- May 25, 2021
- Collective Agreement Interpretation
This decision was made in the course of interest arbitration with respect to a first collective agreement between the parties. The Arbitrator considered twenty-six items on which the parties had not reached an agreement.
The Arbitrator adopted the Employer proposal with respect to availability; posting of work schedules; compensating senior employees scheduled for shorter shifts than junior employees; reimbursing transportation costs when public transit is not available; and scheduling to accommodate students.
It adopted the Union proposal with respect to determining work assignments; minimum shift guarantees of 4 hours (3 hours in cases of employee meetings); entitlement to overtime pay after 8 hours worked in a day and 40 hours during a week; period of entitlement for night shift premiums; overtime pay at double regular rate on December 24 and 31; vacation entitlement of 10% for employees with 20+ years of seniority; bereavement leave for all employees, including probationary employees; number of employees entitled to be on an unpaid leave of absence at any given time; union leave; free access to D-Box films; and job duties of the team lead.
Further, the arbitrator generally adopted the Union proposal with respect to wage increases, to be applied retroactively, representing a significant victory for the Union.
| Years of Service | May 1, 2015 | May 1, 2016 |
|---|---|---|
| Hiring | $10.55 | $10.75 |
| After 6 months | $10.70 | $11.25 |
| After 18 months | $10.85 | $11.75 |
| After 3 years | $11.00 | $12.25 |
| After 4 years | $11.15 | $12.75 |
| After 5 years | $11.50 | $13.20 |
| After 10 years | $11.65 | $13.70 |
The arbitrator introduced provisions regarding entitlements to sick leave that included element from each of the Union’s and the Employer’s proposals.
Finally, the arbitrator held that the duration of the agreement would be two years. The decision provides that the Employer had proposed three years and the Union had proposed two years. We understand that this is incorrect and that, in fact, the Union had proposed duration of three years while the Employer had proposed two years.
For Full Decision Click Here