Union Position. Upon written notice of thirty (30) calendar days the Employer will grant Leave of Absence without pay to employees who are appointed or elected to Union position for a period up to and including three (3) years. Further Leave of Absence may be granted by mutual consent. The employee who obtains his/her leave of absence shall return to his/her Employer within thirty (30) calendar days written notice after the completion of his/her term of employment with the Union, without loss of seniority. Upon return, Article 13.1 – Bumping Process will be invoked. The Employer shall not be required to grant Leave of Absence to more than one (1) employee at a time.
Union Position. Any employee elected to the union position of:
Union Position. An employee elected or appointed to a full-time executive position within the Union will be granted a leave of absence without pay as herein provided of a period of one (1) year. Requests for such leave of absence will not be unreasonably denied, provided suitable replacements are available.
Union Position. The Union requested that all matters, with the exception of a wage adjustment for the Terminal Access Control, Backflow, Access Control (TAC) classification, be accepted as agreed upon in the Memorandum of Settlement that was rejected on February 17, 2017. The Union also asked that the interest arbitrator remain seized to adjudicate any matters that might arise from the implementation of this instant award, prior to the conclusion of the renewal collective agreement by the parties. The Union revisited the established consensus from interest arbitrators that the primary objective of interest arbitration was to replicate, as closely as possible, the result that might have occurred through collective bargaining, had the parties been free to enact the ultimate industrial sanction of either strike or lockout. That process, the Union urged, relied on the consideration of objective factors only, and not ad hoc or subjective speculation about what the outcome of bargaining might have entailed. Therefore, the Union continued, while the role of the interest arbitrator was to ultimately establish the terms of a renewed collective agreement, it nevertheless remained a pursuit that must be adjudicative in principle. In Re Building Service Employees, Local 204 and Welland County General Hospital (1965) 16 L.A.C. 1, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx considered the subject, and explained that the process of interest arbitration should address “adjudication” and not “adjustment.” Such an objective approach would, it was reasoned, measure the aspirations of the parties with regard to wages and working conditions based on relevant comparisons, and not abstract notions of social justice or fairness: A central issue which we faced at the outset was whether this board was to adjust or to adjudicate the differences between the parties. If we were to attempt adjustment, we would seek to reach a result agreeable to both parties. This we might do by proposing a series of compromises to them directly, or by their “proxies”, the two board members nominated by them. By a process of negotiation within the board or between the board and the parties, we would reach an acceptable mid-point. Failing of success, the board would compel “consensus” on the basis of a reasonable compromise between the negotiating positions of the two parties. Adjudication is a different kind of process. Here, the board applies evidence to pre- determined and rational standards, as does a Court of law or a board of arbitration ...
Union Position. An employee who is elected or selected for a full-time position with the Union shall be granted such leave of absence without pay by the Employer, without loss of accrued benefits, for a period of two (2) years. Such leave may be extended for a further two (2) year leave or more at the request of the employee. Such request shall not be unreasonably denied. Such leave shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) At least sixty (60) calendar days notice of intention to return to work shall be given to the Employer.
(b) The employee shall be returned to their previously held position. If the position is not available in their former workplace, they shall be placed in a comparable position in the same department. The first available vacancy in their former workplace, in the same classification and the same employment status will be awarded to the employee without the necessity of posting.
(c) The Employer will pay any period of orientation required and the Union will reimburse the Employer.
(d) During the period of leave, the employee may, if permissible under the relevant plan(s) continue their contribution and as well pay that of the Employer.
(e) The employee’s seniority shall continue to accrue. This clause is not intended to provide greater privileges or benefits than those which would have been enjoyed had the employee not been so elected or selected.
Union Position. The City fired Officer Xxxx because they think that she abused her son or she knew her son was being abused and didn’t do anything to stop it. That’s the issue. Grievant is a mom of three other kids; Child 1, Child 2 and Child 4. She’s a good police officer, good mom. The child whose welfare was at the center of this discipline case tragically is no longer living. N passed last year. This is a terribly sad case. The City bears the burden of proof in this matter. And given the serious allegations, it’s a heavy burden that the City bears, not the Union. The City fired Officer Xxxx because of things they think she did, not because of anything that they know she did or anything that they know she didn’t do. And so, they chose to fire her. And ultimately, they chose to dump it to the arbitration process, and let an arbitrator figure it out. And that’s why we’re here. The rotten subject matter of this case would be tragic if N hadn’t passed away. But just because it’s a sad case doesn’t mean that Xxxxxxxx did anything warranting any discipline whatsoever. And in fact, if we decide the case on the evidence consistent with the mutual agreements that the parties have made to each other in collective bargaining, which is what we’re required to do, it’s very clear. There’s no evidence for discipline here whatsoever. It’s the City’s burden to prove that they had just cause to terminate a ten-year police officer with a good performance evaluation, a good performance record. They have to prove that she did something wrong and they have to prove termination was the only possible outcome. The City called it an egregious act, such an egregious act, what they think she did, that it’s going to carry a stain that you can’t wash off. And if you’re going to make an allegation that is that serious, you better nail it. It’s a high, heavy burden of proof for the City. That’s their burden, it’s not ours. And the problem is here, the City can’t meet that burden based on the evidence. Witnesses talked about their investigations and what they thought happened or what might have happened, but they can’t meet that burden. Starting with DHS Investigator , who cares so deeply about this case, so invested, so thoroughly investigated that he showed up here today thinking that Xxxxxxxx had been found guilty of abusing her son and he didn’t even know that she had appealed and had won and that her record had been expunged. He didn’t know that until this hearing. He didn’t know. But the greates...
Union Position. [30] First, is the issue of comparators. This issue underlies both the Employer’s and the Faculty Association’s compensation offers and the rationale for their respective offers. The reference paragraph numbers refer to the parties respective submissions, dated November 6, 2015. [31] The use of comparators (comparative settlements) is one of the primary factors that guide interest arbitration. It is an objective measure. It is a rational matching of similar employees performing similar work. Comparative agreements may be either those that are freely negotiated or the result of interest arbitration. Comparative settlements inform both the principle of replication and what is fair and reasonable. [32] The Faculty Association argues that the most appropriate comparators are the small, primarily undergraduate universities in Canada. It relies on the universities set out in the MacLeans magazine ranking in which UNBC placed first out of 18 primarily undergraduate universities in Canada. Although it says all 18 universities are appropriate comparators, the Faculty Association specifically relies upon the following nine comparators for the purposes of this arbitration:
3.1.8.i The preceding section details the process by which the UNBC-FA arrived at its list of nine comparators for the purposes of this arbitration. Our list of comparators is as follows: Acadia University Xxxxxxx University University of Lethbridge Lakehead University Mount Xxxxxxx University University of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Island University of Xxxxxx St. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx University Trent University (submission November 6, 2015) [33] I will refer to these universities as the Faculty Association’s nine national comparators. The Faculty Association states that both the Administration of UNBC, and the UNBC Board of Governors, have recognized many of these same comparators, both in negotiations and for institutional and academic purposes. In a series of graphs, in its submission of November 6, 2015, it sets out the salaries of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Librarians. The Faculty Association concludes “In sum, salaries at UNBC are not merely at the bottom of the charts, but unacceptably distant from the norm” (para. 5.3.6.ii). The comparisons set out in the graphs are with respect to these nine national comparators.
Union Position. The Union, in its post-hearing brief, says the Employer has exaggerated its situation in an attempt to portray its economic condition as worse than it is. The Union notes the City’s June, 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) shows a yearend General Fund balance of $5,026,176 that equals 42.6% of total expenditures (E- 67, pg. 18). This fund balance, the Union notes, is far in excess of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommended minimum of at least 2 months (16.67%). The Union also notes that even when the City excludes the “committed” and “assigned” fund balances, the Unassigned fund balance is still $3,754,923, which is 31.8% of total expenditures. The Union says testimony from City Witness Xxxxx revealed that it is not uncommon for local units of government to move monies from the general fund and place it into committed or assigned funds, which then makes it appear that the General Fund does not have as large of a fund balance. The Union says the City’s 2014 CAFR demonstrates the City has done that for FY 2013-14 by transferring $718,751 out of the General Fund into the Motor Vehicle Fund even though the Motor Vehicle Fund had a year-end fund balance of $2,201,444 (E-67, pg.92). The Union says the City’s position that the Committed and Assigned funds totaling $1,271,253 should not be counted toward the unassigned fund balance is contrary to the GFOA best practices report that states: “In most cases, discussions of fund balance will properly focus on a government’s general fund. Nevertheless, financial resources available in other funds should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unrestricted fund balance (i.e., the total of the amounts reported as committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance) in the general fund”(E-68, pg. 1). In response to the City’s OPEB obligations, the Union notes that the vast majority of local governments throughout the State have minimal, if any, funds set aside for OPEB obligations. The Union notes that OPEB payments have been made on a “pay as you go” basis and the City has made all of its monthly payments to City retirees. The Union notes the statement on page 17 of the CAFR that states: “Net OPEB obligations does not present a claim on current financial resources. Therefore, it is not reported as a fund liability.” The Union’s post-hearing brief points out what it alleges are various discrepancies in Employer witness Xxxx’x testimony during the course of the hearing as it relat...
Union Position. The Union’s last offer of settlement proposes the status quo and that the Employer’s proposed language not be added to the CBA. In its post-hearing brief the Union noted that the Employer acknowledged that the City, at the beginning of this hearing, had 22 sworn Public Safety Officers (PSO’s) members of this Union. There are currently two vacancies but the City has committed to fill those vacancies and maintain a staff of 22 PSO’s. The City also acknowledged that the workload has not decreased. The Union notes that City witness Xxxxxxx testified that the City of Xxxxxx Xxxxx, a bordering city, employs part time officers. The Union says Xxxxxx Xxxxx is not one of the comparable communities in this proceeding and is not comparable to Grosse Pointe Xxxxx. The Union also points out that even though City witness Xxxxxxx testified that its plan was to hire recently retired PSO’s from the City of Grosse Pointe Xxxxx, none of the recently retired PSO’s from Grosse Pointe Xxxxx have taken part time positions with the City of Xxxxxx Xxxxx. And, the Union notes, even though the City has said it’s priority would be to hire Grosse Pointe Xxxxx PSO retirees, there is nothing in the language of the final offer of settlement that states that. The Union asserts that the main reason the City seeks to hire part-time Officers is for the revenue stream. The Union says while the main focus of the part-time Officers would be traffic enforcement, they could also perform other law enforcement duties as assigned by the Director, which could reduce the number of full-time Officers working and reduce overtime compensation. The Union says the provisions in the City’s last offer of settlement relating to the number of hours that part-time officer’s are allowed to work, minimum full-time Officer staffing levels, no reduction of full-time Officers, and layoff provisions is a red xxxxxxx. The Union cites a MERC case that has been upheld by the Court of Appeals that the Union says would, if the Panel awards the City’s last offer of settlement, permit the City, prior to the expiration of this CBA, to refuse to honor the majority of the points in the final offer of settlement and allow it to decimate the bargaining unit of full-time PSO’s by filling all future vacancies with part-time officers (Oak Park Public Safety Officers Assoc. and City of Oak Park, Case CU03 A-005). The Union points out that none of the external comparable communities support adoption of the City’s proposal. The Union ...
Union Position. The Union’s last offer of settlement proposes the language in Article 31.9 be revised as follows:
