Canadian Labour Reporter

JANUARY 13, 2014 6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 Continued on page 8 Q.C. Inspector: $23.51 Q.C. Technician: $24.06 QC Lab Technologist: $25.64 Material Handler: $23.51 Inventory Control: $25.64 Crib Attendant: $23.51 Shipping/Receiving: $23.51 Receiving Co-ordinator: $25.64 Materials Inventory Control Clerk: $25.64 Process Technician: $25.64 Setup Technician A: $30.15 Setup Technician B: $26.14 QC Receiving/Salvage Inspector: $23.51 Customer Liaison: $24.29 Caretaker: $22.72 Comet Relief Co-ordinator: $23.51 Line Stocker: $23.51 Label Applicator: $23.51 Service Tank Operator: $23.51 Outside Cleanup: $23.51 Operator Line Leader: $24.03 R&D Operator: $23.51 R&D Prototype Technician: $23.77 R&D Prototype Quality Technician: $25.11 R&D Setup Technician: $27.01 Electrical Technician A: $30.15 Electrical Technician B: $29.03 Maintenance Technician: $30.15 Heating and Cooling Technician: $30.15 Editor's notes: Leave of absence: A leave of absence without pay will not exceed 60 calendar days. Maternity, parental and adoption leave: Up to 12 months. Imprisonment leave: 120 unpaid days for an employee convicted and jailed for an offence under the Highway Traffic Act or Criminal Code arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle on personal time. An employee will only be entitled to this leave once during the term of employment. Lockers: The employer will supply lockers for all employees. Wash-up: Employees will be permitted a 5 minute paid wash-up period before lunch. Wellness program: $500 per year for employees who attend a recognized fitness club at least 30 times per calendar year. Minute of silence: Employees will be allowed to observe a minute of silence on April 28 each year in memory of em- ployees who have been killed at work. Arbitration Awards Summaries of recent arbitration awards from federal and provincial arbitration boards. For summaries from past issues, visit www.labour-reporter.com for a searchable online archive. Your paid subscription includes unlimited access to the archive. A rose is a rose is a rose at Ontario hospital hISTORY DID NOT repeat itself at a hospital in Guelph, Ont., where a group of nurses were denied a benefits improvement package based on a ruling from the early 1980s. Represented by the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA), staff at the Guelph General Hospital alleged they were not provided with improvements to their benefits program they felt they were entitled to. When an employer maintains a wage loss replacement plan for short-term disability, the employer's employment insurance (EI) premiums are also reduced. According to the Canada Rev- enue Agency, any premium reduction must be divided between both parties. The major point of contention during the hearing was wheth- er the employer had the right to do what it pleased with the re- bate. While the union said the money should have gone towards improving benefits packages, the hospital argued benefits can be widely interpreted and those costs can be allocated to improving the overall working lives of its employees. According to the latest collective agreement, the employment insurance rebate provision would be retained by the hospital. "The nurses' share of the employer's employment insurance premium reduction will be retained by the hospital towards off- setting the cost of the benefit improvements contained in this agreement," the contract stated. "The hospital shall indicate, an- nually, to the local union how it has allocated the rebate." As the hospital argued, the term "benefit improvements" did not mean benefits in the literal sense — that is, vision care or hearing aids — but rather offsetting the costs of those programs. But this was not the first time the question of benefit im- provements was raised at the Guelph hospital. Back in 1981, the union petitioned the interest arbitration board to have the EI reduction be provided to employees as an annual cash re- bate. That request was denied. Instead, the collective agree- ment following that decision outlined how the rebate would be used, which morphed into the current collective agreement's language, saying the hospital would retain the funds to be put towards offsetting the costs of benefit improvements. As the hospital saw it, it did not receive a separate refund from the federal government as a result of having a short-term disability plan, but rather the employer's premiums are re- duced if the employer provides a wage loss replacement plan for short-term disability. That reduction is split between the employer and employee. "If a specific benefit is to be provided, specific contractual language is required," the hospital said, adding that the word "benefit" itself leaves room for interpretation. "The permitted hospital retention of the nurses' share of the EI premium reduction was not intended to provide a windfall for the employer to do what it wished with the money — for example, to pave the parking lot," the hospital noted. "Rather, the reduction resides in the envelope of the collective agreement as an ongoing offsetting contribution to the cost of benefit improvements. 'Benefits' should be seen as the whole panoply of benefits."

• Cover