Language in the contract gave the union paid caucuses during bargaining. The preparatory session they claimed as a caucus did not meet the definition of the term, the arbitrator ruled.
Citing the collective agreement, members of a union negotiating team said they should be paid for a full day spent in caucus preparing the union’s response to employer contract proposals. The employer disagreed.
The union grieved.
During the course of bargaining to renew their collective agreement, the parties first exchanged written proposals on Mar. 31, 2009. Face-to-face meetings were held in April, May and June. However, the parties were unable to finalize a new agreement and further negotiations were scheduled beginning Sept. 21.
The union negotiating team met on Sept. 18 for a full day to review the employer’s proposals and prepare for the upcoming meeting.
The union took the view that this meeting constituted a “caucus” within the meaning of Article 16.02 of the existing agreement and that the negotiating team was entitled to be paid for that time.
Article 16.02 of the collective agreement spelled out the employer’s acknowledgment of the size of the union negotiating team. It also said, “Time spent in negotiations/ caucus, including essential services negotiations, up to and including Conciliation shall be considered as work time paid by the Employer. The Union may bring outside counsel to the table as required.”
New language
The use of the word “caucus” was new to the predecessor agreement. It did not reflect any previous language or past practice of the parties.
The union argued that the use of the word caucus in the contract was intended to describe the union bargaining committee meetings convened during the course of bargaining to deal with bargaining issues. Without any express language identifying the points during bargaining when time spent in caucus is payable or, is not payable, the union said its caucus time must be found to conform to the category identified in the collective agreement.
The employer said clear, unequivocal language would be required to establish such a right. It was very unlikely the employer would ever agree to pay for union bargaining committee meetings held outside of the scope of face-to-face bargaining and scheduled at the sole discretion of the union, the employer said.
The term, as it was used, was meant to capture sidebar meetings conducted during the course of face-to-face bargaining where one side withdraws to consider its position. According to that interpretation, the union bargaining committee meeting held on Sept. 18 did not qualify and no payment was due.
The Arbitrator agreed.
“Article 16.02 deals with the conduct of face-to-face negotiations. This is clear from the agreement of the Employer within article 16.02 to recognize a five-member Union bargaining committee … and from the further agreement [that] ‘the union may bring outside counsel to the table as required.’ Except for face-to-face negotiations at the ‘table,’ the Employer would have no interest in who or how many may take part in other Union bargaining-related activity, i.e. bargaining preparation or strategy development,” the Arbitrator said.
New, expansive obligation unlikely
It was likely, the Arbitrator said, that the “direct linkage between negotiation and caucus in article 16.02 was intended to circumscribe the obligation to pay for caucus time to that which occurs during face-to-face negotiations and not to create the more expansive obligation argued for by the Union.”
The Arbitrator said even applying the term caucus to the Sept. 18 meeting was problematic given that bargaining had been on hiatus since June and no face-to-face meetings were scheduled until three days later.
Neither was the Arbitrator inclined to favour the union’s position that a lack of express language in the contract limiting when such paid caucuses could occur should be taken as a green light.
“While the term ‘caucus’ in article 16.02 is ambiguous in its application to the facts here, I am not persuaded to accept the Union interpretation simply because there is no express limitation to caucuses that occur during face-to-face negotiations … [T]he term … more likely reflects an intention to cover caucuses that occur during face-to-face negotiations as distinct from caucuses or meetings of the Union bargaining committee that occur at the discretion of the Union bargaining committee outside of face-to-face negotiation, albeit during the course of the collective bargaining process.”
The grievance was dismissed.
