IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
UNDER SECTION 124(3) OF THE POLICE SERVICES
ACT
BETWEEN:
THE ST. THOMAS POLICE ASSOCIATION
- and -
(The Association)
THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS POLICE SERVICES BOARD
(The Board)
RE:
Grievance: Social Contract Expirv
BEFORE:
P. G. Barton, Arbitrator
PLACE:
St. Thomas, Ontario
DATE:
May 26, 1997
APPEARANCES:
For the Board:
David Thompson
Gord Campbell
Dusty Miller
Lynn Coates
Counsel
Chair man
Vice Chairman
Secretary
For the Association:
Richard Holmes
Mike Skok
Scott McCallum
Len Beard
President
I
I
AWARD
On April 16, 1997 I was appointed by the Solicitor General under section
124(3) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P-15. The matter in dispute
between the parties is a simple question of whether or not a salary increase in the
civilian and uniform Collective Agreements between the parties which was to take
effect January 1, 1994 should be implemented as of April 1, 1996.
Prior to the enactment of the Social Contract Act, which received royal assent
July 8, 1993, these parties had, on January 1, 1993 entered into two year Collective
Agreements covering uniform and civilian employees. These agreements provided for
salary increases and other increases in benefits on January 1, 1993 and January 1,
1994. The Social Contract Act provided for a Sectoral Framework. The Sectoral
Framework governing these parties was imposed on July 21, 1993 by the Minister of
Finance. In Part 7 of this municipal Sectoral Framework "elements for local
agreements" were set out. The parties were encouraged to avoid Part VII (fail safe)
provisions of the Social Contract Act by concluding local agreements. Part 7.1
provided inter alia, that parties could by local agreement impose a moratorium upon
increases to wages and salaries, etc., "upon expiry of existing collective agreements".
The Sectoral Framework, by virtue of paragraph 8.1, was in place between April 1,
1993 and March 3 1, 1996.
2
A Local Agreement was signed between the Board and the Association on July
19, 1993. The Social Contract Act required that such a local agreement be signed
prior to August 1, 1993 or the parties would be subject to Part VII of the Social
Contract Act (fail safe). Section 2 of the Local Agreement provides "the terms of this
agreement run from April 1, 1993 to March 3 1, 1996".
Paragraph 8(a) provides :
"All rates of pay shall be frozen until March 31, 1996 at the rates that
were in effect immediately prior to June 14, 1993".
Paragraph 10 provides:
"Except as modified by this agreement, the collective agreement between
the St. Thomas Police Services Board and the St. Thomas Police
Association, shall continue in force throughout the Social Contract
period. At the end of the Social Contract period, the collective
agreement between the parties shall be returned to full force, unless
modified by mutual agreement between the parties."
As a result of the Social Contract Act the January 1, 1993 increases in
compensation in the Collective Agreements between the parties which had been
implemented, set the rates of pay and benefits for the full Social Contract Act period.
The rate increase provided for January 1, 1994 never took effect.
On November 28, 1995 the Association wrote to the Board asking for
implementation of the increase. The parties had been able to meet their Social
Contract Act obligations through the early retirement of two members as early as
1994. The Board responded on November 29, 1995 indicating that the Social
Contract Act, Local Agreement had frozen the wages. At this time of course, the
Social Contract Act was still in effect.
The Social Contract Act came to an end, and on April 23, 1996 the Association
again requested the January 1, 1994 increases. This letter became the grievance
which is now before me.
I was informed by the parties that the Board did implement some other parts of
the two year Collective Agreement which had been scheduled to begin January 1,
1994. These included a $50.00 increase to the breath-tech as of January 1, 1994, and
an increase of $50.00 to the clothing cleaning allowance as of that date. (Uniform).
Also included was a $50.00 increase to the cleaning allowance for the civilian
employees. These were implemented after April 1, 1996.
The Board position is that the two year Collective Agreement beginning January
1, 1993 would have expired on December 31, 1994 but was continued by legislation.
The Board argues that under the local agreement rates of pay were frozen at the 1993
4
rates and paragraph 10 of the Local Agreement which returns the collective agreement
to full force does so "except as modified by this agreement". It says this agreement
i.e., the Local Agreement froze the wages, the 2 % increase did not occur and the time
has passed when it could have occurred. The Board says that under the Social
Contract Act the wages had to be frozen until March 31, 1996 and as of April 1, 1996
bargaining for new wages would begin. There were no transitional clauses included in
the ending of the Social Contract Act. The Board also points out that under Part VII
(the fail safe provision) rates of compensation were "fixed" per section 24(1). Any
increases after June 14, 1993 under existing Collective Agreements were "void",
s.24(4). Under section 24(8) no increases would be allowed after March 31, 1996 for
the period between June 14, 1993 and March 3 1, 1996.
As the Board points out if these parties had been under the fail safe provisions,
the question of implementing a 1994 increase would not arise because it would not be
allowed. As the Board points out also, the purpose of the Act was to reduce
municipal expenditures, inter alia, and it achieved its goal for these parties. To now
implement a 1994 increase would, it is argued, undermine the purpose of the Act.
The Association points out that there is nothing in the Social Contract Act
prohibiting, after April 1, 1996, the implementation of 1994 pre-bargained increases,
where local agreements were signed.
5
The Association also points out that the Social Contract Act was not designed to
eliminate collective bargaining between the parties and the Local Agreement of July
19, 1993 was a bargain made between them. The Association interprets s.8(a) of the
agreement as freezing "rates of pay" only for the period up to March 31, 1996. It
points out that under s.10 of the Local Agreement, at the end of the Social Contract
period the provisions of the Collective Agreement between the parties "shall be
returned to full force". It argues that the Collective Agreement was modified to the
extent that rates of pay were frozen during the Social Contract period but says that this
was only during the period and that period is now over.
The parties did not present me with any jurisprudence which was helpful in
resolution of this matter. Although the matter is by no means an easy one, it is my
view that the Association must prevail. The implementation by the Board of some
relatively minor increases in compensation as of April 1, 1996 suggests that its
interpretation of the phrase "shall be returned to full force" is that the Collective
Agreement is back in action as of April 1, 1996, and pre-bargained increases in
compensation were merely suspended during the relevant three years. That seems to
me to be the effect of s.8(a) as well. It merely freezes rates of pay for the three
years. When the freeze ended the Collective Agreement which provided for increase
as of January 1994 came back into "full force". It is only because of the legislation
itself that the January 1994 increase could not be retroactive to that date. At the end
6
of the freeze the parties were then operating under collective agreements which stated
that the salaries for first class constables were $ 51,990.00 as of January 1, 1994.
That clause is now back in full force and governs. My interpretation of the local
agreement is that they made that deal and must now adhere to it.
In the result the grievance is allowed and the Board is ordered to implement the
wage increases provided in the Collective Agreement, as of April 1, 1996. I remain
seized should there be problems with retroactivity.
DATED AT London, Ontario
this 10th day of June, 1997.
Peter G. Barton
Arbitrator