HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion Dissent
~6/12/2002 14:15
416-922-8814
GERALD CHARNEV QC
PAGE 11
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
ELGIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVINGJ ST. THOMAS
and
ONT ARlO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION AND ITS LOCAL 151
RE: H.L.D.A.A.
DISSENT
I have reviewed the A ward ofthe Chairperson, and must regrettably dissent on the issue of
wages. While Ole Award provides fOJ: nonnative wage increases for the bargaining unit as a
whole, and three addjtional increases specifically for the Supp~ Coordinator l's, it simply does
not go far enough to properly compensate these employees for ~e valuable service Oley perfonn,
I would have awarded wage rates more in line with those awarded in a number of recent
I
arbitration awards all of which were released since October, 20;00. [See Ottawa CarletQn
Lifeskills loc. and CUPE. Local 3826, Keller, Oct.lOO; Ot{awa~Carleton Association for Persons
With Developmental Disabilities and CUPE, Local 1521 , Burk~tt, Dec.lOO; Total
Communication Enviromnent and CUPE. Local 2605, Harris, Apr.lOl; Ottawa Valley Autistic
Homes and CUPE Local 2862, R. Brown, Apr.lO 1; Therapeuti~ and Educational Living Centres
Inc. and CUPE Local 152 HU, Briggs, Jillle/01.] These awards were all designed to address the
pOOJ: levels of compensation which had been prevalent in Ole s~ctor, and which had resulted in
significant recruitment and retention problems for the employing agencies. This was clearly
demonstrated in the KPMG Compensation Survey (Feb.lOO) '0th which we were provided.
The Ontario Govenunent is the funder for this agency as it is for the agencies listed above, They
clearly hold the purse strings. The Employer certainly did not pJ:esent any credible inability to pay
argument. It's difficult to see then why the rates of pay at Elgin should be lower than those in the
above cases.
~6/12/2002 14:15
416-922-8814
GERALD CHARNEV QC
PAGE 12
Page 2
Further evidence of the substantial amount of catch up required can be found in the Pay Equity
Plan which had been negotiated by the Parties. That plan provided for pay equity rates of
between $17.93 and $20.30 per hour for the Support Coordinator l's and between $21.38 and
$23.70 for the Support Coordinator 2's. Unfortunately the Employer had not implemented any
pay equity adjustments since 1998. While PllY equity is not necessarily achieved in one leap, one
must keep in mind that this Award is for a five year agreement,'which is most unusual for an
,
award under H.L.D.A.A. Regrettably even by the end of the pe~iod covered by this Award, these
employees will still find themselves well below those targets.
I am particulary concerned that the Support Coordinlltor 2's) w~o represent about one third of the
bargaining lll1it, but a majority of the full-time workforce, did not benefit from the additional
catch up increases which were awarded to the Support Coordin~tor 1 'so While the latter group
was poorly paid indeed) the S.C. 2's also required significant inFreases for all of the above
reasons, and lll1fortunately this Award still leaves them well beJow the mark even by the expiry
of the Agreement. For all of the above reasons, I find the wage Award to be rather disappointing
and am unable to concur,
DA TED AT TORONTO, this 10th day of June, 2002.
L~~ee