How employers handle union leave

It’s a common provision in collective agreements, but it’s not always straightforward

Global Television was anticipating a busy two weeks in mid-October 2004. It was time for one of the all important semi-annual ratings surveys. No vacation was allowed during ratings season. However, the union requested leave for two of its members to go to its annual meeting. The company refused, and the union meeting had to be cancelled for lack of a quorum.

The union grieved, but the arbitrator sided with Global. In such a critical situation as ratings weeks, management was reasonably concerned that lack of staff would harm its ability to “produce attractive programming.” It was well within its rights to withhold permission for such leave.

Union leave, as provided for in most collective agreements, typically refers to a leave of absence for union officials, whether to represent the union at arbitration hearings, attend a union training session or convention, take up position as a full-time officer of the parent union, attend bargaining and negotiation sessions or conduct other union activities. There is often a clause dealing with union leave near the start of a collective agreement under the heading “union security.”

Typically, employers try to accommodate requests for such leaves but, as the situation with Global makes clear, there are times when it’s impossible to grant the union’s request. Though union leave may seem straightforward, disputes can and do arise.

Terms of leave

Provisions in collective agreements range from highly detailed efforts to regularize the accommodation process to a much more fluid approach.

The Calgary Public Library Board and the Canadian Union of Public Employees agreed to 700 hours of leave per year for work done at the local or parent union with written notification to be given at least 10 working days in advance. No more than seven employees can be off at one time for this purpose. With 15 days’ notice, 500 hours can be set aside for five candidates at any one time to attend union workshops, seminars and schools; with 10 days’ notice, 250 hours are set aside for seven employees to go on leave to prepare for bargaining negotiations.

Other workplaces are less specific. The Treasury Board, which employs federal public-sector workers, and the Canadian Auto Workers union, which represents air traffic controllers, have agreed simply to “leave without pay to a reasonable number of employees at any one time.” The request must be made at least 15 days in advance.

A similar agreement between Boeing Canada’s Arnprior division in Arnprior, Ont., and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers states only that the number of employees on leave “shall be mutually agreed upon.” There, seniority continues to accrue if the employee is on leave in order to take a full-time job at the union. The employee must agree to come back to work within 30 days following the completion of his term of office, providing work is available.

A recent agreement with Finning Canada, an Edmonton-based dealer of Caterpillar heavy equipment, is more specific. The employer agreed to hold jobs for employees who become full-time officers of the union for eight years, up from four years in the previous agreement.

At the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, which has more than one bargaining unit, the practice is handled differently depending on which unit is involved. In one unit, two full-time union reps are on the company payroll. Occasionally the Cornwall, Ont.-based not-for-profit, which manages the seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, has allowed more representation but “not consistently,” said Maxime Tétreault, an HR employee and labour relations officer. In the other bargaining unit there is no full-time union representative and requests for leave are simply made to the supervisor on a more ad hoc basis.

Deciding on a consistent policy for union leave is important even though this sometimes gets “set aside” for more urgent topics of conversation, said Tétreault. Both parties are currently looking to “straighten up” management of union leave. One of the problems she is facing is that the “union wants almost everything to be considered as corporate business” and therefore paid by the company.

Which party has to pay for time off work is another potential point of contention. This issue is dealt with differently in different collective agreements. The current contract between Hydro One Inc., the Toronto-based electrical distributor for Ontario, and the Society of Energy Professionals stipulates that that management maintains “base salaries for union representatives involved in all joint processes up to but not including arbitration.”

The issue has been the subject of arbitration, with the most recent decision rendered in August when Hydro One was again prohibited from changing this practice until the current agreement expires. The society does, however, partially reimburse management for the cost of the salary and benefits of the members of its executive.

Frequently, however, the union reimburses all the employers’ costs for both wages and benefits. An agreement signed last December between Treasury Board and Local 228 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers notes the union will pay the “actual gross salary” of its officials on leave plus “15.5 per cent for the employer’s contribution to superannuation, Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance, medicare” and other benefits. In comparison, the Calgary Library Board is reimbursed by the union for all pay and for benefits, currently about 12 per cent of gross pay.

In reviewing collective agreements from the first quarter of 2006, Bruce Aldridge of the federal government’s Workplace Information Directorate at Human Resources and Social Development Canada, found an innovative clause about funding union leave. Steel producer IPSCO Saskatchewan and the United Steelworkers agreed the employer will pay $25 per day for meals when bargaining meetings are held. The employer will also pay reasonable travel expenses and lodging for members of the negotiating committee who have to travel to get to the negotiations.

When disputes arise

Recent arbitrations have dealt with several issues. Clearly, understanding when an employer has to grant leave is one of them. The collective agreement between Canada Revenue Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) states the purpose of union leave is for union officials to represent the union. An employee grieved when she was not given paid leave to assist another employee in a human rights matter. The arbitrator noted her laudable intentions, but said she was not acting to represent PSAC when she accompanied a colleague to a human rights hearing. The arbitrator found the language limiting the use of such leave to be quite clear.

In another situation, the parties disagreed over who would pay for overtime hours when a furnace operator lead hand, working 12-hour shifts, wanted to go to steward school. The collective agreement provided only that the union would reimburse the regular wages of the person taking the leave. The company president said he was more interested in promoting production than union training, but that if the union could find a replacement and pay the overtime differential he would grant the leave. The union refused to pony up for the overtime. The leave was denied.

Subsequently, the arbitrator said that by agreeing to union leave in the first place, the company must “be taken to have accepted that there could be some cost involved in granting the leave.” The collective agreement referred only to paying the wages of the person taking the leave, not the employees covering the leave. However, there was no one available to replace the worker — overtime or no overtime — and the matter might have ended there but for an equipment failure, which kept the line from running and which would have enable the worker to take the leave after all. The arbitrator said that since circumstances had unexpectedly changed, and since the school was only 20 minutes from the plant, the worker could have been allowed to go with the proviso that once the furnace was rebuilt and running, he would return immediately to work.

All of which shows that accommodating union leave, while seeming relatively clear on paper, is often more complicated when it evolves in the real world of the plant floor.

Lorna Harris is the assistant editor of Canadian HR Reporter’s sister publication CLV Reports, newsletters that report on collective bargaining and other issues in labour relations. She can be reached at (416) 298-5141 ext. 2617 or [email protected].

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!