Employer swaps permanent positions for part-timers
After getting flak from the union for exchanging two full-time positions for four part-time positions, a public library has been cleared of wrongdoing.
To keep its head above water during financial setbacks, the Hamilton Public Library decided to re-jig its staff and eliminated two full-time positions to be replaced by four part-time positions.
But the move was a violation of the collective agreement and indicative of bad-faith bargaining, according to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 932, which subsequently filed a grievance. Of particular concern is that the library did not post the full-time positions on the internal job board, despite its obligation to do so.
Hamilton’s public library system is headquartered in the downtown core of the city, with satellite branches located throughout. Both full-time and part-time employees work at different branches as required, and overlap duties — often a part-timer will perform the job of a full-timer and vice versa.
While both groups are paid identical wages, full-time library staffers have their benefits paid in full by the employer, whereas part-time staff are eligible for a 50-50 cost-sharing plan.
The divide between part-time and full-time workers escalated back in 2009 when the library underwent a hefty restructuring, which included the elimination of two full-time information clerk positions at two of its branches.
Though CUPE argued the library swapped the jobs to cut corners and save money, the library maintained it was intended to alleviate scheduling pressures.
"The overriding concern for the employer was to ensure that the appropriate staff resources were scheduled to deliver services to meet the demands of customer service and at the level of delivery required. This includes flexibility in scheduling," the Hamilton library testified at the hearing, adding that it "had sound business reasons for posting two part-time positions, rather than one full-time position and assigning extra hours to part-time employees or other staff."
However, according to the latest collective agreement, when a position becomes available, the library is required to post the job internally — which, according to the union, was not done.
"The problem with part-time staffing is that there is a ‘revolving door,’ as part-time employees jockey for better schedules at other library locations," the union said. "One of the consequences of this is that there are always vacancies, no one can figure out who ‘owns’ them or when they will be filled."
As well, part-timers had no sense of obligation to the branch. As such, the union claimed part-timers were always looking for a full-time job or better-paying part-time positions, so filling those schedules can be a challenge — thus making full-time jobs a better choice.
Library officials saw the situation differently, arguing the motivation for creating a part-time position was to increase flexibility and add five hours of desk coverage — something a 20-hour part-time staffer would be able to do more readily than a 40-hour full-timer.
Not a ‘feelings arbitration’
George Surdykowski, the arbitrator presiding over the case, said the issue was not to weigh the benefits of part-time versus full-time, but whether the library had a right to do what it did.
"This grievance arbitration is about rights and obligations, not about desires or wishes," he said. "Whether the union would like to have more full-time positions in the bargaining unit is irrelevant to the issue. Whether part-time library employees as a class would prefer to have a full-time library job is equally irrelevant. This is a rights arbitration, not a feelings arbitration. Either the library was entitled to do what it did or it wasn’t — regardless of employee feelings in that respect."
That said, the collective agreement included a provision allowing the library to undergo a needs review when an employee leaves — a vacancy is not always immediately posted. That can result in vacancies being posted differently, or not at all.
The Hamilton library had legitimate business reasons for posting part-time positions rather than full-time positions, the arbitrator ruled. As a result, they were well within their management rights.
And the grievance was dismissed.
