TDSB, caretakers square-off over square footage

Caretakers working for the Toronto District School Board could be getting a wage hike after a retired head groundskeeper debunked the "bunker definition" — bumping the square footage up for most schools and, in turn, the pay.

The TDSB pays its caretakers based on the square footage of a school. The bigger the surface area, the bigger the paycheque. As such, Kevin Gossling — a now-retired head caretaker responsible for maintaining the grounds at James S. Bell Junior Middle School and Wellness Academy in Toronto — filed a grievance arguing storage bunkers should be included as part of size calculations, entitling caretakers to a higher rate of pay.

Gordon Luborsky, the arbitrator presiding over the case, agreed with Gossling and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), ordering a policy change at the school board.

Initially, the TDSB’s policy stated the base hourly rate of pay of the head caretaker is to increase with each size increase of the school.

But the collective agreement did not include an express definition of the word "school," nor did it explicitly describe how the square footage was to be determined.

The bunker in question had been a fixture on Gossling’s school property likely since the 1980s, and similar to a number of storage bunkers on other TDSB school properties. The bunker is a prefabricated concrete box used for storage.

According to the school board, the square footage of any school is based on "instructional" space only — such was the intent of the collective agreement. The TDSB likened the storage bunker to being part of the playgrounds and parking lot outside of school property and therefore not to be included in the calculation of the square footage or rates of pay.

This grievance was not about "equity or fairness," the TDSB said. "Storage bunkers have been on school property for decades — and since at least the amalgamation of the six municipalities resulting in the creations of the current school board in 1998 — they have never been included in the calculation of the square footage of the school."

But the union argued that because there had been no specific discussions about storage bunkers during negotiations, bargaining history was immaterial. CUPE urged Luborsky to look specifically at the language of the collective agreement.

"It would be grossly inequitable and unreasonable to think that the union would have agreed that its head caretakers would not receive the same credit for their responsibilities in connection with outdoor storage bunkers at the school in the same manner as their management of storage rooms within the foundation of the school building itself," CUPE said.

And therein lies the rub —what is a school? Luborsky based his decision on this definition, up to his discretion, as the collective agreement makes no mention of it.

Despite the fact no instructional activities occur in the storage bunkers, they should still be considered part of school property and included in square footage calculations.

He suggested a "functional test" going forward, to determine whether physical structures be included.

"Such a test is in harmony with the idea that the greater the total square footage of the school broadly defined — which can include outbuildings in the sense of not being directly attached to or within the foundations or footprint of the educational facility itself — the more compensation is payable to the head caretaker."