactive, that
8
without a specific date tied to it, the change would be effective upon ratification. He
agreed that Mr. Saysill and he had a conversation about retroactivity, and that Mr. Saysill
posed a question about retroactivity, but his understanding was that Mr. Saysill was
asking about “wage-based retroactivity – overtime and vacation.” When he agreed that
they were on the same page, he was “not answering with shift-based premiums in mind.”
He could not recall Mr. Saysill’s “exact words”, but he knows that he “didn’t intend to
convey there would be retroactivity on shift-based premiums.” He did not recall the
discussion to include premium pay.
After the agreement was ratified in April 2012, the Employer applied the 2010
wage increase retroactively to April 1, 2010, including overtime, vacation pay and pay-
in-lieu, but did not apply the increases to shift and weekend premiums. Article 18.06 and
18.07 state:
18.06 Shift Premium
(a) An employee whose work hours extend past five (5:00) p.m. on any of her
scheduled work days shall be paid, in addition to her straight time pay, a shift
differential of one dollar and eighty cents ($1.80) per hour for each completed hour
actually worked between five (5:00) p.m. to midnight and two dollars and twenty
cents ($2.20) per hour for each completed hour actually worked between midnight
and seven (7:00) a.m.
(b) The above noted premium shall not form part of the employee’s hourly rate of pay.
18.07 Premium Workdays
(a) Weekend Premium
Any full-time employee who is scheduled to work and works a shift where any
hours fall between 00h01 Saturday and 23h59 Sunday shall receive a premium of
two dollars and thirty-five cents ($2.35) for each hour worked of that shift that falls
between 00h01 Saturday and 23h59 Sunday.
(b) Consecutive Weekend Premium
9
Any full-time employee who is scheduled to work and works a shift where any
hours fall between 00h01 Saturday and 23h59 Sunday on two consecutive
weekends shall be credited at straight time and paid a premium of one-half (0.5)
times her basic hourly rate for all hours worked on the second, and any subsequent
weekends. This article shall not apply if consecutive weekends are worked due to
employee initiated changes.
(c) Part-Time Weekend Premium
Part-time employees shall be paid a weekend premium of two dollars and thirty-
five cents ($2.35) per hour for all hours worked between 00h01 Saturday and 23h59
Sunday, when scheduled as part of the employee’s regular workweek.
Similar shift and weekend premium language was contained in the 2007-10
agreement, with the premium amounts increasing in the 2010-2014 agreement. The
collective agreement, at various points, specifically deals with the retroactivity of
certain provisions.
Reasons for Decision
The onus is on the Union to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that its
interpretation of the collective agreement was the intention of the parties and that the
Employer violated the collective agreement when it failed to apply the shift and weekend
premium increases retroactively to April 1, 2010.
The goal in an interpretation case is to ascertain the intent of the parties, based on the
language of their agreement. As set out in Re Rayside-Balfour (Town) and C.U.P.E.,
Local 6 (Vacation Pay Grievance) [2000] O.L.A.A. No. 90 (Marcotte), at par. 10,
quoting Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, 3rd Ed., at par. 4:2100 (citation
omitted):
10
But the intention must be gathered from the written instrument. The function of the
Court is to ascertain what the parties meant by the words they have used: to declare
the meaning of what is written in the instrument, not of what was intended to have
been written; to give effect to the intention as expressed, the expressed meaning
being, for the purpose of interpretation, equivalent to the intention.
Likewise, in Re Metropolitan Toronto Zoo and C.U.P.E., Local 1600 (Wage Increase
Grievance) [2004] O.L.A.A. No. 217 (Brent), the Board, also quoting from Brown and
Beatty, at par. 4:2100, stated at par. 6:
In short, it is our task to ascertain the intention of the parties from an examination
of the collective agreement itself. We must presume that the parties intended what
they put in the collective agreement and ‘when faced with a choice between two
linguistically permissible interpretations…[be] guided by the purpose of the
particular provision, the reasonableness of each possible interpretation,
administrative feasibility, and whether one of the possible interpretations would
give rise to anomalies.”
In this case, although both parties argued that the contractual language was clear and
unambiguous, each argued, in the alternative, that if the provision was deemed
ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence supported their position. In Re Metropolitan Toronto
Zoo, supra at par. 5, the board of arbitration stated that ambiguity is not just when there is
a disagreement between the parties as to the meaning of a provision. Instead, an
ambiguity arises “where there are two reasonably possible meanings to a clause and it is
impossible to resolve the dispute by reference to the clause itself or to the context of the
document in which it is to be found, then a resolution must be found by reference to
extrinsic evidence.”
There are two provisions in the Memorandum of Settlement which deal with
retroactivity – paragraphs 5 and 6. The Employer asserts that the Union must establish
11
that premium increases are “wage increases” under paragraph 5 in order to be retroactive,
and that the parties only agreed to make “wage increases” retroactive. It submits that the
Union cannot rely on paragraph 6 – that “[a]ll wages shall be retroactive…” - because it
contradicts paragraph 5 and is vague and unclear. The Union submits that paragraph 6
expands on paragraph 5. It submits that premium increases are part of an employee’s
wages.
In my view, the question of retroactivity in regard to premium increases turns on
paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Settlement, specifically whether such premiums are
included in the words “[a]ll wages shall be retroactive” and “[a]ll retroactive payments
shall be paid for all hours worked.” In construing a contract, all words are presumed to
have meaning, and different words usually means that different things were intended.
Here, the parties used different words in paragraphs 5 and 6. Paragraph 5 states that
“wage increases shall be retroactive to April 1, 2010.” Paragraph 6 states that “all wages
shall be retroactive….” If “all wages” meant exactly the same thing as “wage increases”,
the first sentence of paragraph 6 would be redundant and have no meaning.
Consequently, “all wages” in paragraph 6 must mean something other than “wage
increases”. I agree with the Union that paragraph 6 expands on paragraph 5 in terms of
what is retroactive.
Under the Memorandum of Settlement, in order for premium increases to be
retroactive, they must fall within the words “all wages” under paragraph 6. Unlike a
number of other provisions in the collective agreement, there is no specific mention of
12
the date for the premium increases to take effect in the agreement. Consequently, unless
premium payments are included as part of “all wages” in paragraph 6, the effective date
would be the date of ratification under paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of Settlement,
which states: “The parties further agree that, except as specifically stated otherwise, the
amendments to the Collective Agreement (Appendix “A”, “B” and “C”) shall be effective
on the date of Ratification of the Collective Agreement.”
The Employer argued that, in this case, there was a reverse presumption – that
the date of ratification was the effective dates of any changes to the collective
agreement, unless otherwise specified. That is true. The normal presumption in
terms of retroactivity is that the whole agreement is retroactive, based on the duration
clause. Re Penticton and District Retirement Service and H.E.U., Local 180 (1977), 16
L.A.C. (2d) 97 (Weiler). In Re City of Hamilton and A.T.U., Local 107 (2009), 187
L.A.C. (4th) 425 (Levinson), the parties agreed to language which “displaced the
general presumption of retroactivity that might otherwise arise…” The parties did the
same in paragraph 5. But that reverse presumption does not answer the issue raised in
this case, whether shift and weekend premiums are included in the words “all wages”
as set out in paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Settlement.
The Union takes a broad reading of the words “all wages”. It cites to the definition
of “wages” in Black’s Law Dictionary that “wages include every form of
remuneration payable for a given period to an individual for personal services,
including salaries, commissions, vacation pay, bonuses…” as well as Barron’s
13
Canadian Law Dictionary: “[b]roadly, any compensation given to a third party in
consideration of his or her work or services.” It cites to the Ontario Employment
Standards Act, S.O. 2000, Ch. 41 (1), which defines “wages” to mean “monetary
remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an
employment contract….” It asserts that “all wages” is as broad as “all earnings”,
relying on the definition of “earnings” in Black’s Law Dictionary, as “[r]evenue
gained from labor or services…” It relies on Re Rayside-Balfour (Town), supra, in
which the arbitrator adopted the broad definition of “wages” found in Black’s Law
Dictionary. The Union contends that shift and weekend premium payments are part of
the wages paid to employees for their services.
The Employer asserts that premium pay is not part of the wages, citing Re Maxville
Manor and U.S.W.A.(1992), 27 C.L.A.S. 222 (Bendel). In that case, Schedule “A” of
the collective agreement, which was a first collective agreement, set out rates of pay
for January 1990, June 1990 and January 1991, and stated: “Retroactivity for all
employees for all hours paid on separate cheque no later than June 27, 1991.” The
collective agreement did not provide for shift premiums, although prior to the
agreement the employer had paid employees a shift premium. In calculating what was
owed to the employees retroactively, the Employer offset the total compensation paid
to the employees, including the shift premium. The Employer took the position that
the employees’ wages consisted of the hourly rate and pay and the shift premium, and
therefore the amounts paid were properly offset from anything owed. The arbitrator,
at par. 8, found “no merit in this argument”, concluding that “[s]hift premiums,
14
although part of employees’ remuneration and perhaps ‘wages’ for certain purposes,
are, in a collective bargaining context, usually regarded as distinct from rates of pay.”
Consequently, he determined that the Employer improperly offset premium payments
when determining monies owed to the employees.
The parties, here, did not define “[a]ll wages” and it is not clear if a broad reading
or a more narrow reading should apply. In my view, the dispute “cannot be resolved
by reference to the clause itself or to the context of the document…” Re Metropolitan
Toronto Zoo, supra at par. 5. Therefore, I find it appropriate to consider the extrinsic
evidence led by the parties.
The testimony of Mr. Saysill and Mr. Burwash, however, does not assist in
determining the intent of the parties. There is some conflict in the evidence presented,
although I conclude that both witnesses testified honestly and sincerely. Their testimony
reveals that there was no common understanding concerning the retroactivity of the
premium increases. Although Mr. Saysill understood that he was clarifying that
retroactivity was all-inclusive, including premiums, that was not Mr. Burwash’s
understanding. When he agreed with Mr. Saysill that they were on the “same page” in
terms of retroactivity, he did not understand his agreement to include premiums. On the
contrary, he thought that the inclusion of the words “except as specifically stated” in
paragraph 5 meant that a specific date would have to be included by the parties, or the
effective date would be the date of ratification.
15
Nevertheless, I find that the history of Schedule “A” and the Memorandum of
Settlements over the past negotiations supports the Union’s position in this case. The
2010-2014 agreement significantly changed the wording used by the parties. The
retroactivity language found previously in Schedule “A” was eliminated. Schedule “A”
no longer stated: “The Employer shall provide full retroactivity based of the foregoing
base rate adjustments on all earnings (exclusive of premium) for the term of the
Collective Agreement.” This amendment is significant because paragraph 4 of the
Memorandum of Settlement provides that “the Collective Agreement shall incorporate all
terms of the previous Collective agreement …unless modified or changed herein…” The
parties modified Schedule “A”: premiums were no longer specifically excluded from
retroactivity and the reference to “all earnings” was also eliminated.
Instead, retroactivity was addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Memorandum of
Settlement. They provide:
5. The parties further agree that, except as specifically stated otherwise, the
amendments to the Collective Agreement (Appendix “A”, “B” and “C”) shall be
effective on the date of Ratification of the Collective Agreement. Wage increases
shall be retroactive to April 1, 2010 to all employees on the date of the Union’s
Ratification. For the purposes of clarity, unless otherwise agreed to in this
Memorandum wage rates shall be rounded to two decimals.
6. All wages shall be retroactive and paid within three (3) pay period of the Unions
Ratification. All retroactive payments shall be paid for all hours worked.
The Employer asserts that “all earnings” is a broader concept than “ all wages”, and
that the retroactivity language in the Memorandum of Settlement is actually more
restrictive than the prior last sentence of Schedule “A”, and limits retroactivity to items
16
driven by an hourly wage rate. The Union argues that “all wages” – with no exception
for premiums - expands what is retroactive and includes premium pay increases.
Under the circumstances, particularly the elimination of the last sentence in Schedule
“A”, I conclude that the most reasonable interpretation is that “[a]ll wages” means all of
the compensation that employees receive for their labour, including overtime, vacation
pay and shift premiums. “All wages” may a somewhat more limited concept than “all
earnings” used previously by the parties – but there is a significant overlap, and it
includes payments for the employees’ labour. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “earnings”
as “[r]evenue gained from labor or services…” and “wages” as “payment for labor or
services usu. based on time worked…” Mr. Burwash testified that retroactivity was
limited to terms that were a function of the hourly rate or a percentage of the hourly rate,
and did not include premiums. By the terms of the collective agreement, however, shift
and weekend premiums are an additional payment for hours worked, based on the time of
the day, or weekend work. Though not part of the basic wage rate for a position, shift and
weekend premiums form part of the wages that employees who work the late shift or on
weekends receive for their work.
The Employer argues that the parties did not negotiate about the retroactivity of
premiums. Historically, premiums had been excluded from retroactivity and the
Employer would not have agreed to make such payments retroactive without receiving a
benefit in exchange.
17
When the parties eliminated overtime from the exclusion of retroactivity found in
Schedule “A” in 2005, the matter was clearly bargained. There is no evidence that the
retroactivity of premium pay was bargained in the 2010-2014 round, except for the
disputed discussion between Mr. Saysill and Mr. Burwash. In Re Pre-Con Inc., supra,
the employer made a similar argument – that retroactive payment of premium increases
was “unintended” because the parties did not negotiate such a result. The arbitrator did
not accept that argument because the language, as interpreted, provided for that result.
He concluded at p. 363:
Retroactivity of shift premiums cannot properly be said to be an unintended result:
the intention of the parties is to be drawn from the collective agreement itself,
whether or not the intention of one or another of the parties be fully expressed
therein. …
This is an example of the words quoted in Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour
Arbitration, at par. 4:2100, that the function of the arbitrator is to “to declare the meaning
of what is written in the instrument, not of what was intended to have been written.”
It appears from the evidence that Mr. Saysill attempted to clarify with the
Employer this very issue – to ensure there was agreement and ensure that the Employer
was not “blindsided” on this issue. Mr. Burwash, however, did not understand his
“agreement” to mean that premium increases would be retroactive. Consequently, we are
left with the language negotiated by the parties.
It was not just “wage increases” that were to be retroactive. The parties agreed that
“[a]ll wages shall be retroactive…” Unlike the prior Schedule “A”, there was no
18
exclusion for premiums, and, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that shift and
weekend premiums fall within the words “all wages” – payment for their labour – of the
employees.
The case of Re Maxville Manor, supra, is distinguishable. There, Schedule “A”
provided: “Retroactivity for all employees for all hours paid…” and the arbitrator
determined that it was “limited to rates of pay.” He determined that although shift
premiums were “part of the employees’ remuneration and perhaps ‘wages’ for certain
purposes” they were distinct from “rates of pay.” Here the parties agreed that “all wages
shall be retroactive” not just rates of pay. Had the Memorandum of Settlement been
limited to “wage increases” in paragraph 5, the decision in Re Maxville Manor, supra,
would be instructive. But the parties, here, provided that “all wages shall be retroactive”
and that includes more than the straight wage rate. It includes premium payments paid
for the hours worked.
On-call pay, which the Union conceded was not retroactive, is different than shift and
weekend premiums. On-call pay is not payment for hours worked. It is payment for the
inconvenience of being “on-call” and subject to being called into work. Premium pay is
an additional payment, beyond the basic wage rate, for certain hours worked outside of
the normal work week. It is not inconsistent that premium pay be considered part of “all
wages” paid for “all hours worked” but not on-call pay.
19
Finally, the Employer asserted that the contra proferendem rule of construction
applied and that any ambiguity in the Memorandum of Settlement should be construed
against the Union because the document was written by the Union. I find it unnecessary
to consider that rule of construction, as I find that the Union has established, on the
balance of probabilities, that the premium increase falls within the ambit of words “all
wages shall be retroactive…”
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the grievance is allowed. The Employer is
directed to pay the shift and weekend premium increases retroactively to April 1, 2010,
for all applicable hours. I shall remain seized.
Issued this 26th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Randi H. Abramsky
______________________________
Randi H. Abramsky