Arbitrator rules time disabled irrelevant
Five permanently disabled former employees were suddenly denied benefits after a new collective agreement was reached.
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (NEOFACS) provides services to youth and families in Cochrane and Timiskaming in northern Ontario. NEOFACS was created after an amalgamation of two agencies in 2012.
Both of the previous agencies were represented by two unions, the Ontario Public Sector Employees Union (OPSEU) and Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). After the merger, OPSEU took over management of the nine members of its bargaining unit.
In April 2014, a new collective agreement was reached, and a clause was agreed upon that read “health and dental coverage for disabled employees will terminate at the earlier of 12 months from the date of any disability or the date they cease to be eligible under the benefits plan.”
On Jan. 15, 2015, five employees who had been permanently disabled before the merger were advised their benefits would be terminated on June 30, 2015.
The five workers all were on long-term disability under the terms of the previous agreement and were paying premiums for health and dental coverage. The workers had been permanently disabled from a range of eight to 23 years.
OPSEU argued that these five employees should be considered vested under the old agreement and should continue to receive benefits.
But the employer said the plain wording of the new contract and the word “disabled” meant the five would have to lose coverage. It argued the clause was based on a “go forward” basis and when any affected employees become disabled was irrelevant in terms of the agreed-upon language.
NEOFACS contended the union should have insisted upon grandfathering in the five employees to the new agreement, but it wasn’t brought up by either side during negotiations.
But the arbitrator ruled in favour of four employees, insisting “grandparenting” was not required in this case.
“In my view, the right continues; it was not erased by the clause in question. I come to this conclusion as a matter of basic collective agreement interpretation,” said Russell Goodfellow.
The time that the former employees became disabled was under the previous contract, he said, and thus its definition did not apply to the current contract which said benefits would cease “12 months from the date of any disability.”
“The union was entitled to assume that the benefits coverage would continue. Clear and specific language is required to terminate a monetary benefit that employees have long enjoyed,” said Goodfellow.
The grievance was upheld for four workers but dismissed for a fifth who had resigned from the company in 2016 and was therefore not entitled to continuing benefits coverage, said Goodfellow.
Reference: North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services and Ontario Public Services Employees Union, Local 665. Russell Goodfellow — arbitrator. Michelle Henry for the employer. Jennifer Micallef for the employees. Nov. 3, 2016.
