[1992] OLRB Rep. May 580
0093-92-FA UFCW Local 175, Applicant v. 888538 Ontario Limited o/a Holiday Inn, Owen Sound, Respondent
BEFORE: Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: Michael A. Church, Jack Colvin and Michael Pledger for the applicant; Raja Chopra and Kulwant Chopra for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 20, 1992
1This is an application filed pursuant to section 41(4) [formerly 40a(4)] of the Labour Relations Act arising out of a request of the parties that the Board arbitrate the settlement of the first collective agreement.
2The applicant was certified on May 16, 1991 to represent full-time and part-time bargaining units of employees of the respondent's full service hotel at Owen Sound. In the spring of 1992, the applicant filed an application for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration. After spending considerable time with a Labour Relations Officer, the parties settled the language issues but were unable to resolve certain monetary issues. By written agreement dated April 7, 1992 the parties agreed to the Board directing their dispute to arbitration and acting as arbitrator. By the time the hearing commenced, the issues in dispute between the parties were as follows:
(1) Wages
(2) Signing Bonus
(3) Banquet Gratuities
(4) Term of Agreement.
3We do not intend to extensively review the authorities which refer to the Board's approach when arbitrating a first collective agreement. The general approach of the Board is set out in Egan Visual Inc., [1986] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1687, at paragraph 3 which provides as follows:
- It would be unwise for the Board to attempt to definitively set forth the contents of a collective agreement which are applicable to all circumstances. As more first contract arbitrations are filed with the Board, no doubt criteria will arise as a result of experience in a greater number of situations. There are no statutory guidelines in the Act which require the Board to have regard to a given standard of comparison. The Board would, however, adopt the language set forth in Burlington Northern Air Freight (Canada) Ltd., [1986] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1327. In that case the Board indicated that it had adopted a somewhat similar approach to the reasoning of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board in London Drugs Ltd., [1974] Can. LRBR 140 at page 147. The Board agrees that applications under section 40a [now 41] of the Act with respect to a first contract arbitration by the Board should not be used to achieve major breakthroughs in collective bargaining, but rather, the Board would try to settle the terms of a collective agreement which reflect a fairly general consensus as to what should be the contents of a collective agreement having regard to the particular circumstances of each collective bargaining situation. The Board also agrees that the terms of the collective agreement should be sufficiently attractive to the employees who are in the bargaining unit defined in the collective agreement that they would give serious consideration before deciding to terminate the bargaining rights of the applicant.
4In deciding how to resolve the issues in dispute, the Board has considered the material before it and the representations of the parties. In particular, we have recognized the impact of the recession on the hotel industry in general and on the respondent in particular. We have also taken into account that the employees in the two bargaining units are paid the minimum wage or slightly above and that the applicant has been certified for almost a year and has been unable to secure a collective agreement.
Term of Agreement
5The applicant seeks a two-year term while the respondent wants a three-year collective agreement. Having regard to section 41(18) of the Act, this collective agreement shall be for a period of two years from the date of this decision.
Wages
6In its final position, the applicant seeks an 80¢ hourly increase across the Board in the first year and a 40¢ hourly increase in the second year. The respondent's final position consists of a grid which provides for an increase every three months culminating in a 50¢ hourly increase once an employee obtains twelve months of service. In the second year, the increases in the grid would apply again. In other words, over two years the union seeks an increase of $1.20 an hour and the employer has offered $1.00 an hour increase over two years for a person who has been employed for one year.
7In our view, a grid approach is not uncommon in a service industry of the type we have here. Over a two-year period, the parties are not that far apart. Our award with respect to wages is as follows:
For the first year of the agreement effective the date of this decision:
Those persons employed 0-3 months - no increase
3-6 months - 25¢ an hour 6-12 months - 45¢ an hour 12 months or more - 60¢ an hour
For the second year of the agreement:
Those persons employed 0-3 months - no increase
3-6 months - 15¢ an hour 6-12 months - 35¢ an hour Over 12 months - 50¢ an hour.
Signing Bonus
8The applicant is seeking a signing bonus of $150.00 with no deductions for all full-time employees and a $100.00 signing bonus for all part-time employees. The respondent agrees to pay a $150.00 signing bonus to all employees with one year's seniority or more. It agrees to pay $100.00 to all full-time employees with less than one year's seniority and will pay $50.00 to all part-time employees with less than one year's seniority. There are 10 full-time employees, 5 of whom have been employed longer than one year. Only one of the 13 part-time employees has been employed for more than one year.
[9] Our award with respect to the signing bonus is as follows: $150.00 for all full-time employees $ 80.00 for all part-time employees.
The above amounts are to be paid to those employees in the bargaining units as of the date of this decision and within 45 days of the date of this decision, provided the employee commenced work prior to March 1, 1992.
Banquet Gratuities
10The real issue in dispute between the parties is whether porters in addition to servers will be entitled to $2.00 per hour in addition to their regular wage rate for duties in connection with functions. Since a porter's normal duties include setting up and dismantling functions and since porters would not normally be expected to receive a gratuity, as opposed to servers, our award is that porters shall not be included in the provision dealing with gratuities.
11On the basis of what we have awarded above, the Board expects that the parties will have no difficulty with framing their collective agreement. The Board will remain seized to deal with any problems arising from the implementation of this award.