YUFA
Contract
Dispute over pay for strike remediation settled
YUFA and the Employer have finally settled the grievance concerning pay for the extra work YUFA members had to do as a result of the 2000-01 CUPE 3903 strike of teaching assistants and part-time teachers.
YUFA grieved the fact that the employer unilaterally set the rate of pay for time spent in remedial teaching activities. Members will recall that the employer required all claimants to file a detailed report of their extra work. The grievance, filed a month after the end of the 11-week strike, alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to negotiate a rate of pay with YUFA. YUFA did not take a position on what the rate should have been.
Arbitrator
Paula Knopf heard YUFA's and the Employer's arguments in October
and November 2001.
She
immediately issued a ruling that the Employer had paid YUFA members
improperly for strike remediation. She ordered the two parties to
make renewed attempts to resolve
the issue.
The
parties were unable to reach a settlement on their own, so they returned
to Arbitrator Knopf for further assistance. During hearings on
appropriate remedies, the
Arbitrator also undertook a mediating role, eventually
enabling the parties to settle the issue in July 2002.
YUFA agreed to a settlement with the following elements:
a.. A donation by the Employer of $10 000 to YUFA's Jane-Finch
Community Bursary
b.. A declaration by the Arbitrator that the Employer violated the collective agreement, but did so in "good faith". In this regard, she ruled, "Having heard the parties about the remedial consequences of the earlier award, I conclude that the applicable collective agreement ... was violated. However, it is my finding that such violation arose out of a good faith interpretation by the employer of the applicability of article 25.09 [overload teaching] of the collective agreement which ultimately formed the basis of the grievance. With the foregoing being understood, I hereby declare that the employer has violated articles 5.01 [bargaining and making agreements with individual employees rather than the union] and 25.11 [no additional compensation other than what is agreed by the parties] of the collective agreement in the particular circumstances of this case."
In view of what the parties had already agreed to, the Arbitrator declined to order that damages be paid. However, she warned the Employer that "should these or substantially similar circumstances occur in the future, an award of damages may be warranted."