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. 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. 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. Upon written notice of twenty (20) 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 two (2) 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
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:
Union Position. Any employee elected to the union position of:
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:
Union Position. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 53, a leave of absence will be granted to an employee elected or appointed to a Union position with the Local Lodge, the IAMAW, or such other labor organization as the parties may mutually agree, upon proper application to the Company. Such leave shall be granted for a period of one (1) year, and will be extended from year to year, but only for the same purpose for which the leave was granted. Such employee shall continue to accrue seniority and service for the duration of the approved leave. Public Office: Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 53, an employee elected or appointed to public office may renew leave from year to year for a period equal to the employee’s total seniority with the Company, except that the employee will not accrue seniority or service beyond a period equal to one- half (½) of the total seniority when leave began. Educational Leave − Veteran 146 Leave of absence up to eighteen (18) cumulative months of such leave will be granted upon request to a military service veteran for the purpose of furthering education providing the employee is eligible for such educational benefits under applicable law and has submitted proof of enrollment in an institution authorized to conduct such training. Such leave of absence may be extended at the discretion of the Company for a period of up to an additional eighteen (18) cumulative months of such leave subject to the above conditions.
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...
