Home About Us Executive News Archives Forum Links Contact Us

 

 

 


Vince Readys’ Recommendations



IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN LABOUR CODE


(PART 1- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)


AND


IN THE MATTER OF THE DISPUTE


BETWEEN:


THE B.C. TERMINAL OPERATORS’ ASSOCIATION


ON BEHALF OF


CASCADIA TERMINAL,


PACIFIC ELEVATORS LIMITED,


JAMES RICHARDSON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,


SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL,


AND UNITED GRAIN GROWERS LIMITED


AND:


GRAIN WORKERS UNION LOCAL 333


(the "UNION")



REPORT OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER


VINCENT L. READY Commissioner



JUNE 30 2002




REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


1. INTRODUCTION.

Following intensive meetings between the parties in early June, 2002. I was informally appointed by the parties to mediate their collective bargaining dispute. I met with the parties on June 18 and 19 2002 at which time they outlined the nature of the issues in the dispute. They provided me with an extensive overview of the recent structural changes in the West Coast Grain Industry and in the prairie provinces which provide grain to the Vancouver port.

 

The parties very quickly became deadlocked over certain issues which resulted in the B.C Terminal Operators’ Association breaking off negotiations on January 26 2002. Subsequently, on March 08 2002, the Employers applied to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) in Ottawa for the appointment of a Conciliation Commissioner pursuant to section 72 0f the Canadian Labour Code. By agreement of the parties, I was appointed by the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw , Minister of Labour of Canada, as the Conciliation Commissioner.

 

Upon my entry into the dispute as Commissioner the parties remained deadlocked over a number of issues. In an attempt to break that deadlock I asked the parties to provide me with a written outline of their respective positisions on each of the outstanding issues. Following receipt of those submissions, I provided the parties with what I considered to be a realistic bargaining framework. I scheduled further meeting with the parties on May 04, 05 and 06 2002 , during which meetings some progress was made. However, in the end they remained deadlocked on the key issues in dispute. I then requested and received written submissions and replies from the parties on June 06 2002 and June 20 2002.

 

The issues in dispute are as follows:

Term
Hours of Work.
Benefits and Wages.
Early Retirement/ Special Severance.
Grievance Procedure
Past Practice and Letters of Understanding
Disability Plans
Automation and Retention of Seniority on Lay-Off
Other Issues:
*Outstanding Union Proposals

*Outstanding Management Proposals

 

2. GENERAL BACKGROUND

 

Before turning to the specific issues in dispute it is necessary to outline the existing context and economic circumstances under which this collective bargaining process occurs, as well as the economic climate which currently governs the West Coast Grain Industry.

 

The present Collective Agreement expired on December 31 2000. On January 22 2001, Mr. Warren Edmundson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services of HRDC in Ottawa, convened a pre-bargaining conference. The purpose of this conference was for the parties to discuss changes which were occurring in the West Coast Grain Industry with the hope that such a discussion, prior to the commencement of Collective Bargaining, would assist in establishing a better understanding between the parties, thereby enhancing the prospects of a voluntary resolution of a renewed Collective Agreement.

 

It is clear from the discussion papers and speakers’ comments at the conference, which I have reviewed, that the bargaining principles were made aware of the stark changes in the Grain Industry, as well as the impact of those changes at the Vancouver Terminals.

 

The changes identified at the Pre-bargaining Conference can be succinctly described as follows:

A limitation on the number of metric tons which would likely be exported through the West Coast at less then 15 million tons for the period 2003-2004 and only slightly greater then 15 million metric tons for the period 2008-2009 significantly less then the forecasted capacity in the early 1990’s and less then the capacity of the West Coast Grain Industry.

 

The governance over the handling of grain by commercial contracts between the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and its service providers with clear lines of authority specified in their contracts. This development will significantly impact the profitability of the West Coast Grain Terminals and , if fully implemented , it will require the grain companies to bid through a tendering process on a portion of wheat sales. Penalties would be imposed if the terminals fail to meet the requirement of the tender agreements.

 

In the future, penalties would be imposed on the Employers for failure to unload grain in a timely fashion. These penalties would flow from the many initiatives the Railways are continuing to pursue so as to increase efficiency and competitiveness.

 

Put succinctly, the Railways supplying grain from the country to the elevators on the West Coast are making fundamental changes at every step of the supply chain, all of which is designed and intended to provide more efficient turn around of railcars to and from the West Coast Ports.

 

Perhaps the most significant changes affecting the structure of the West Coast Grain Industry are the mergers and consolidation of businesses which are now a fact of life in the industry.

 

The Employers’ strongly held position through out negotiations, and indeed during the mediation and conciliation stages, was put to me by Mr. Harris this way:

 

The Cornerstone of a renewed Collective Agreement which would be acceptable to the members of the Association would be that the new Collective Agreement will allow the Industry to enhance its efficiency and competitiveness. It is essential that costs be reduced in the West Coast Terminal Elevators. It is also fundamental that the cost of a new Collective Agreement be significantly restrained. The members of the Association cannot accept a new Collective Agreement which does not permit its members to pursue efficiency and cost reduction and that the Collective Agreement must contemplate only a modest increase to certain cost components. It is essential that a balance be found between savings under the renewed Collective Agreement and the sharing of certain of those savings with the members of the Union.

 

In general terms, the Union acknowledges a significant reduction in the grain received in the past 18months. It challenges, however the Industries ability to predict the future. Counsel for the Union notes there have been drought conditions in the last two crop years, and the potential exists for a third year of drought. He adds, however, this is "a familiar and cyclical phenomena …(that) does not affect the long term economics of grain handling".

 

The Union takes the position that the cost reduction and containment measures sought by the Association at this round of bargaining would have "a very marginal impact on the Employers’ fiscal circumstances during a period of relatively low grain shipments". Mr. Cameron submits:

"When grain recovery occurs, the industry will not return to the employment levels of the past. That is a problem for the union and its members, but it is an advantage for the Employers. The industry has moved from a relatively labor intensive operation to a highly capital intensive one. Even with a vote specific data, it is clear that, at capacity operation, the total cost per ton of grain will have decreased dramatically, and the Labor cost per ton will have plummeted. "

 

It is in the face of the pervasive changes, and their impact on the way business is now conducted, that the parties are attempting to negotiate a renewal of their Collective Agreement. To be blunt, the prevailing industry changes have had a major influence on the motivation and conduct of both parties during these negotiations.

 

For instance, there have been a significant number of long-term layoffs in technological changes which are driving the union’s bargaining agenda towards improved severance packages; technological change language; improved pension benefits for its members; enhanced severance packages for senior employees as well as employees were affected by long-term layoffs; and an improved continuous work schedule.

 

Similarly, the changes in the industry are motivating the Employers, through their association, to aggressively respond to those changes by seeking to become more competitive. This, asserts the Employers, can only be achieved by operating more efficiently than they have in the past.

In making recommendations I have, with great care, attempted to reconcile these firmly held positions by balancing the competing interests in the present economic environment currently existing in this industry.

I now turn to the outstanding issues in dispute.

3. Consideration of the outstanding items and recommendations.

 

Term:

 

I suggested in the bargaining framework which are provided to the parties that the term of the renewed Collective Agreement should " reflect the passage of time since the expiring date of the former Collective Agreement". I also said that it " should be sufficient so as to allow for the proper implementation of the renewed Collective Agreement ".

 

The union has taken the position that the Collective Agreement should be for a three-year term, expiring on December 31, 2003. The players have taken the position that the term of the Collective Agreement should be for a longer period of four years, expiring December 31, 2004.

 

I recommend that the term of the renewed Collective Agreement expired on December 31, 2003.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Term:

 

Recommended three-year term and the union agrees.

 

Hours of work

 

One of the most contentious issues in this collective bargaining to speed authorizes from the discussion which is taken place with respect to hours of work. Following a report by mediator/arbitrator Don Monroe under the British Columbia grain handling operations at 1991, a form of continuous operations was introduced into the Collective Agreement. The Employers were displeased with the provisions in the report which recommended specific premiums to be paid for weekend work end, therefore, they did not implement the scheme of continuous operations.

In 1996, the hon. Mr. Justice Dermod Owen-Flood, as cassette conciliation commissioner, recommended the terms of a the new Collective Agreement for the term 1993 to 2000. In his recommendations, he recommended a gradual reduction over time of the weekend premiums. The recommendations of Mr. Justice Owen Flood were accepted by the parties and, subsequently, the continuous operation system was implemented.

 

I had the privilege of serving as umpire for hours of work disputes under the continuous operation system and, therefore, I have some specific knowledge of the difficulties associated with the implementation of the system of continuous operations which was implemented at that time.

During the collective bargaining dispute, the parties have agreed with the submission of the current continuous operation system with a new continuous operation system which has been termed as a six and three shift schedule system. Attached, as attachment one to my report and recommendations, is the outline of the six and three hours of work schedule which I recommended for inclusion in the Collective Agreement to replace the "Monroe" system.

 

I agree with the parties that the six in three system is a more appropriate continuous operations system. It has the fortuitous affect of reducing the impact of employees when they’re moved from one shift to another. It also has the beneficial effect of reducing structural "over manning" in the schedule itself. In light of the agreement of the parties to the new system, there is no need for me to describe further the inherent beliefs of this new system.

 

However, it is necessary for me to make certain other related recommendations in order for the new scheme to be implemented. I therefore recommend:

 

Employers have the right to move from one on continuous system to the continuous system and vice versa upon two weeks’ notice.

 

Employees moving from one system to another will receive overtime payment at two times their base rate of pay for the first two days on which they commence work on the new system. I make this recommendation in compensation for the eventuality that, on the transfer from one system to another, employees may either work more hours than was previously scheduled or less hours than was previously scheduled. Establishing a uniform penalty for transferring from one system to another also should alleviate the concern of the union that the Employers will abuse their rights in this respect and move backwards and forwards between systems unnecessarily .

 

Each Employer will determine which system it will operate under, depending upon its operational requirements.

 

Employers may schedule maintenance operations on one system will other operations may be scheduled on the other system .

 

I also recommend that vacation be taken commencing on the first day of work block. I also recommend that, wherever practicable, Employers should cooperate with employees to request the use of blue days to be able to start this vacation on Monday. I also recommend that vacation weeks be converted to vacation hours so that vacation can be accurately calculated under the continuous operation system or under the alternative work schedules recommended later in my report .
I also recommend that, in establishing a work schedule, the Employers should plan to have employees scheduled to fill the positions for the work required . .

 

I also recommend that the implementation of a continuous schedules should begin on Monday, and the last day of a continuous schedule before the reversion to Monday to Friday schedule should be on a Friday.

 

While the parties have been able to agree on a new system of continuous operations, the parties have been unable to agree on further systems that might be adopted. At the inception of the discussion about continuous operations, the Employers were seeking a 12 or continuous operations system. This system was not adopted and, instead, and ate our system was adopted under Mr. Monroes’ report. Nevertheless, the Employers continue to persist in the view that it would be in the interests of both the industry and the employees to have a more choice with respect to ours of work systems.

 

In particular, in this dispute, the Employers continue to press for a 10 hour hours of work schedule to be adopted. This schedule would contemplate that employees would work for, 10 hour shifts in accordance with the schedule which is attached as attachment 2 to my report and recommendations.

I am not repaired to recommend that this can our system be included in the Collective Agreement in a manner which would provide an Employer with the right to select this system. Instead, buy recommendation is that this shift be included in a Letter of Understanding that provides for the possibility that this alternative shift could be implemented upon agreement between the union and the Employer. This is similar to the manner in which alternative work schedules are handled under other Collective Agreements In British Columbia. For instance, I note in the IWA forest industry Collective Agreement, the parties have developed a contractual scheme for the introduction and implementation of varied work schedules, subject to the agreement of both parties and certain review procedures.

 

Upon acceptance of these recommendations by the parties, I would, at the request of either party assist the parties in working out a Letter of Understanding that would accommodate issues arising out of the contemplated implementation of such an alternative hours work schedule.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Hours of Work:

 

Recommended was a six and three schedule.

The union initially agreed with this schedule with certain criteria. Their reaction from the policy committee and the membership has forced the union to go back to demanding the Monroe schedule.

The BCTEO A wants the six and three to pay for any monetary improvements to the agreement

Recommended was to give it two weeks’ notice to move from non continuous to continuous and vice versa.

 

The union agrees with this recommendation.

 

Recommended was to pay two days a double time for a schedule change from non continuous to continuous and back.

 

The union agrees with this proposal, but had originally proposed five days a double time.

The BCTE0A says that the cost is too high.

 

Recommended as two separate shifts in a terminal. (This would mean for example that maintenance can work a seven day week and operations could work on Monday to Friday shift.

The union has opposed this from the beginning and will continue to oppose it .

The BCTEOA wants to be able to schedule maintenance and operations on separate schedules to better utilize personnel.

 

Letter of Understanding for 10 hour shifts.

 

The union has opposed the 10 hour shift schedule and would have to have the Letter of Understanding to veto rights to the union before anything could be agreed to.

 

Wages and Benefits

 

Wages

 

With respect to wages, the union has proposed the following:

i). A 35¢ per hour increase for 2001

ii). A 48¢ per hour wage increase for 2002

iii) A adjustment to wages on a percentage basis effective January 1, 2003. The Cola would be based on the following formula: the percentage increase in that CPI (Vancouver) November, 2003 CPI (Vancouver) November, 2000 to can the 0.3%.

 

It would be a disservice to the union’s position not to mention is been very candid in its desire to improve the provisions for pension plan and benefits and, that its wage increase proposals have been modestly adjusted accordingly. The union has taken a position it has on wages based on its desire to obtain a beneficial early retirement and special severance package, which it costs at $2.5 million.

 

The Employer State position that no wage increase should be made for the year 2001 as the parties were unable to achieve a Collective Agreement, and the Employers did not receive the benefit of any efficiency improvements during that year. For the subsequent three years, the players have proposed a 2% wage increase per year. I’ll understand the Employer’s proposal to mean that in accordance with the historic practice in the industry, the 2% would be calculated on the labor rate and converted into cents per hour which would then be provided to employees in each classification. The Employers also proposed a special early retirement and severance system which they cost at approximately $1 million.

 

As stated at the outset up my report, it is evident that there are very difficult economic circumstances facing the Employers in the Port of Vancouver. I also have taken into account the desire of both parties to find a special mechanism to assist some employees to retire, or to receive special severance pay, and the cost impact of such provision. In the circumstances, and in an attempt to reconcile the two positions within the current economic situation in the Grain Industry, a I recommend the following concerning the issue of wages:

: a lump-sum payment of $1,100 for the period January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, prorated for any period of layoff.

 

: July 1, 2002 2% increase

 

: July 1, 2003 2.5% increase

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Wages:

 

Recommended was $1,100 lump sum payment.

 

The union was opposed to the $1,100 lump sum payment and preferred a percentage increase on wages.

 

Recommended was a 2% increase affective July 1, 2002

 

The union proposed a 48¢ wage increase

 

Recommended was a 2.5% increase effective July 1, 2003

 

The union proposed a wage adjustment based on the CPI

Benefits

 

I am recommending, effective January 1st, 2003, the Employer set-aside an amount equal to 15¢ per hour to be used for benefits improvements. The party is directed to meet within 60 days of ratification to determine which benefits this money will be applied to.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Recommended was 15¢ per hour

 

The union was looking for a significant increases in benefits.

 

Pensions

 

Under the expired Collective Agreement, the pension plan is a plan in which the parties have agreed to make specific financial contributions. The contribution level be made by the parties is $1 per payroll hour worked by each employee and tillers and $2.19 per payroll our work contributed by the Employer.

 

As stated earlier, during the course of bargaining, the Union placed special emphasis on their pension demands. In the course of their submissions to me, the proposed for the year 2001, an additional 35¢ per hour Employer contribution be made which would be matched by an individual 35¢ contribution from each employee. They also proposed that similar increases also take place in the year 2002.

 

The union has also expressed concern about a recent report prepared for the trustees of the Pension Plan which expresses concern about the funding levels of the plan. While the trustees have not met and dealt with the implications of such a report, the union has urged that the report provides some justification for increases in pension contribution.

 

Given the circumstances, I recommend the following pension contributions:

January 1, 2003

 

Each employee will contribute 25¢ per payroll man hour worked. This amount will be matched equally by the Employers.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Pensions

 

Recommended was 25¢ from the Employer and 25¢ from the employee.

 

The Union stressed the need for improvements in this area to compensate for declining work force and an order to keep the plan healthy.

 

Early retirement/special severance

 

While both parties accepted the need to come to grips with the structural unemployment being caused by the changes in the West Coast Grain Industry, the proposed different solutions.

 

The union proposed that there be a special early retirement and special severance plan that would involve all the Employers in the Port of Vancouver contributing to find a solution. The union'’ proposal contemplates the creation of two programs by creating and Industry Fund and an Employer’s specific fund.

 

The Employers are adamant that any solution on this issue must be Employer specific. In other words, none of the Employers are prepared to support or subsidize the employees of another Employer.

 

The parties also dispute the amounts and the formula upon which the Employers should make contributions to a special fund.

 

It rests with me to find a compromise which meets the goals of both parties but which takes into account the differences in their positions.

 

I therefore recommend that a special fund be created by each Employer, setting aside an amount of money under the following formula:

 

Each Employer will set aside the amount of $50,000 for each employee who was employed at the date of ratification and who will be 60 years of age as of December 31, 2002. This amount of money will be discounted a by $1,000 for each month the employee is over 60 years of age as of that date. However, employees with less than 15 years of service as of December 31, 2002 will be offered three weeks pay per year of service, decrease proportionately for each month the employee is over 60 years of age as of December 31, 2002.

 

The total aggregate cost to be realized under this heading shall be based on the number of employees that the Employers have represented as being eligible during the commission hearings. For greater clarity, the total amount of the fund shall be the number of eligible employees multiplied by $50,000.

 

From these monies, I recommend that the Employers should first offer an opportunity to any employee, who will be 60 years of age as of December 31, 2002 and who is in active employment or on layoff, a onetime retirement bonus of the moneys in the manner described above. Any eligible employee will have a period of two calendar months to accept the bonus and retire from employment.

 

Once it has been determined how many of the eligible employees have elected to retire, then the balance of any funds held by an Employer will be made available to other employees in the reverse order of seniority.

 

Money’s not expanded by the above process will be offered by the Employers to their employees who were laid off by way of the special all-inclusive severance payment of three weeks’ pay per year of service. If there are more applicants than money, applicants will be prioritized such that those laid-off longest get first priority all laid-off Pacific elevator employees will be eligible for this special severance payment.

 

If any money of the Employers is not expended for retirement purposes, or to employees who are laid-off, then their employees who were actively at work may accept special severance pay on the basis of two weeks’ pay per year of service, capped at $50,000. If there are more applicants than money, applicants will be prioritized within the terminal according to the sum of their age plus the seniority with the Employer.

 

It is understood that the sole financial responsibility of each Employer will be the amount contributed on a formula described above and that the monies are only to be spent for the benefit of an Employer’s employees.

 

Acceptance of retirement bonus or a severance payment will result in the termination of the employee and the loss of that employees right to recall. Additionally, acceptance of these payments will preclude the employee for having rights to other severance pay payments under the Collective Agreement.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Recommended was a $1.8 million fund to the plant’s specific and delivered through a formula.

The Union stressed the need for more money in the fund and to create a formula that deals with people on a fairer basis.

 

Grievance/arbitration procedure

 

Both parties express the desire to improve and expedite the grievance procedure. I agree, from what I’ve heard and observed, that there is a legitimate need to streamline the grievance/arbitration procedure so as to provide for a more timely resolution of outstanding grievances. I therefore recommend that the list of arbitrators be adopted as follows:

 

Brian Foley, Marguerite Jackson, Judy Korbin, Vince Ready and Colin Taylor

 

I also recommend that, after referral to arbitration, responding side will reply with a list of 12 dates of availability within the next four months or in the case of discharge, 10 dates within nine weeks. The initiating side will indicate which of those dates it is also available. Each arbitrator will then be canvassed in rotation until arbitrator is available to hear the grievance on a day or days available to both parties. If responding party does not make available required number of dates within the required time, the initiating party may establish a list of potential dates for the arbitration and canvas arbitrators in rotation to hear the arbitration on one or more of those states. If the initiating party does not make available any of the dates on the responding parties list, the arbitration will be scheduled at some later time acceptable to the responding party.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

The union agrees with Readys’ recommendations.

 

Past Practice and Letters of Understanding

 

One of the somewhat unusual features of this collective bargaining dispute is that the Employers sent a set of letters to the union prior to the expiring of the Collective Agreement. This letter gave notice, to the union, of the Employers and intention to cancel previous letters of understanding and Past Practices. The Employers have taken a somewhat aggressive position by reiterating that the resolution of these Past Practices are integral part of the resolution of the overall dispute. They also assert that the funding which they have suggested be made available under a new Collective Agreement is, in part, justified by savings and efficiencies which will rise from changing the understandings and Past Practices involved.

The union has equally aggressively taken the position that these Past Practices are evidence of long-term agreements which been achieved primarily at the local level dealing with local conditions. They have expressed concern that collective bargaining is not the preferred matter to deal with these issues.

 

In my bargaining framework, I recommend that the parties consider providing me with the jurisdiction to deal with these issues after the achievement of a Collective Agreement. Both parties have advised me, somewhat reluctantly, that they will agree to such a proposal. I therefore recommend that, upon the execution of a renewed Collective Agreement, the parties meet and attempt to agree upon changes in the letters of understanding and Past Practices. I recommend that, if any matters are not resolved within three months after the ratification of the Collective Agreement, or a period of time otherwise agreed to between the parties, they shall be referred to me for final and binding determination. Generally speaking, the terms of reference for the procedure will take a consideration: the purpose of the practice or Letter of Understanding; the continued need for such practice or Letter of Understanding: the impact of removing or continuing the practice or

 

Letter of Understanding ; the day to day efficiency of the operation; and the impact on employees.

 

Automation and retention of seniority on layoff

 

During negotiations, the union expressed a strong desire to establish meaningful consultation between the parties when technological change is occurring. As well, the union made a forceful submission with respect to the need to canvass the work force and technological change occurs for the purpose of determining if employees, other than those directly affected by the technological change, would be interested in accepting early retirement severance packages. The union submits it would be reasonable for the Employer to budget for severance arrangements resulting from the implementation of technology which results in a reduction of the work force.

 

Council proposes that 1% of the total cost of technological change be set aside for severance.

The Employer expressed the need for such consultation to take place in a timely manner so that it can affect the changes accordingly.

 

I am satisfied the union’s proposal for meaningful consultation is legitimate, provided such a process is triggered and completed in a timely manner. In my view, the process should involve a canvassing of the workforce, within a specific time frame to determine whether affected employees would be interested in accepting early retirement. The process must include discussion of the measure to mitigate adverse effects of the technological change on employees in the context of the Employer’s right to seek efficiency from the introduction of technological change. I should caution the parties, however, that meaningful consultation does not include the right to veto. It is a process whereby both parties, in good faith, discuss key matters related to technological change prior to its implementation.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Automation

 

Recommend it was meaningful dialogue and canvassing affected employees to see if they are interested in excepting early retirement

 

The union agrees with the intent. However, it should be all employees, not just those affected by the technological change, that are canvassed and by seniority.

 

Retention of seniority

 

The most controversial issue between the parties in these negotiations is the perpetual retention of seniority of employees who are laid off. The Employer has stated in its suspicions that it cannot and will not agree to a Collective Agreement that does not provide a termination of the right of recall of laid-off employees. In numerous discussions, the association has left no doubt that it will take a labor dispute or walkout over this issue. The Employers seek to have both of the following provisions removed from the Collective Agreement:

i). The Employers’ obligation to recall employees indefinitely.

ii). The Employer requirement to hire laid-off employees, of other Employers in the West Coast

 

Grain Industry, in priority over outside hires.

 

The Employers also forcefully argued that the presence of long-term laid-off employees creates real tension in the workforce. In some cases, the Employers contend employees create agitation in the workplace by attempting to increase employment through the refusal to work overtime.

The Employers take this position in light of the fact that they not only have an obligation to recall employees indefinitely under the Collective Agreement, but there is also a provision that the Employer’s wish to have removed from the Collective Agreement which currently requires Employers to hire laid-off employees of other Employers in the West Coast Grain Industry in priority over outside hires. The employees also forcefully argued that the presence of long-term laid-off employees creates real tension in the work force. In some cases, the Employers contend employees create agitation in the workplace by attempting to increase employment through their refusal to work overtime.

 

The union, on the other hand, takes an equally strong position that the traditional rights of the employees to indefinite recall rights should not be disturbed. It argues there is no justification for such a change.

 

Notwithstanding the force of both sides’ arguments, and the stated resolve of the parties, I’m satisfied from the submissions, and my own knowledge of Collective Agreements, that is a typical feature for Collective Agreements to include limits on the right to recall.

 

In a large number of industries in British Columbia, and the rest of Canada, parties have negotiated a limitation on the period and employee may retain the right to be recalled to work following a layoff. The specifics of each industry Collective Agreement varies, but the common feature remains that there is a fixed duration that employees are allowed to retain recall rights after a layoff. For example, the Forest Industrial Relations and IWA Collective Agreement provides that employees with less than one year’s service retain their seniority for six months; employees with one or more years of service retain their seniority for one year plus one additional month for each year of service to an additional six months. In the pulp and paper industry in British Columbia and employees recall is protected in the same manner as the IWA agreement, except that an employee can earn up to 24 months of recall protection by working an extra six years. In the agreement between Labatt Brewing Co. and the Brewery workers union an employee with less than 10 years’ seniority loses recall rights after 12 months. An employee with more than 10 years’ seniority as 18 months recall rights.

 

In an effort to resolve this difficult issue and move the parties off their seemingly intractable positions and in recognition that it has the real potential of triggering a labor dispute if not resolved, I recommend that the current provisions in the Collective Agreement remain until June 30, 2003 and effective July 1, 2003 I recommend that the provisions of the article 10 be amended to provide for retention of seniority for 18 months following the date of layoff.. With respect to the issue of the Employer’s requirement to hire laid-off employees of other Employers in the West Coast Grain Industry in priority over a outside hires, I make no recommendation on this matter, consequently the Collective Agreement will remain as is.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Retention of seniority (recall rights)

Recommended was an 18 month limit on recall rights, starting July 1, 2003

The union has grave concerns with this recommendation. In the current climate (drought) people could easily be off for two consecutive years and would thus lose their right to their jobs at the terminal. There are a number of people at Pacific who have been laid off for the 18 months and would be gone from our industry. Many members have been laid off early in this year and may not be back this fall, so they would lose their jobs as well.

 

Insurance coverage

The union raised a number of problems its members have experienced with the insurance carrier (Great West Life). I am of the view these matters should be referred back to the bargaining principles for further discussion and resolution. Should they not be resolved, either party may request my assistance to bring a resolution to these matters.

 

Other issues

In the bargaining framework that I provided to the parties, I recommended that they meet and discuss other issues which remained outstanding. The parties met and made some progress. In their final submissions to me, however, the parties referred a number of issues for resolution. I will not comment on these matters but I would recommend changes in the following areas:

Overtime break, I am persuaded that the current system of providing a one hour break prior to working overtime is unnecessary. I therefore recommend that an employee who is embarking on working overtime following the completion of his or her shift be given the right to a 20 minute break anytime within the four hour period contemplated for working overtime.

Vacations, both parties have made a number of proposals with respect to vacation pay. I recommend that employees be given the opportunity to elect whether to receive their vacation pay in either a lump-sum payment or to be paid as vacation is taken during the year. However, once an employee makes an option to be paid over the period of the year as the vacation is taken, the employee will not have the right to revert to the previous system of being paid vacation pay in one lump sum.

 

Classifications, the Employers made a very comprehensive and ambitious proposal with respect to the consolidation of classifications. This consolidation contemplated by the Employers would go much further than has ever been attempted in the West Coast Grain Industry. At the same time, I received information that, in two of suggested areas, successful experiments have taken place at more than one terminal elevator in the Port of Vancouver. I therefore recommend that consolidation take place above classifications within the track shed of each Employer and the consolidation take place in the area of quality-control/inspection and grain inspector. I also recommend the Letter of Understanding be entered into with respect to the amalgamation and consolidation of a mechanical trade classification. This amalgamation may require some study by the parties prior to implementation as it inherently contemplates revision of training programs and work practices.

Employees working in a consolidated or dual classification may, where practicable, exercise seniority in either classification.

 

Union executive

 

Recommendations concerning above item.

 

Classifications

There’s some concern from the union regarding the mechanical trade because the union is unsure of how the amalgamation will accur and what the additional training would be.

The BCTEOA has problems because they don’t know what they have.

 

Items agreed

All items previously trade between the parties during the course of direct negotiations and/or during their discussions regarding other issues are deemed to be incorporated into these recommendations and will form part of the renewed Collective Agreement. Any proposal not specifically addressed in this report is deemed to be withdrawn.

 

Conclusion

These recommendations represent a very delicate balancing of the interests of each parties positions as presented during negotiations and in their submissions. In my view they represent the difficult but appropriate compromises that are necessary for each party to make. That said, I am hopeful these recommendations will form the basis of a settlement between the parties in this difficult and protracted dispute.

 

I will retain jurisdiction as an expedited arbitrator to assist in any difficulties which might arise with respect to implementation issues or disputes arising out of this report.

It only remains for me to thank Mr. Eric Harris and the members of the association’s bargaining committee, and Mr. Peter Cameron and the members of the union’s bargaining committee for their candor and assistance during the commission proceedings.

 

All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 2002.

 

Signed

Vincent L.. Ready

Conciliation commissioner.


 



 

Copyright (C) 2005 . All rights reserved.