Canadian Labour Reporter

January 5, 2015

Canadian Labour Reporter is the trusted source of information for labour relations professionals. Published weekly, it features news, details on collective agreements and arbitration summaries to help you stay on top of the changing landscape.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/449315

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 9 of 11

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 10 January 5, 2015 editor's notes: Late starting: Late starting is penalized to the amount of 15 minutes for lateness, for each quarter of an hour. Trades and classifications: All employees will be engaged in one of the following classifications: ship- builder, maintenance man, labourer. Group RRSP: Employer and employee contribute 3% of regular earnings to the Group RRSP. GOVERNMENT spaniard's bay town Council spaniard's bay, n.l. (8 employees) and the Transport Allied Workers Union Local 855, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters renewal agreement: Effec- tive Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2017. Signed on April 14, 2014. Wage adjustments: Effective Jan. 1, 2015: 80¢ Effective Jan. 1, 2016: 80¢ Effective Jan. 1, 2017: $1 Calculated by CLR paid holidays: 14 days. Vacations with pay: 2 weeks after 1 year, 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 10 years and 5 weeks after 15 years. overtime: Time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. sick leave: 12 days per year. bereavement leave: 5 days for employee's spouse or child. 3 days for employee's father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, father-in-law, mother-in- law or grandchild. 1 day for employee's brother-in-law or sister-in-law. seniority – recall rights: 1 year. probationary period: 30 days worked. severance: 2% of gross an- nual wages from the com- mencement of employment to the date of termination to a maximum of $11,000. A mini- mum of 8 years' seniority is required for eligibility. safety shoes: Employer pro- vides 1 pair of safety rubber boots and 1 pair of safety work boots per year. Uniforms/clothing: Employ- er provides 2 shirts, 2 pairs of pants, 1 pair of coveralls, 1 pair of insulated coveralls per year. sample rates of pay, current: Working foreman: $25.67 Heavy equipment operator: $21.72 General worker pipefitter: $20.85 General worker: $20.58 Clerk I: $16.60 Clerk II: $19.45 Clerk III: $20.58 Maintenance/Caretaker: $16.60 editor's notes: Layoff notice: Except in the case of dismissal for just cause, 7 calendar days' notice in writing will be given to employees who are scheduled to be laid off temporarily or permanently. ineligible benefit claim not fraud, just a mistake: arbitrator an ontario company did not have just cause to discipline a worker it suspended for us- ing benefits coverage for his spouse, an arbitrator has ruled. The worker was a dye-setter for Tenneco Canada, a manufacturer of exhaust systems for the auto- motive emissions control indus- try based in Cambridge, Ont. As part of the collective agreement between Tenneco and the union, employees and their families were entitled to a vision care plan that covered prescription glasses and laser surgery. Employees were also entitled to coverage for prescription safety glasses, but this benefit was for employees only and not for fami- lies. In late 2013, the worker was on medical leave recovering from surgery when his wife asked if she could make a claim on his vision care plan for prescription safety glasses. The worker called the hu- man resources department to ver- ify if this was allowed, but he was unable to reach anyone. He con- tacted the union and asked about getting the form for prescription safety glasses, but he failed to mention they were for his wife. The worker's wife picked up the form at the union office and noticed it had the worker's name typed into the appropriate field. She crossed it out, entered her own name and proceeded to pur- chase the safety glasses. Soon after, Tenneco received an invoice for $77.50 for the pre- scription safety glasses with the worker's wife's name on it. The HR department noticed the invoice wasn't for an employee and con- tacted the optometrist who pro- cessed the order. The optometrist confirmed the glasses were not for an employee but for the worker's wife. Tenneco met with the worker, who denied making any changes to the claim form and hadn't actu- ally seen it. He acknowledged his wife had submitted the claim and offered to reimburse the company for the expense. However, Tenne- co suspended the worker for three days without pay for "attempting to defraud the company of a safety glass benefit that is for employees only." The union grieved the suspen- sion and the worker claimed he didn't know his wife altered the claim form or that she wasn't covered for prescription safety glasses. He admitted he didn't ful- ly understand the benefit entitle- ment but testified he would never jeopardize his job or his record for a small amount such as the value of the safety glasses. Tenneco said it was the work- er's responsibility to know his benefit plan and he should have inquired about his wife's eligibility before letting her make the claim. The company argued it should have been obvious it wouldn't pay for safety glasses that would be used at another workplace. The arbitrator believed the worker's claim that he didn't actu- ally see the form and wasn't aware his wife had changed the name. Though he was aware his wife was making a claim for glasses for her- self, his apology and offer to reim- burse the company mitigated any misconduct, said the arbitrator. "If the (worker) took steps to cover up his actions or subvert the watchful eye of the employer, my view of (his) behaviour might be different," said the arbitrator. "There was no attempt to hide who the prescription safety glass- es were for." The arbitrator found the work- er's explanation that he thought his wife was eligible for the ben- efit and he didn't think to inquire about it was acceptable and the lack of coverage for family mem- bers for safety glasses wasn't as obvious to him as it was for the company. Once he learned of his mistake, the worker in good faith offered to pay back Tenneco the cost of the safety glasses. The in- cident may have been the result of poor judgment, but not cause for discipline, said the arbitrator. Tenneco was ordered to rescind the suspension and compensate the worker for lost time. Reference: Tenneco Canada and USW, Local 2894 (Teska), Re, 2014 CarswellOnt 15539 (Ont. Arb.). ColleCtive Agreements

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Labour Reporter - January 5, 2015