[1982] OLRB Rep. December 1964
2620-81-U Kevin Ward on behalf of himself and Darcy Foran, George Freund, Leonard Paris, Chandar B. Singh, Gordon Reid, Randy Russell, Robert Gregory, Steve Gordon, Terrence Eastman, and Eric Ondrade, Complainants, v. International Union of United Plant Guard Workers of America, Amalgamated Local 1962, Respondent, v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Intervener
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members M. J. Fenwick and W. H. Wightman.
APPEARANCES: Michael G. Horan and Kevin Ward for the complainants; Chris G. Paliare, Watson Cook and A. Ross for the respondent; R. A. Werry and J. Parker for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD;
- This is a complaint alleging a violation of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. That section reads as follows:
A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
The Board notes that the parties were content that this panel of the Board should hear this matter notwithstanding the Vice-Chairman's connection with the intervener — a matter which was raised at the outset of the hearing.
The complainants are security guards in the employ of the University of Toronto. The respondent is their bargaining agent. Local 1962 is a "Composite local" comprising some twenty-two bargaining units, with a total membership of about seven hundred. The University of Toronto unit is one of them, and has approximately 57 members.
The complaint is based upon the alleged misconduct of the union bargaining committee during the most recent round of negotiations with the University. The bargaining committee for those negotiations consisted of Watson Cook, the president of Local 1962, Glen Goodwin, then the chief steward for the University of Toronto unit, Harold Rossborough, the steward from the St. George Campus, James McGhee, the steward from the Scarborough Campus, and Bodo Senkpiel, the steward from the Erindale Campus. Albert Ross, another union representative, also had a hand in the bargaining although the evidence of his role is not entirely clear.
All of the stewards are rank and file employees elected to their positions by their fellow employees in the bargaining unit. Watson Cook, is elected by the local union as a whole. Mr. Cook, is an employee of the Ford Motor Company. He devotes approximately one hundred days a year to union business. For this efforts, he is reimbursed for the wages he would otherwise lose. In addition, he receives an honourarium of one hundred dollars per annum, plus the sum of two hundred dollars per month to defray the cost of maintaining an office in his home from which the affairs of Local 1962 are conducted. Mr. Cook has been president of the local for many years.
The most recent set of negotiations began in the fall of 1980, after the union's request to trigger a "wage re-opener" in the then subsisting collective agreement. The University responded that a more generous wage offer could be made if the union would consider a broader range of proposals designed to improve the quality and training of the University of Toronto "Police Force". This suggestion was acceptable, and discussions proceeded on that basis. If a new package could be negotiated, the parties were agreed that they would apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the early termination of the existing collective agreement, for which the new agreement would then be substituted. Such consent was eventually sought and granted by a decision of the Board dated March 23, 1981.
Negotiations proceeded through the fall and winter of 1980—81 in respect of a number of matters, major and minor, with which one party or the other was concerned. The Principle focus of the discussions, however, was the University's proposal to introduce a new classification system involving two classes of constable, new arrangements for probationary employees, a training programme, and a new wage progression. Many other items and conditions of employment were dealt with as well, but the new classification system and related proposals represented the most significant departure from the status quo. On the other hand, in exchange for the union's agreement on those matters, the employer was prepared to offer wage increases of approximately thirty-five per cent over two years - more than other unions at the University of Toronto had received, but justifiable in terms of the University's quality and productivity objectives.
By April 29, 1981 (on which date the parties had been bargaining for eighteen hours), the negotiators finally reached an agreement which they were prepared to recommend to their respective principals. On that basis, the union bargaining team scheduled a ratification meeting for the following morning, and the chief negotiator for the University sought authorization in respect of the various issues which had been resolved that night. Such authorization was given, and the following morning, after some further discussion, all items were finalized and "signed off'. A number of issues which had not been resolved completely were slated for continuing consideration by a joint union-management committee.
It may be appropriate at this point to identify the two items which were the main cause for later employee concern — although this employee reaction was not anticipated by the bargaining committee at the time. Had the bargaining committee anticipated the resulting uproar, they might have acted differently and this proceeding could have been avoided. It could also have been avoided if the complainants had been less ready to impute an improper motive when, in fact, there was none.
The old collective agreement gave the University the right to hire, terminate, reclassify, promote, or demote employees, and generally to maintain order, discipline and efficiency in the University of Toronto "Police Force". It provided for a generous sick leave plan and specified that misuse of sick leave would be a cause for termination. Following a prolonged illness the University could require an employee to be certified as medically fit by its own doctors prior to his return to work. But it did not otherwise expressly deal with the subject of medical examinations (although, arguably, fitness is an implicit requirement of the job). Not so the new agreement. The new agreement provided that the fitness of new employees would have to be certified by a doctor employed by the University.