POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Agreement for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Staff also recommended that the Commission require Illinois Bell to file with the Office of the Chief Clerk, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, a verified statement that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition, as amended by the Joint Petitioners’ stipulation.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in light of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Amendment meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act and the standard used by this Commission to review the interconnection agreements of other carriers. She stated that the Amendment is not discriminatory because Ameritech Illinois will make it available to any other telecommunications carrier operating within Ameritech Illinois’ service territory. Other telecommunications carriers can negotiate their own arrangements pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Act. Xx. Xxxxxxx also stated that the Amendment is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. She stated that it is a comprehensive agreement that tailors the interconnection and service arrangements previously approved by the Commission for facility based competition to meet the individual needs of the parties and thereby will promote local exchange competition – one of the primary purposes of the Act and a long- standing goal of this Commission. Under the Amendment, customers will be able to choose US West instead of Ameritech Illinois for their local service. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission Staff. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended, and no evidence suggests that the instant Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act, determined that it meets the necessary requirements, and recommends that the Commission approve it for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that this Agreement Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Agreement Amendment be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. (i) The Union
29. The Union argues that the requirement that employees who have exhausted their sick leave bank return to their regular hours prior to having their entitlement to sick leave benefits reinstated contravenes Section 13(1) of the Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The Union seeks a declaration that the Employers’ practice contravenes the Code and compensation for any Union members affected by the Employers’ impugned practice.
30. The extent to which the Employers’ interpretation of “active duty” impacts an employee, the Union observes, depends on whether the employee is on an approved LTD claim or not. According to the Union, employees working modified hours while on an approved LTD claim are unable to use their sick bank to top up their earnings to 85% of their pre-disability income if they exhausted their sick leave benefits in the previous year. Employees working modified hours who are not in receipt of LTD benefits do not have access to paid sick leave until they return to their full hours of work or are permanently accommodated in a position with fewer hours, at which point they may start to accrue “active duty” for the purposes of determining eligibility for sick leave.
31. While the Union acknowledges the term “active duty” in the Collective Agreements was interpreted in Customerworks, supra, specifically as requiring a return to full hours in order to reinstate sick leave entitlement, it stresses the Union in that case did not argue this interpretation was discriminatory as is argued in the present case. The Union also submits that in the Xxxxxxxx Award, supra, the finding was “essentially that Arbitrators Xxxxxxxxx’s findings focussed on the meaning of “active duty” and any implications regarding “service” from that decision would be obiter.”
32. The Union’s position is that, when a human rights analysis is applied to the language, it is clear it has established a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of the Employers’ practice of excluding employees on modified hours from accumulating service for the purpose of requalifying for sick leave benefits. In the Union’s submission, the Employers have failed to discharge their requisite burden to prove that their conduct is justified.
33. The Union asserts it does not matter if sick leave benefits are status-based benefits (i.e. tied to a worker’s status as an employee) or work-based benefits (i.e. tied to the work performed by the employee). Employees w...
