Canadian Labour Reporter

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 December 8, 2014 ArbitrAtion AwArds retired and are receiving pension payments have returned to work — but are not being able to con- tribute further to the pension plan as an employee. The collective agreement clear- ly states all eligible employees, by definition, are able to contribute to the pension plan, according to the SGEU. Complicating the matter, how- ever, is the teachers are governed by three different superannuation plans — the Saskatchewan Teach- ers' Superannuation Plan, the Mu- nicipal Employees' Pension Act and the Teachers Superannuation and Disability Benefits Act. All teachers in the province are gov- erned by the former two. Retirees who "return to teach- ing positions, in which they would normally contribute to the plan, make no further contribu- tions to the pension fund, nor can they accumulate any further service with the plan, " according to those plans. "Superannuates may, however, continue to provide teaching services without their allowanc- es being reduced." That means retired employees can continue to work without a reduction in the allowances and benefits they receive under the plan. However, once an employee begins to receive such allowances, they are not permitted to make further contributions to that plan, despite having returned to his for- mer teaching duties. The SGEU argued that, apart from any retirement schemes, a teacher by definition is an em- ployee entitled under the col- lective agreement to contribute to the pension and have the em- ployer match those contribu- tions. But the employer disagreed it was under any such obligation. In his decision, arbitrator Wil- liam Hood said the matter came down to a statutory interpretation of the collective agreement and governing legislation. Because the collective agree- ment simply says to refer to the Saskatchewan Teachers' Superan- nuation Plan, it leaves little room for interpretation, he said. "I agree with the employer be- cause I cannot accept the parties would have intended this short and general provision to have the somewhat esoteric, yet sig- nificant, meaning the union is proposing," the decision reads. "Anything more specific would require explicit language, par- ticularly because a pension plan scheme is more detailed and also subject to a collective bargaining process." As such, the grievance was dis- missed. Reference: Northwest Regional College, Great Plains College, Cumberland Regional College, Carlton Trail Regional Col- lege, Parkland Regional College and the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union (SGEU). William F.J. Hood — arbitrator. Brian Kenny for the employer, Greg Eyre for the union. Oct. 29, 2014. Worker fired after stealing supplies to pay debt WiLFRed deaL WaS fired from Louisiana-Pacific Canada's East River plant after it was dis- covered he had been stealing from the Nova Scotia-based company for years. Deal was terminated after it was reported to his supervisors he had been stealing items from the company for the past two or three years. Deal's cousin made the phone call on May 12 alerting management that Deal had sto- len cleaner, light bulbs, scissors, buffing wheels, grip tape, grind- ing discs, oil and various types of gloves over an extended period. According to the cousin, Deal owed him money and had been paying off the debt in stolen mer- chandise. The cousin informed management Deal wanted to re- turn the items immediately. The plant's manager and Deal's super- intendent met with the cousin on May 14 in the company's parking lot. The cousin answered sev- eral questions and handed over two boxes of merchan- dise which were taken back to the plant, inventoried and es- timated to value around $250. A meeting was then called with Deal and a representative from his union, the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (now Unifor) Local 434. When asked if he had taken items from the plant, Deal admitted to taking a few pairs of gloves, telling management his cousin "must be trying to get [him] fired." On May 16, following the in- vestigation and interview, Deal was dismissed. The union filed a grievance on Deal's behalf, argu- ing his long-term employment of 30 years should be considered a mitigating factor. Deal enjoyed his job as a forklift operator at the plant, was sorry for what he had done and promised it would never happen again. Additionally, the union argued the collective agreement does not provide a specific penalty for theft. The employer, however, said Deal's theft spanned a period of several years and was pre-medi- tated. A previous letter in Deal's personnel file — a written warn- ing — dealt with an inconsistent account of events with respect to missing safety glasses. According to the employer, Deal's actions had effectively shat- tered the relationship of trust nec- essary between an employer and its employees. Deal did not apologize when first confronted with the evi- dence, the employer argued, and is only now remorseful in the af- termath of losing his job. Records show there were three previous cases of theft at the plant. All three cases were dealt with by terminations and only one was pursued to arbitration with a modified penalty imposed. Arbitrator Robert D. Breen said in his decision that "absent com- pelling circumstances suggesting otherwise, it is accepted that the appropriate penalty for planned thefts is termination." The persistent thefts — carried out over a number of years — un- derscore a high degree of preme- diation, Breen said. And consider- ing the evidence before him, Deal was not credible. "Being sorry after one is proven to be caught is not the same as im- mediate contrition, which did not appear when Deal was first chal- lenged. The aggravating factors in this case outweigh any benefit earned by Deal's near 30 years of employment," Breen said. "The grievor is in his trying cir- cumstances as a result of his own actions taken. I find reasons lack- ing in the evidence before me on which to substitute a lesser pen- alty," he added. The termination was upheld and Deal's grievance dismissed. Reference: Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. and the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (Unifor) Local 434. Robert D. Breen — arbitrator. David W. Clark for the employer, Carla Bryden for the union. Nov. 10, 2014. < from pg. 1 "absent compelling circumstances suggesting otherwise, it is accepted that the appropriate penalty for planned theft is termination."

• Cover