fo1~~ -~=Ypolicearbitration.on.ca/search/documents/awards/92-004.pdf · Ontario Police ArbitraU8

II ~~ -OntarioPoliceArbitraU8 ltfo1~~shy -~=Y MAR 2392

tomrnissim1 JACKSONPROF RL II INTEREST II

1st Floor25GrosvenorSl

torORtoOntarioM1A 2H3

IN THE EST ARBITRATION

Pursuant to

The Police Services Act Section 122

Between

The Police Services Board of the Town of Hawkesbury

and

The Hawkesbury Police Association

(Communication Officers Agreement)

Arbitrator Professor R L Jackson

Appearances

For the Board

william J Milks - Consultant Allain Bolduc - Secretary to Board Y Drouin - MayorJ Morissette - Chair Police Services Board M Bouin - Member Police Services Board Michel Denis - Chief of Police

For the Association

Jean-Louis Potvin - President Marc Gervais - vice President Claude Boileau - SecretaryMarc Ledoux - Civilian Representative Richard Houston - Spokesman (PAO)

A hearing was held in this matter in ottawa on February 4 1992

There are four civilian employees of the Hawkesbury Police

Force - one secretary one court liaison officer and two civilian

communications officers While all four are members of the

Hawkesbury Police Association up to this year they have been

covered by two collective agreements - the secretary and court

liaison officer in one and the two communications officers in

the other This interest arbitration concerns only the

communications officers agreements were reached between the

Hawkesbury Police Services Board and the uniform group as well as

the secretary and court liaison officer It should be noted

finally that the parties have agreed to amalgamate the two

civilian collective agreements

There remain four issues outstanding for the civilian

communications officers hours of work minimum call-back time

janitorial duties and salaries

Hours of Work

The current provision stipulates that communications

officers shall work a five-day forty-hour shift that they shall

work one Saturday per month from 900 to 500 as requested by the

Chief of Police that each officer can have his schedule modified

1

by the Chief of Police and that each officer will serve an

eighteen-month probationary period The Association is

requesting that this clause be modified so as to provide a paid

one-hour lunch period which can be taken outside the police

station They also request that should the officer not be able

to take a lunch period by virtue of operational requirements

then he is credited with one hour in bank time

The Association justifies this request on three grounds

First both other groups - the uniformed officers and the two

civilians under the other civilian collective agreement - have

provisions in their agreements for paid lunches Second both

incumbent communications officers were hired in 1987 and at that

time were apparently promised the same benefits as the other

employees in the force For the first six months of their

service they in fact received a paid lunch but apparently with

the advent of the police association the new collective

agreement made no such provision and they never again received a

paid lunch Third the Association argues that there is no

operational reason why the communication officer should not have

this provision they are relieved by either the secretary or the

court officer for other duties and if busy with something else

away from their work station can carry a police radio Thus

they can easily be spared for one hour

The Board argues against this proposal on several bases

First it would in effect increase the per-hour salary by

125 exclusive of any wage increase I might award Second it

2

would be awkward administratively in terms of keeping track of

hours owed Third a paid lunch is a provision which is enjoyed

by only one third of comparably sized forces Fourth it would

be awkward operationally by virtue of the necessity to replace

the communication officers when on lunch break Overall this is

an internal organizational matter with which I as an interest

arbitrator should not interfere

I partly agree with the Association on this one

Particularly in view of the amalgamation of the two civilian

collective agreements it seems inappropriate that one group

should be treated differentially from the other in this

particular respect While not a universal perquisite in Ontario

policing that one third of the forces cited do provide paid

lunches does clearly establish that it is not an atypical

practice

Mr Milks is quite right however when he suggests that

there are important operational implications in this request

communications officers occupy a vital position in a police

forces organization I agree that the concept constant

communication is a problematic one Accordingly I decline to

award the Associations request that the communications officers

be allowed to take lunch outside the police station

As well given that this will be in the same collective

agreement as covers the court officer and the secretary I

decline to award the creditingof one hour in bank time if the

3

communications officers are unable to take their lunch hours

In the result then in the interests of both consistency

and equity I award that the following sentence be added to the

existing provision respecting communications officers

A member who performs his duties in one period ofeight(8) consecutive hours shall where the requirements ofthe service permit be allowed one (1) hour for lunch

Article 16 - Minimum Call-Back Time

The current provision on call backs stipulates a minimum of

two hours at time and one-half or the overtime rate for the

actual hours worked whichever is greater To replace this the

Association proposes the following

The Board agrees that should a member be called back toduty from his off duty hours he shall be credited withthe minimum four (4) hours of overtime for the firsthour or portion thereof and hour for hour thereafterregardless of the reason for such call-back to beapplied for at the rate of time and one-half

Call Back - For the purpose of this agreement shallmean when a member is requested for duty outside hisregular tour of duty as scheduled

The Association justifies this request on the basis that it

is similar to those contained in the police and other civilian

agreements There is no reason it is argued for the

communications officers to have a different provision indeed

the customary practice across ontario is for both civilian and

uniform agreements to be similar in this respect and the vast

majority of Ontario forces provide a minimum of four hours Mr

Houston also made the point that for the first six months of

their service in 1987 the two communications officers received

4

this benefit but again with the advent of the police

association it was not included in the collective agreement and

after that they no longer received it

Mr Milks for the Board conceded that Hawkesbury was

somewhat atypical in providing a minimum of two rather than four

(or at least three) hours for call-backs but explained that the

principal reason for call-backs of communications officers was in

their capacity as animal-control officers When animals are in

security at the station on weekends they have to be fed This

takes very little time and Mr Milks argued reasonably that it

is inappropriate to systemically compensate people with four

hours at time and one-half for a task which takes at most half

of that time

At the hearing Mr Houston conceded that the Association

was not requesting that call-backs for the purpose of caring for

animals in custody be included in this entitlement should I

grant it This being the case there seems to be no argument

against granting this request and two powerful arguments in

favour - that is both other Hawkesbury groups have it and it is

clearly the pattern in ontario police forces

Accordingly then I award this Association request but

with the proviso that the four-hour minimum shall not apply to

call-ins for the purpose of caring for animals already in

security

5

New provision - Janitorial Duties

This is an Association request for a new provision in the

agreement making clear that communications officer should not

have to perform janitorial duties At the moment their duties

embrace communication and dispatching bylaw control and

janitorial duties at the station These latter include for

example the washing of floors and cleaning of toilets

According to the job description such duties require

approximately 15 or a little over one hour per day to be

carried out during the afternoon shift

The Association argued that such duties are inappropriate

for communications officers who are busy with other important

responsibilities particularly when they are also responsible for

by-law enforcement Mr Houston also pointed out that these

janitorial duties have expanded since the incumbents were hired shy

that they were initially advised only that they would have to

perform occasional clean-up duties such as dusting and

emptying waste-paper baskets

Mr Milks argued in response that having the communications

officers carry out janitorial duties was a reasonable and bona

fide way for the police force to effect economies He further

argued that with the financial pressures on police forces more

and more departments would be forced to put together blend~ of

duties under one job in order to bring about efficiencies

Indeed some already do Finally it was argued that since the

6

design of jobs is a management right it is beyond my

jurisdiction as an interest arbitrator to award this request

First in my opinion at least this request constitutes a

working condition and under the Police Services Act is both

bargainable and arbitrable Second however it is an unusual

item to put before an interest arbitrator and there are none of

the normal standards or benchmarks to use as a guide in making an

award One must work from first principles on this issue

To begin with I do not see anything intrinsically wrong

with combining disparate duties in a small force that must

necessarily happen all the time both with civilian and uniformed

personnel As well I note that on the Civilian Communication

Officer job description dated October 1 1987 clerical and

janitorial duties are listed as one of the three basic functions

of the job The term janitorial connotes such things as the

cleaning of floors and toilets While these duties may have

expanded somewhat over time it seems clear that the incumbents

should at least have been aware that they formed a significant

part of the total responsibilities at the time of hiring

Finally it seems to me that there is some similarity between the

janitorial and some of the animal-control duties

On balance and in the context of this entire award and my

ruling on the other issues in dispute I decline to award the

Associations request in this respect

7

Article 7 - Salaries

The Association is requesting an increase of 15 to the

salaries of the communication officers which in 1990 was

$2614145 The Board has offered an increase of 6 the same

percentage as negotiated with the uniform and the other civilian

group

Obviously as the Association fully recognizes and concedes

in times such as this such an increase is a very large one

However it makes the point that this is an anomalous case and

offers the following rationale First it argues that these are

very responsible positions the moreso because of the added byshy

law-control duties Second the advent of pay equity changed the

internal orderings around Prior to the pay-equity adjustments

the communications officer salary stood between that of the

secretary and court officer after the adjustments particularly

to the court-officer salary the communication officer salary was

the lowest of the three Third the Hawkesbury communication

officer salary in its relationship with salaries in comparably

sized forces has changed dramatically in the last three years shy

largely it is argued as a result of pay-equity adjustments to

communications officers in other forces most of whom are female

The table below illustrates the relationship between the

Hawkesbury salary and the average communication-officer salary

for this group of sixteen forces ranging in size between 15 and

25

8

------

1989 1990 1991

Group Average 23730 26320 29077

Hawkesbury 24431 26141

Difference +295 -068

It should be noted that it would require an increase of 1123 to

bring the Hawkesbury communications officer to the 1991 average

salary of 29077 for this group

Finally Mr Houston drew a comparison between the salaries

of the communication officers and that of caretakers employed by

the Town of Hawkesbury In 1990 these were virtually identical

with the communication officers 4 cents per hour higher The 5

wage increase brought the caretakers to $1316 per hour which

Mr Houston pointed out would be just 16 cents per hour less

than the salary resulting from the Boards offer of 6

The Board also justified its position on the basis of

comparability- in this case comparabilitywith a group of

eleven forces ranging in size between 7 and 25 officers Like

that of the Association this comparison also demonstrated that

Hawkesbury salaries had eroded relative to the group average

However in contrast to the Associations comparison the Boards

data showed that in 1990 the Hawkesbury salary was still above

the average salary in the comparable forces - in fact by 61

(It will be remembered that the Associations comparisons showed

that in 1990 the Hawkesbury salary was 068 behind its

9

comparables and that it would take an increase of 1123 to bring

Hawkesbury to the 1991 average salary) The reason for these

very different results is that the two lists are substantially

different the Association had eleven forces on its list which

were not on the Boards list and the Board had six forces on its

list that were not on the Associations list

The results of the Board comparisons are summarized in the

following table

Year Average Deviation (above) of Hawkesbury

1987 18606 12082

1988 19782 11874

1989 21851 11807

1990 24638 10610

1991 26750 -----shy

It would take an increase of 23 to bring the 1990

Hawkesbury salary of 26320 to the 1991 average of 26750 Mr

Milks pointed out that the differential between Hawkesbury and

the mean group salary had been diminishing each year since 1987

by an average of 346 per year If that rate of convergence was

to continue into 1991 then one could extrapolate that the 1991

Hawkesbury salary should be 1026 of the average of 26750 or

27456 It would then require an increase of 503 to bring the

1990 Hawkesbury salary to this level

10

Using a much larger selection of forces - those of strength

up to 100 officers - Mr Milks demonstrated that the average 1991

end-rate salary was 27638 It would require an increase of 57

to bring the Hawkesbury salary to this level

The above two comparisons give very di~ferent answers with

respect to where the Hawkesbury salaries really are the

Associations figures show that the communication officers are

underpaid to the extent of approximately 11 while the Boards

demonstrate that with the its offer of 6 they will still be

slightly above the average of comparable forces This is

obviously of little help indeed it confounds the picture

In order to obtain some sort of coherent picture from these

data the two lists must be combined to form one list of all

forces with a strength of 7 to 25 officers This is not only

necessary but conceptually sound as well given a uniform~

strength of 17 a distribution of 7 to 25 puts the Hawkesbury

force almost exactly in the middle As well other things being

equal a larger sample is always a better indicator than a

smaller one The combined list appears below

Force Size 1991 Salary

Bradford 188 29790

Carleton Place 117 27248

Cobourg 249 25139

Collingwood 2212 27000

11

Dryden 168 27362

Fort Frances 185 30774

Goderich 115 35662

Hanover 116 28751

Ingersoll 155 29960

Kapuskasing 155 33800

Kenora 259 29441

Kirkland Lake 227 NS

Leamington 249 29905

Midland 225 33935

Pembroke 227 27177

Prescott 105 23485

Sandwich West 227 34514

smith Falls 176 23980

Strathroy 146 20183

Tillsonburg 218 27710

Walkerton 82 20914

Wallaceburg 228 25661

Averagg 28209

The 1991 average salary for the entire set of 22 forces with

a strength of between 7 and 25 officers is $28209 or 791

higher than the 1990 Hawkesbury salary of 26141

This may be about as close as we can come to determining

what would have been a reasonable salary for the Hawkesbury

communications officers for 1991 First it seems reasonable to

12

conclude that a large group of comparators which places

Hawkesbury almost exactly in the middle (in terms of size) is a

better measure than either the Associations or the Boards

smaller lists The comparison seems a valid one as Dr

Aggarwal concluded in his 1990 interest arbitration award the

communications Officers in the Hawkesbury Police Force

practically do the same job as dispatchers in other comparable

pOlice forces

Second Dr Aggarwal declined to order an extraordinary wage

increase for the communications officers on the very sensible

grounds that the data did not support such a conclusion The

data this year do bear out such a conclusion it would take an

increase of 8 to bring Hawkesbury to the 1991 average which

reflects the fact that the average salary of those forces on the

Associations list jumped 100 from 1990 to 1991 while the

average of those forces on the Boards list increased by 86

It is clear that these large increases were the result of pay-

equity adjustments made in many of the force on both lists

These adjustments however have not yet been made in all forces

For these reasons then I award that the 1991 salaries for

the communications officers be 28230 which represents an 80

increase While this will have brought Hawkesbury up to the 1991

average of the 22 comparable forces it should not upset the

internal relativities to too great a degree On the other hand

it must be recognized that the pay-equity adjustment process is

not yet complete in many forces and that it may be necessary to

13

further adjust the Hawkesbury communications officers in the

future However that is a question for the future

80 is a very large wage increase at this time of recession

and restructuring but two things must be remembered First

this is for a salary which took effect on January 1 1991 and in

the first quarter of 1991 private-sector salary increases were

52 while public-sector increases were 66 Thus in the

light of its proper time context 8 is not nearly so extreme as

it sounds at this time of very low wage settlements for everyone

Second given the fact that the communications officers in so

many forces are women it seems clear that communication officer

salaries as a whole have been too low relative to jobs held by

men That is both being proven and being remedied in pay-equity

adjustments in other forces as a result of which the Hawkesbury

communications officers have lost ground over the last five years

and have now been overtaken and left somewhat behind The fact

that they are both men should have nothing to do with it the

concept of pay equity is predicated on the notion that we should

value the job and not the person Hence an extraordinary

adjustment is appropriate here

I believe I have dealt with all the issues outstanding

However should I have inadvertently failed to deal with

something or should the parties encounter any difficulty in

implementing any aspect of this award I remain seised It

therefore remains only for to thank the parties and Messrs Milks

14

and Houston in particular for their courtesy and very able

presentations

Dated at Kingston this 23rd day of March 1992

15