The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPorter 06-05-23INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: TheOntarioCollegeofArt&Design (theemploye0 -and OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion,Local576,Unit1 (theunion) ANDINTHEMATTERofthegrievanceofCraigPorter,datedDecember16,2005, regardingpensioncontributions. Before: Heard: DecisionDate: DanielA.Harris May,11,2006atToronto May23,2006. Appearances: ForOCADMargotBlight,Counsel;NickyDavis,DirectorofHuman Resources. FortheUnionDonMartin,StaffRepresentative;CraigPorter,Grievor. AWARD TileProceedings Thegrievor,CraigPorter,hasbeenemployedbytheOntarioCollegeofArtandDesign (hereafter,OCAD)asanadministrativeassistantsinceJuly2001.Hebecameeligibleto participateinOCAD'spensionplaneffectiveAugust7,2002.Hegrievesthatthroughno faultofhisownhis"contributionstothepensionplan,alongwiththeemployer's matchingpaymentshavenotbeenmade". TileFacts ThepartiesfiledthefollowingAgreedStatementofFacts: , CraigPorter("thegrievor")washiredbyOCADonAugust7,2001asa DevelopmentAssistant,apositionintheUnion'sbargainingunit.Hewas subsequentlypromotedtothepositionofAdministrativeAssistant,Facultyof LiberalStudiesandremainsamemberofthebargainingunit. 2.InaccordancewithOCAD'sdefinedcontributionpensionplan,thegrievor becameeligibletoparticipateintheplanonAugust7,2002 3.ThegfievorreceivedamemorandumfromSusanLynregardingthepension planinJuly2002.Thegrievordidnotrespond. , Assetoutinthememorandum,Mr.Portercouldhaveelectedtocontributeto thepensionplanatthe"high"rateorthe"low"rate,whichwouldhave representedatthetimeabi-weeklydeductionof$32.94or$50.19fi'omhis regularearnings. 5.OCADdidnotfollowupaftersendingthememorandumtothegrievor. 6.Subsequently,thegrievorreceivedAttendanceandBenefitSummariesin 2003,2004and2005. 7.ThegfievorreceivedT4slipseveryyearindicatingthatnopension contributionsweremadeotherthantherequiredemployeeandemployer contributionstotheCanadaPensionPlan. 2 8.Inaddition,thegrievor'spaystubsindicatethatnopensioncontributionswere deductedfromhisearningsotherthantherequiredcontributionstotheCanada PensionPlan. . OnoraboutSeptember19,2005,thegrievorfirstcontactedOCADhuman resourcesdepartmentregardingthisenrolmentintheOCADpensionplan. ThegrievoracknowledgedthathehadnotrespondedtoOCAD's2002 memoranduminvitinghimtoenrollinthepensionplanbuthesaidthat,ata laterdate,heassumedthathewasenrolled. 10.ThegrievorwasenrolledinthepensionplanonOctober1,2005atthe"high" contributionlevel.Thiscurrentlyresultsinadeductionof$69.80fromhis regularbiweeklyearnings. 11.Thegrievorclaimsanentitlementtoretroactivelyenrollinthepensionplan, effectiveAugust7,2002,includinganentitlementtomatchingcontributions byOCAD.HadMr.PorterbeenenrolledinthepensionplanonAugust7, 2002,OCAD'smatchingcontributionswouldhavetotaledthefollowingfor theperiodAugust7,2002andOctober1,2005(thedateofhisenrolmentin theplan): a.Ifthegrievorhadelectedtocontributeatthe"low"level:$6,335.41. b.Ifthegn'ievorhadelectedtocontributeatthe"high"level:$9,627.95. 12.Inaddition,ifthegfievorhadenrolledinthepensionplanatthe"low"level, hecouldhavechangedhisenrolmenttothe"high"levelatanytime. 13.Thegrievor[didnotmakeany]contributionstohisRRSPin2002,2003,2004 and2005. 14.Therelevantcollectiveagreementprovisionisarticle29.04,whichthroughout therelevantperiodhasreadasfollows: 29.04Employeesmayelecttoparticipateintheexistingpensionplan whichshallcontinuetobeavailableduringthetermofthecollective agreement. Thegfievoralsotestified. TileSubmissionsoftheParties 3 TheUnionsubmittedthattheinformationmadeavailabletothegrievorwas unintentionallymisleadinginthatitindicatesthatthegrievorwouldbeenrolledinthe pensionplanunlesshesignedawrittenwaiverelectingnottoparticipate.Further,hispay stubsandannualAttendanceandBenefitsSummarieswerecrypticenoughthathe reasonably,butmistakenly,believedhewasenrolledinthepensionplan. Theemployersubmittedthatitsobligationunderthecollectiveagreementistomakea pensionplanavailable,whichitdid.Ontwoseparateoccasionsthega'ievorwasadvised ofhisrighttoparticipateintheplan.Thereisnoobligationtocontinuetofollow-upwith employeestodeterminewhethertheyintendtoenroll.Theemployersaiditdidnothing tomisleadthegrievor.Itisnotresponsibleforthega'ievorhavingmadeorfailedtomake adecisionhelaterregrets. Inreply,theunionsaidthattheobligationtomakeapensionplanavailablecarriedwithit therequirementthatcommunicationsregardingthepensionplanbemeaningful.The memorandumofJuly9,2002,advisingthegrievorofhisoptionsclearlyimpliedthata signaturewasrequiredinordertooptout. ReasonsforDecision Thestartingpointofmyanalysisis,ofcourse,thecollectiveagreement.Article29.04 readsasfollows: 29.04Employeesmayelecttoparticipateintheexistingpensionplanwhich shallcontinuetobeavailableduringthetermofthecollectiveagreement. ItiscommongroundthatOCAD'spensionplanisavailabletoemployeesafteroneyear ofemployment.Itisatthatpointthat"employeesmayelecttoparticipate".Onaplain readingofthearticle,itisfortheemployeetomakeapositiveelection.Enrollmentisnot automatic,withanegativeelectiontooptout. ThegrievorwasmadeawareofthepensionplaninhisofferofemploymentdatedJuly 20,2001.Thatletterreadsinpartasfollows: ...Inaddition,afterthecompletionofoneyearofservicewiththeCollege,you willbeeligibleforthegrouppensionplan,whichisamoneypurchaseplan providingformatchingcontributionsbytheCollege.Yourvacationentitlement willbethreeweeksafteroneyearofservice.PleasecontactSusanChong, HumanResourcesAdministrator(Compensation&Benefits),tomake arrangementsforbenefitssign-onandorientation.... AfterthegrievorcompletedoneyearofservicehewassentthefollowingMemorandum, datedJuly9,2002: AsofAugust7,2002,youbecomeeligibletoparticipateintheOntarioCollegeof Art&Design'sgrouppensionplanthroughCanadaLifeAssuranceCompany. Thepensionplanisamoneypurchaseplanwhichallowsyoutocontributeat eitheraloworhighrate,withmatchingcontributionsbytheCollege. LowContributionRate 3½%ofthefirst$450ofgrossmonthlyincome 5%oftheremainderofgrossmonthlyincome HighContributionRate 6%ofthefirst$450ofgrossmonthlyincome 7½%oftheremainderofgrossmonthlyincome WestronglyencouragealleligibleemployeestojoinOCAD'spensionplan. PleasenotethatIhaveenclosedaninformationpackageinregardstothegroup planandinvestmentoptions.Ifyouwishtoenrollorhaveanyquestions,please donothesitatetocontactmeatextension279.If,however,youdonotwishto join,pleasesigntilewaiverbelowandreturnacopytotheHumanResources office. 5 Thismemorandumiscentraltotheunion'ssubmissionthatthegrievorunderstoodthat enrollmentinthepensionplanisautomatic.Itsaidthatitwasreasonableforthegrievor todrawthatconclusionbecausethelastpartofthememo,orform,istheonlyarea requiringasignature.Thatpartoftheformreadsasfollows: WaiverforthePensionPlan IhavebeenofferedtheopportunitytoenrollintheOCADPensionPlan,andI herebyelectnottoparticipateintheplanatthistime.Ifullyunderstandthat,asa resultofmyelectionnottoparticipate,atthistime,theCollegewillnotprovide anyfumlofpensionorretirementallowanceformeinthefuture SignatureofEmployee NameofEmployee: Date: TheunioniscorrectthattheonlyrequirementforasignatureonthatMemoisthe Waiver.However,IcannotagreethattheMemoindicatesthattodonothingwouldor couldresultintilegrievor'senrollmentintheplan. TheMemoisentirelyconsistentwiththecollectiveagreement'srequirementthatthe grievorhadtochoosetoenroll.Onthefaceofthememo,achoicehastobemade whethertoparticipateatthe"LowContributionRate"or"HighContributionRate."That decisioncannotbeautomatic.TheMemogoesonto"encouragealleligibleemployees tojoin."Manifestly,thepurposeoftheMemoistoadvisethegrievorofthedateupon whichhewillbe"eligible"and,asaneligibleemployee,toencouragehimtojoin.The Memocontinuesbyadvisingthegrievor"Ifyouwishtoem'oll,orhaveanyquestions, 6 pleasedonothesitatetocontact[thewriter]."TheMemoveryclearlyrequiresthegrievor totakeactivestepsinordertoexercisehiscollectiveagreementright"toelectto participateintheexistingpensionplan". Althoughacursoryreadingofthememomightleadonetoconcludethatonlyanegative optionrequiredanyaction,thisisclearlyanimportanttopicthatrequiredmorethan cursorytreatment.Thedocumentmustbeconsideredasawholeandobjectively.Taken asawhole,itrequirestilegrievortotaketheinitiativeinordertoenrollinthepension plan.Eventhe"WaiverforthePensionPlan"isanacknowledgementbytheemployee thatthey"havebeenofferedtheopportunitytoenroll".Thatwaiverisatbestconfusing andoughttoraisequestionsratherthanbetakenasadefinitiveindicationthattakingno actionwouldresultinanemployeeautomaticallybeingenrolledinthepensionplan. Iamnotpersuadedthattheother,subsequent,documentsfiledasexhibitsassistthe grievor.An"AttendanceandBenefitsSummary"wasprovidedannuallytothegrievorin thesamefonneachyear.ThatdatedJune27,2002includesthefollowing: BenefitsSummary Ourrecordsindicatethatyouhavethefollowingbenefitscoveragewiththe College: DependentCoverageyes (orfamilycoverage) AmountofLifeInsurance$2,000 (includingAccidentalDeath&Dismembennent) MajorMedicalyes Dentalyes LongTermDisabilityyes PensionPlanno 7 The"PensionPlan"linechangedinthe2003Summaryfrom"no"to"eligible".In2004 itremained"eligible".TheSummaTofJune30,2005changedfi'om"eligible"to"no". Again,adocumentsuchasthismustbeconsideredobjectively.Thelistofbenefits coverageinthe2002Summaryveryclearlyconfirmswitha"yes"thosebenefitsfor whichthegreivorhadcoverageanda"no"forthePensionPlan.In2003that"no"did notbecomea"yes";itbecame"eligible".Theindicationthatthegrievorwas"eligible" fortheplanisnotthesameastheclear"yes"confirmationoftheotherbenefits. Objectivelythereisadifferenceinthosetwostatesofaffairs.Ontheplainmeaningof thewords,tobeeligibleforsomethingisnotthesameashavingit;itimpliesthataction isrequiredtoobtainit.AswiththeJuly9,2002memo,acursoryreadingofthe Summariesmightwellglossoverthisdistinction.However,again,theseareimportant documentsintendedtoalertemployeesofthebenefitstheyarereceivingoreligibleto receiveunderthecollectiveagreement.Objectively,thegrievor'sreportedstatuswith respecttothepensionplanisdifferentthantheclearconfirmationoftheotherbenefits.It washisobligationtosatisfyhimselfastotheimportofthatdistinction. Theunionsubmittedthatitwasthechangetotile2005formfrom"eligible"backto"no" thattriggeredthegrievance.However,thegrievoragreedincross-examinationthathe didnotcontacttheHumanResourcesdepartmentuntilmid-September2005toenquire about"no"ontheform.The2005Summaryrequestedthatdiscrepanciesbereported"by July29,2005".Evenacceptingthatitwasthatchangewhichprovokedthegrievorto makeenquiries,thedelayisindicativeofthelackofrigourbroughtbythegrievorto 8 satisfyinghimselfthathewasreceivingallofthebenefitstheunionhadnegotiatedunder thecollectiveagreement.Theemployerwasmakinginformationavailabletohimand invitinghisresponsetoclarifyanydiscrepancies.Itcannotbeheldtoaccountforhis failureto,ordelayin,responding. Thegrievor'sT4slipswerealsoputbeforeme.TheyshowdeductionsfortheCanada PensionPlanandnoneforanyregisteredpensionplan.Theunionsubmittedthatthe grievorwasunlikelytohaveseentherelevantT4slipsbecausehedoesnotcompletehis owntaxreturnsandwaslateinfilinghis2002taxreturn.ItwasnotfileduntilJuly29, 2003.Atthattime,hesignedhistaxreturnwhichincludedalinethatindicatedthere werenodeductionsforanyregisteredretirementplan.Theunionproperlyabandoned anyclaimsubsequenttothegrievorhavingsignedthattaxreturn.Theunionandthe grievorproperlyagreedthatheshouldberesponsiblefordocumentshehadactually signed.Hadthegrievorfiledhisreturninatimelyfashion,therelevantperiodapplicable totheinstantclaimwouldhavebeenfurtherreduced.However,itwouldnothavebeen entirelyeliminated.Again,theemployeroughtnottobeheldtoaccountforthegrievor's lateattentiontosuchmatters. Samplesofthegrievor'spay-stubswerealsoputbeforeme.Theunioniscorrectthat thereisnokeyorguidetotheinitialsusedasshorthandforthedeductionsmadetohis grosspayandtheremayhavebeensomeconfusioninthattheCanadaPensionPlan deductionisrepresentedby"G.P.P."Theunionsubmittedthatthegrievormayhave interpretedthattostandfor"grouppensionplan."Nonetheless,therewasonlyone 9 deductionforpensionpurposesnottwo.Hadthegreivoractuallybeenpayingintothe OCADpensionplan,thatdeductionwouldalsohavebeenshown.Inanyevent,pay stubsareprovidedtoensurethatemployeesareawareofthedeductionsbeingmade.Itis theemployee'sresponsibilitytounderstandthepaystubandtochallengeitifthereisany confusion.Thisisparticularlyimportantinthecontextofthepensionplanandthe collectiveaga'eementrequirementthathehadtochoosetoparticipateinit. TheDecision Thecollectiveagreementprovidestheemployeewiththeopportunitytoelectto participateintheOCADpensionplan.ByamemorandumdatedJuly9,2002,thegrievor wasadvisedofthatopportunityandhefailedtomaketheelection.Accordingly,hewas notenrolledintheplanuntilhedidmakethatelectiononaninstrumentdatedSeptember 26,2005.Hisgrievanceseekingpaymentoftheemployer'sshareofcontributionsfor anyperiodpriortothatdateisdismissed. DATEDATTORONTOthis23rddayofMay,2006. \ ameHams,SoleAlblttato