Fired engineer raises additional back pay concerns

Fred Raininger, an engineering technician who was reinstated after being terminated from Durham, Ont.-based electrical power distribution company Veridian, had a followup grievance regarding back pay.

There were three main grievances filed against Veridian by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union pertaining to Raininger’s back pay. He had been reinstated with full compensation by arbitrator Lorne Slotnick (who also presided over the case at hand) in October 2014, a month after the decision came down.

First, the union argued Raininger was entitled to additional back pay for the paid vacation he would have received had he not been fired.

Because he could have taken the vacation days, the IBEW argued he should have the time granted as part of the "full compensation" mandated in the original ruling.

The company argued the employee was given back pay based on all work days for the time he was unpaid, which included several weeks prior to the termination.

Therefore, Raininger had received — and was not entitled to any more than — compensation for every potential working day missed, Veridian said.

Slotnick sided with Veridian, saying the employee would not have been required to work at a time when he should have been granted paid vacation. He had been technically off work, and would not need a break or vacation.

Secondly, the IBEW argued the interest formula should be re-examined. The formula originally used was based on the consumer price index of 1.3 per cent, which the union argued is only appropriate for certain and short periods of time. Raininger was off work for 2 years.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, saying a simple interest calculation, rather than a compounded one, should apply.

However, he did not agree a higher rate should apply for a post-award interest, unless the arbitrator felt there had been an international delay or other type of bad faith, which he said was not the case here.

Finally, the union raised concern over taxation and Canada Pension Plan implications.

The union wondered whether Raininger should be compensated for any higher taxation experienced as a result of being provided back pay in 2015 instead of 2014, and whether his CPP payments might ultimately be reduced because there were no contributions made while he was off work.

IBEW did not provide submissions for this particular matter and asked for the decision to be deferred until more definite information regarding the griever’s taxes could be confirmed.

On this final subject, Slotnick did not make an official ruling.