Notified by the municipal employer that cost-cutting measures necessitated reducing the work hours of four custodial and maintenance workers employed at the county museum, the union grieved.
While the union acknowledged that the employer’s decision was business-related and free of any improper motivation, it argued that the unilateral action of the employer was in clear violation of collective agreement language entrenching the hours of work of the workers in question.
Hours of work or schedules defined as the normal or standard work-week are entrenched and cannot be permanently altered on a unilateral basis according to established jurisprudence, the union said.
The employer does have some flexibility to adjust work schedules to accommodate specific needs, but it cannot unilaterally shrink the paid work-week by 2.5 hours on a permanent basis, the union said.
The employer conceded that the collective agreement quantified the hours in a “normal” work-week for the workers in question, however, nowhere did it say that the hours were guaranteed.
Reduced hours not a layoff
On the other hand, the employer said, there was a provision in the collective agreement empowering the employer to permanently reduce an employee’s hours of work on three months’ notice. Such an action could be distinguished from a layoff by virtue of the language in the collective agreement, which specified that “Should it be necessary to lay off any permanent employees, or to permanently reduce said employee’s hours, the Employer shall provide the employee and the union with at least three (3) months’ notice.”
The language was not an accident, the employer said. It was negotiated to provide an alternative to contractual layoff provisions in cases where the employer sought to reduce the hours of permanent employees rather than the number of employees. Good or bad, the language was not at issue — with full knowledge of the relevant jurisprudence, the parties had negotiated language permitting the employer to reduce the hours of permanent employees on three months’ notice, the employer said.
The Arbitrator agreed, concluding that the language in the collective agreement, “specifically addresses the situation before me, [and] creates a process for permanently reducing the hours of employees and entitles the employer to do what it did.”
The Arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that the power of management to determine the schedule of operations for the business as defined in the contract’s “management’s rights” clause was different than scheduling the hours of work for the employees who operate the business.
No guarantees
Moreover, the contract offered no guarantees with respect to hours of work. “The language before me does not state that the hours are not guaranteed, but neither does it say that the hours set out are guaranteed, which is essentially what the union is asking me to conclude.”
However, without specific language, the Arbitrator could not interpret the collective agreement as providing employees with a guarantee of 40 paid hours per week.
The language of the agreement, “is very clear and specific as to the County’s obligations in the event that there is a need to permanently reduce employee hours. The employer is required to provide the employee and the union with at least three (3) months’ notice and there is no dispute that this was complied with.
“I am very sympathetic to the situation in which the grievors find themselves. They have suffered a reduction in pay. The union does not challenge the reasons why the County has done what it has done. The union recognizes that the County had legitimate reasons to implement changes to reduce payroll costs. It is unfortunate that the grievors are the ones to suffer. However, we are in a period of worldwide economic restraint. With no end in sight, I am afraid. If there is a bright side, it is that no one lost their job and/or was laid off.”
The grievances were dismissed.
