~. . .._u._.~.

~ ­.

-166) Hearing Date of awardlJA/j fORi.

CONCERNING an arbitration Sault Ste.Marie Nov.4, 1980I .

pursuant to The Police Act,R.S.O. 1970, C. 351, as amended eO -0 /B

I

Between:

I

THE SAULT STE. HARIE BOARD OFI COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE

(hereinafter referred to as the Board)I

- and ­

I

THE SAULT STE. HARIE POLICE AS~OCIATION

I (hereinafter referred to as the Association)

I

RE: 1980...81 Collective. Agreement for Uniform PersonnelI

Arbitrator: J .W. SamuelsI

Appearances:I

For the Board ­

J.F. Kelleher, Q.C., Principal Spokesman

Relations

I

C.R. Bernardi, birector of Personnel and Labour

J.L. McIntyre, Chairman of the BoardI R.~. McEwen, Chief of Police

E. Anderson, Deputy Chief of Police

I

For the Association ­

G. Priddle., CounselI

D. Stannard, Spokesman concerning.pensionst1.Doan, PresidentA. Shuttleworth, Treasurer

I W. McLeod, SecretaryB.Green, Vice-PresidentB. Shortt, Civilian RepresentativeJ. Linklater, Civilian Representative

_.~.. -- '---- '--.

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODU'CTION-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . ;. . . . . . . . . . 1

SAULT STE. ~1ARIE AND ITS POLICE FORCE................ 1

MATTERS AGREED BY THE PARTIES........................ 3

4COMPARISONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MATTERS IN DISPUTE (DETERMINED IN THIS AWARD) ........ 9

l. Pensions. .­. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 92. Salaries. . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

3. Rank Differentials ':. . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Clothing Allowances........................ 155. Sick Leave" ,....................... 18

MATTERS IN DISPUTE (TO BE DETERHINED LATER) .......... 19

1. Manning of Patrol Cars and Hours of Duty... 19

CONCLUSION AND RETROACTIVITY......................... 20

I,- ~~ -'---. -­

--

--

1.

INTRODUCTION

The parties were unable to agree on all the terms

of their 1980-81 Collective Agreement, which will run from

February 1, 1980 to January 31, 1981. At the request of the

Association, and pursuant to section 32 of The Police Act,

R.S.O. 1~70, c. 351, as reenacted by the provisions of

section 2 of The Police Amendment Act, S.O. 1972, c. 103, I

was designated by The Honorable Roy McMurtry, Solicitor-

General for Ont.ario,as the arbitrator to..hearand determine

all matters in dispute.

The appointment of the arbitrator was made on

October 1, 1~80 and our hearing took place on October 21 in

Sault Ste. Marie. During the course of the hearing the list

of matters in dispute was clarified and this award deals

with all such matters, except the Board's proposal concerning

the manning of patrol cars and hours of duty. With respect

to this latter issue, we have agreed to reconvene on February

2, after the parties have had the opportunity to discuss the

ramifications of the proposal.

SAULT STE. MARIE AND ITS POLICE FORCE

The city which I had the pleasure to visit is an

industrial centre with a population of about 81,000 people.

Located on the border with the United. States, and having a

twin city (Sault Ste. Harie,Michigan), Sault Ste. Harie is

~­

\----­

2.

the Canadian entrance to northern ~nd lower Michigan, and

the rest of the U.S~ mid-west. In Canada, the nearest large

cities are Sudbury (200 miles to the east) and Thunder Bay ,.

(450 miles to the west).

The Algoma Steel Corporation is the centrepiece of

the city's industEY. Employing 12,000 people, AlgomaSteel

accounts for some 50% of the tax base - the Corporation

itself pay's about 25%, and the employees another 25%.

Abitibi Paper, Weyerhaeuser, and other smaller industries

employ most of the other members of the largely blue-collar

work force. Tourism is the second largeSt ~ndustry in the

city.

While Sault Ste. Harie is the twelfth largest city

in Ontario, its average weekly wage is between the third and

sixth highest in the province. With the high wages goes a

fairly high cost-of-living relative to the rest of the

province.

The Police Force has a complement of 119 police

officers. At the moment there is one unfilled position at

the rank of Fourth Class Constable. The hrea.kdown of the

ranks represented by the Association is as follows:

Uniform Division1 Inspector4 Staff Sergeants5 Sergeants

£1 First Class Constables2 Third Class Constables9 Fourth Class Constables (1 vacancy)

-.-- ...--- . '---­

3.

I .

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Criminal Investigation Division

1 Inspector2 Detective/Sergeant1 Sergeant10 Detectives9 Const.ables

Administration and Services Division1 Inspector2 Staff Sergeants3 Sergeants8 Constables

For 1979-80, the payroll for this group of officers

was $2,590,103.

MATTERS AGREED BY THE PARTIES

The parties have agreed that their 1980-81 Col­

lective Agreement will be in the same terms as the 1979-80

Agreement, except with respect to the matters in dispute and

the 'following agreed changes ­

1. Article 18 shall be amended by changingthe word "City" to "Board".

2. Article 27(c) concerning dental coverageshall read "1980 Ontario Dental Associationfee schedule" effective January 1, 1981.

3. There will be a new article that reads:

"In this agreement the use of themasculine gender shall include the'feminine gender".

4. The salaries for ranks below First ClassConstable shall now be calculated accordingto the following schedule ­

Second Class Constable - 90% of theFirst Class Constable

Third Class Constable - 80% of theFirst Class Constable

Pourth Class Constable - 70% of theFirst Class Constable.

--~""~"- .~. _._­

4. "

. COMPARISONS

. One of the fundamental considerations in establishing

monetary items in a collective agreement is the comparison"

between the particular group of employees and other relative

groups. The-difficult question is who are the comparable

groups.

The parties urged upon me various comparisons, and

I think it would be best to deal with this matter in a

general way before proceeding to a discussion of the matters

in dispute. The comparisons suggested were:

a. SUDBURY and THUNDER BAY

These are the other two major urban centres\

in Northern Ontario. Sudbury has a population of 97,604,

but its police force serves the Sudbury Region and has,

therefor~, a very large area to police and a much greater

population to serve (167,621) than the municipality alone.

Thunder Bay has a population of 111,476.­

The Association argues that a policeman in Sudbury

is doing the same job as an officer in Sault Ste. Marie,

though one man serves on a regional police force and the

other is on a municipal force. To a large-extent this is

true, but it cannot be forgotten that the-wages, benefits

and other working conditions for a regional police force

~--. -~- -~-- --.--­

-I

I

I

I

5.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

take into account all the officers on the force and meet the

needs and demands of all the members of the force. The fact

that officers may be transferred from one location to another,

with the problems associated with such a move for the whole

family, is only one factor that distinguishes service in a

regional force from service in a municipal one.

While the comparisons with Sudbury and Thunder Bay

are relevant, they are not decisive.

b. BRAMPTON, BRANTFORD, GUELPH, SARNIA,ST. CATHARINES, OSHAWA, PORT ARTHUR,SUDBURY "

This was the list of "fairly comparative" muni­

cipalities used in the 1966 arbitration award establishing

the "collective agreement fot the Sault Ste. Marie Police

Force.

I have significant reserv~tions about carrying on

this comparison today. So much has happened since 1966 to

change the character and legal status of these municipalites." .

Oshawa is now policed by the Durham Regional Police Force.

Port Arthur has been amalgamated with {ts old neighbor Fort

William to form Thunder Bay. Sudbury is now policed by the

Sudbury Regional Police Force. The Brantford Police Associ­

ation is not a member of the Ontario Police Association and

Brantford is recognized as having fallen behind economically

in the in~ervening years.

"-­

I

I

,

6.

I

think there is little value in isolating this group of

municipalities for special consideration.

Relationships do not stand static over time.

c. ALL CITIES IN ONTARIO WITH A POPULATION OVER 50,000, EXCLUDING METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Association suggested this list of 22 cities

to me. The average population is 123,482. Sault Ste.

Marie, with its population of 81,000, is the thirteenth

largest of the 22, but has the fourth highest average

weekly wage of the 16 cities'for which the average wage

was shown. The striking thing about the chart presented by

the Association is that the annual saYary for 1980 of the

First Class Constable doesn't bear much relation to the

relative average weekly wage in the municipality. For

instance, Niagara Falls is shown as th~ 14th highest in

wages, but has the highest salary of the 16 - perhaps be­

cause this is a regional police force.

This list is too broad to be of decisive value.

However, it does illustrate the "ballpark" within which

police salaries are found inOntario~

d. ALL MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS IN ONTARIO~7ITH A POPULATION OVER 50,000, EXCLUDINGHETROPOLITAN TORONTO, BUT INCLUDING THEO.P.P. .

A similar conclusion can be reached with respect

to this list as in the case of the previous list -- not

- -- -~'--:--'''-' ~-~'-' "---'" .,-~~... " "-" "'''~ "

-- u.

7.

decisive, but useful to indicate the "ballpark".

e. CITIES WITH POPULATIONS BETWEEN 65,000AND 111,000

This list of nine centres is more selective and

potentially more useful. It includes:

Thunder Bay 111,476Oshawa 107,023Burlington 104,314Sudbury 97,604Cambridge 72,000Niagara Falls 69,423Guelph 67,538Brantford 66,9'50North Bay 51,639

The problem is that five of these are served by regional

police forces:

Oshawa- Durham Regional Police ForceBurlington - Halton Regional.Police ForceSudbury- Sudbury Reg',ional Police Force

.Cambridge - Waterloo Regional Police ForceNiagara Falls ~ NiagaraRegional Police Force

I have already mentioned the distinction usually

drawn between municipal and regional police forces. It is

also the case that the province o£fers a higher per capita

policing grant to municipalities policed by a regional force

-$15 instead of $10 per capita.

f. co~rnUNITIES OF RELATIVELY EQUAL SIZEWITH APPROXIMATELY THE SAME POLICECOHPLEMENT

The Board suggested this comparison and I agree

that it is'the most relevant comparison group. The list

includes:

.--....... ------... '.' "-------­

I

I

I

8.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Population Complement

Brantford­ 68,890 101 Gloucester 65,050 76 Guelph Kingston Nepean North Bay PeterboroughSarnia

71,349 61,088 82,000 51,000 59,181 52,584

110 104 101 88 95 97

Thunder Bay 111,435 181

g. OTHER HUNICIPAL EHPLOYEES

Many Boards of Arbitration hav~.reiterated that,

_by and large, police should be compared with I police. I

agree in this general rule. The job of a police officer is

not like that done by other municipal employees and the

compensation to an officer must reflect this difference.

The comparison with other municipal employees is normally of

little- value.

h. EMPLOYEES OF ALGOMA STEEL

With respect to several matters in dispute, the

Board urged me to consider the situation at A1goma Steel.

The rationale for this is that the poli~e officer must live

and work within a community and his compensation (including

benefits) must reflect the circumstances of the taxpayers in

the community. I agree with the Board, particularly where

one industry accounts for roughly 50% of the tax base in a

municipality.

---. -~ --.- '-- - ---- ------­

I

- ------------ --------

"--'"-,--"~~-­

9.

The problem is that full and accurate informa~ion

on the compensation package at Algoma is impossible to come

by. This is especially the case on pensions. No figures

were forthcoming on the cost per e~ployee of the Algoma

Steel pension plan. This lack of hard facts makes any real

comparison with Algoma illusory. I might say that my

limited information seems to indicate a fairly generous

compansation package at Algoma, and this would account for

Sault Ste. Marie's relatively high average weekly wage.

MATTERS IN DISPUTE (DETERMINED IN THIS AWARD)

\

1. Pensions

The current pension provision offers

- retirement at 60

- basic O.M.E.R.S. plan

- contribution rate of 8% for officers

- O.M.E.R.S. Supplementary Type I planproviding "true past service" for allyears of 'credited service with amaximum of 35 years' service, withall past service costs borne by theBoard.

The _Association requests the addition of the full

O.M.E.R.S. Supplementary Type 3 plan providing

an early retirement benefit to permitearly retirement without actuarial reductionin benefits within ten years prior to amember's normal retirement date, when(A) the member is declared by the employer

to be unable to perform the duties ofhis/her employment due to mental or ­

physical incapacity (partial disability),or

" ~-"-­ --".----------­ --" ~--"-­

--~- --­

I

I

I

I

I

I

-~--"~-~~" "..,,_..,,"-~-_.

10.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

(B) the member has completed 30 years of seryice with the employer

all past service costs be paid by the Board

the future service cost of 2% of salary bepaid by the board.

At the hearing, I received lengthy and well-pre~

pared written briefs on this mat~er from both parties. The

arguments were explored fully and I have reread and recon­

sidered what was offered me.

The fact is that an overwhelming number of police

forces and police officers have "this benefit in Ontario -­

83% of all municipal police officers in the province have an

early retirement system; of the 17 municipal forces with a

strength of over 100 officers, 89% of the officers are

provided with an early retirement benefit.

I will not go through the meaning of these bene­

fits.. They were set out clearly in Hr. Stannard's brief and

both parties know clearly what is involved. Furthermore,

many arbitration awards "(some of mine as well) have gone

through the matter in detail. The existence of other early

retirement possibilities under the basic O.M.B.R.S. plan,

the Canada Pension Plan, or the Long-Term Disability Plan,

do not do away with the real benefits offered by this sup­

plementary plan. Nor do I think the "ripple effect" need be

considered -- that is, the suggestionthat, if the police

achieve this benefit, other municipal employees will have to

--- -"-"-- '--"--' I

I

I

I

I

I

I

--- ---

11.

be given the same benefit. The early retirement plan is of

peculiar benefit to police officers because of the nature of

their work and the same considerations do not apply to other

municipal employees.

In my view, -this supplementary plan in full should

be added to the collective agreement. The only _question is

the financial arrangements as a result of the addit"ion. I

think that it-is fair for the parties to share the future

service costs. This is done in many of tae agreements

offering the early retirement system. Insofar as the past

service cost of $1,260,284 (or $129,759 per year for 15

years), the Board should meet this cost, BUT this achieve­. -­

ment by the Association must be taken into account when

other monetary requests -are considered. The overall com­

pensation package is at issue. If there is a significant

gain in one element, other elements must be less generously

enhanced. The past service cost alone means an increase of

5% for each employee. With the additional future service

cost of 1%," this award means 6% for each employee.

The Association asked that this benefit be awarded

as of January 1,1981. The Board pointed out that this

would mean it would have to pick up the 1% (which would have

been paid since February 1, 1980 by the member, if theI

benefit was introduced as of the commencement date of the

contract) as part of the past service cost. The Board has a

good point here. The O.M.E.R.S. costing was as of January

"------ --~- - -- '-' "--- ' ~-'- '"---"-'

-, - - --- ,---~-­

12.

1, 1980. If the benefit is awarded as of January 1, 1981,

the Board's past service cost ~ill be greater than $1,260,284.

However, I think it is best to introduce the benefit as of

January 1, 1981, but to take the additional past service

cost into account in weighing other'monetary requests.

I cannot leave this matter without reference to a

point made very persuasively by the Board. It was suggested

that the private sector, where the right to strike exists,, ,

does not have such generous pension benefits and that this

indicates that private sector employees are not willing to

strike for these generous pension benefits. The Board went

on to suggest that arbitrators must consider this in public

sector awards. I agree completely that it is relevant to

consider what might be achieved if the public sector em­

ployee had the right to strike. Compulsory arbitration is

not a legislated gift-giving process. However, I don't

think the facts bear out the Board's point. The only evi­

dence presented was the limited information -on the Algoma

Steel plan. After cur discussion at the he~ring, and after

rereading the material given to me, the incomplete picture

get is of a fairly generous non-contributory (by the em­

ployees) pension plan. "Eye-balling" seems to indicate that

this plan costs the employer nearly the same as the O.M.E.R.S.

plan costs the Board. Other private sector plans offer a

range of benefits. Where the early retirement benefits are

not as generou~ as those 'obtained by the police, it may well

be because the employees do not need such protection given

.,. '--- -- '--- --- .,- - -------- .-.--­

I

-~ ~~. ..c_, -.....---- ._~-."_.,,----_._­

i3.

the nature of their work. The situation in the private

sector should be considered, but fairly', bearing in mind all

the relevant differences in the type of work and pension

needs, and on the basis of full information to enable

meaningful comparisons.

2. Salaries

The Board points out that a comparison with the

communities of relatively the same size and with approxi­

mately the same police complement indicatesthat the average

annualized rate in the nine comparable forces is 22,971 or

7.2% above the current rate for a First Class Constable in

Sault Ste. Marie.

In its initial request to the Board, the Associ­

ation asked for an i~crease of 17%, but at the hearing no

specific figure was suggested. The Association 'instead

offered a range of comparisons. As well, the Association

argued that the pension increase should not affect the

salary increase on a total compensation basis because the

pension increase comes late. The Board has had a "free

ride" for several years and now a pension catch-up is neces­

sary. This catch-up should be independent of other monetary

gains. I cannot agree with this latter point. Previous

settlements and arbitration awards have been arrived at on a

total compensation basis. If pensions fell behind, it meant

better gains elsewhere. Now the balance is shifting in

favor of pension benefits.

-"--"----- --~-_. .--..--- -----..-- '-.-'..-- ----­

--- .'~ -"~ ---..-­

14.

In my view, after reconsidering all the evidence

and arguments, I think that a salary of $23,000 for the

First Class Constable in Sault Ste~ Marie is fair and

equitable in all the circumstances. This translates into an

across-the-board increase of 7.3% over the end rates in the

1979-80 Collective Agreement.

3. Rank Differentials

The current salary differentials for ranks above

First Class Constable are:

Sergeant 110% of the salary of theFirst Class Constable

. Staff Sergeant 117% of the salary of theFirst Class Constable

Inspector 18% of the salary of theFirst. Class Constable

The Association requests that these differentials

~ove to 110/120/130. To support the proposal, the Associ­

ation offers a list of 22 forces with the average differ­

ential and a comparison with the results of a 110/120/130

formula. The table indicates that the average annualized

salaries through the ranks have a wider gap than 110/120/130.

In other words, applying the proposed forQula to the average

salary of a First Class Constable results in lower average ,

salaries for the other ranks than is actual~y the case.

However, there is wide fluctuation within the list. Some

forces show less than a 110/120/130 spread, and others show.

a greater differential.

--.-- ----­

---

--~~._­

15.

I don't think that this look at averages is very

meaningful without some evidence on the actual differential

responsibilities through the ranks in the other forces and

in the S'ault Ste. Marie Police Force. Without this addi­

tional information, I am not willing to grant the request.

4. Clothing Allowances

The current agreement has a lengthy provision

concerning clothing allowances:

UNIFO~l AND CLOTHING ALLOWANCE

22. All uniformed Police Officers to be suppliedthe following equipment:

(a) One uniform per year, a uniform to con­sist of one tunic and two pair of trousers.~.vinter and summer un-iforms to be issued

in alternate years.

(b-) Four regulation shirts with shoulderflashes yearly. Shirts to be selectedby the Board and a Committee appointedby the Police Association.

(c) One uniform cap, yearly, if required.-

(d) Police Officers to be allowed an annualallowance of sixty dollars ($60.00) forboots and overshoes.

(e) One winter type coat suitable for existingweather conditions. This is to beissued once every three years.

(f) Rain wear consisting of raincoat and capcover to be issued as required.

(g) Two regulation ties per year.

(h) Uniformed Police Officers shall wearinsignia to correspond ,with tbeir rankand service in accordance with thePolice Act and Regulations.

(i) A service badge shall be issued to each Officer to be worn upon his uniform to

.----.

---

I

I

I

,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

16.

indicate the completion of each fiveconsecutive years' service.

PLAINCLOTHES OFFICERS

(j). PlainclothesPolice Officers to receivean annual suit allowanc.eof two hundredand twenty-five dollars ($225.00).

(k) Plainclothes Police Officers to receivea spring and fall coat allowance ofseventy-five dollars ($75.00). This isto be issued once every three years.

(1) Plainclothes Police Officers to receive. .

a winter overcoat allowance of onehundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00).

- This is to be issued Gnce every threeyears.

(m) Plainclothes Police Officers to receiveari annual hat allowance of fifteendollars ($15.00).

(n) Plainclothes Police Officers to receivean annual shirt allowance of forty-fivedollars and eighty cents ($45.80).

(0) Any Police Officer working in plain­clothes for a period of thirty days orlonger shall be supplLed plainclothes oran allowance of one dollar ($1.00) perday. This sum not to ex~eed two hundredand twenty-fivedollars ($225.00)..

(p) Plainclothes Police Officers to receivean annual allowance of sixty dollars($60.00) for footwear.

(q) The Board shall provide to each PoliceOfficer sufficient cleaning voucherswhich will permit the cleaning of auniform twice a month. A uniform toconsist of one tunic and two pair oftrousers. Plainclothes Officers shallalso receive the same number of vouchers.

(r). Any P6lice Officer (either uniformed orplainclothes) who has clothing soiled ordamaged in the course of duty, shallhave his clothing cleaned or repaired orreplaced at the cost of the Board. Thissection is not intended to cover normalwear or soiling of clothes.

I

,-'"-~-_. - --~~--~" ..­

17.

(s) All clothing allowances shall be paid in voucher form and shall be over and above any tax payable thereon.

The Association's requests read as follows:

Article 22 - Uniformed Officers' Boot and Overshoe Allowance

Amend 22 (d) to provide an allowanceof $95.00 annually for boots and overshoes.

Article 22 - Plainclothes Officers' Allowance'

Amend to provide:

(j ) Annual suit allowance of $260..00annually.

(k) Spring and fall coat allowance $85.00 once every three years.

(1) Winter overcoat allowance $175.00 once every three years.

(n) Annual shirt allowanceof $55.00.

(p) Footwear allowance annually of $95.00.

(0 ) Amend to provide $2.00 per day. Delete maximum.

The cost of these requests is $35 per year for

uniformed officers and about $99 per year for plainclothes

officers. The Board argues that these requests amount to a

much greater increase than the 12.3% rise in the clothing

index under the Consumer Price Index./.

I think it would be fair to award the following

amendments in Article 22:

_.~-- .. ,.. ..~-- -'--'---' '-'--"~--" _.~-~~ ~. '-' ' -­

,,-,,---"---'" '. ",-- .

-~-~._,~~~--­

18.

(d) Change $60.00 to $77.50

(j) (k)

Change Change

$225.0,0 to $250.00 $75.00 to $83.00

(1) (n)

Change Change

$125.00 $45.80

to $155.00 to $51.00

(p) Change $60.00 to $77.50 (0) Change $1.00 to $1. 30 and

$225.00 to $292.50

5. Sick Leav:e

The current sick leave provision offers a maximum

accumulation of 240 days. The Association requests that

this "cap" corne off and that the current sick leave f0r each

member be recalculated as if there had never been a limita­

tion. It should be pointed out that there is no pay-out

provision for accumulated sick leave credits. The old pay­

out rights were purchased by the Board in 1963.

The Association argues that comparable forces have

no limitation in this area.

The Board does not deny the comparison but argues

that accumulation of sick leave is not the way to deal with

the potential problem of long-term illness. Rather, appropri­

ate insurance coverage is the answer. However, no adequate

evidence was provided of possible insurance programs.

I agree with the spirit of the Association's

request but the Board makes a valid point that other means

of dealing with the problem should be explored. The parties

should examine possible insurance coverage. If no agreement

-,-~~-- "--"-- "--,,---,.,, "'---' -' ,n ,-- " ,,,

---IH--- ------­

19.

c~n be reached between the parties, then a range of solu­

tions should be proposed to ~ subsequent arbitrator. -The

underlying basis of the request is protection for the officer

with a long-term illness. A decision on the request has no

practical ramifications right now. The parties have time to

gather more information and explore other solutions.

The request is denied.

MATTERS IN DISPUTE (TO BE DETERMINED LATER)

1. Manning of Patrol Cars and Hours of Duty

Articles l4(b) and 20 of the current agreement fix

the hours of duty and provide for two-man patrol cars at

certain times.

The Board made it clear in negotiations it wished

'to have amendments to these two articles~ However, the -

precise changes and their implications were made known for

the first time at our hearing.

I made it clear that this did not give the Asso­

ciation an opportunity to respond adequately. Hence, we

suspended discussion of this matter and will resume on

February 2, 1981, after the parties have had a chance-to

discuss the Board's proposals.

---------- ~-'---' - " ~~- - ----- ---~----­

-~,-­I-,,-,~-,~~­

20.

CONCLUSION AND RETROACTIVITY

I want to thank the parties for their cooperation

during the hearing, for their helpful written briefs, and

for able argument.

From February 1, 1980 to January 31, 1981, their

Colle9tive Agreement will be in the same terms as it was for

the previous year, except as they have agreed or I have

awarded here. The changes in salaries, and clothing allow­

ances will take effect as of February 1, 1980. The new

pension benefits will take effect on January 1, 1981.

I reserve my jurisdiction to interpret any part of

this award which is not clear and precise.

We stand adjourned until February 2, 1981.

Done at London, Ontario, this LfLi: day of ~~~, 1980.

I ;

.<'\

.. i" ~v.Jc-~,-',\ ,\

\~'~\.~.W. Samuels, Arbltrator--- I

"'~

--" ". >--"-"-.-"-~'--"-' , ,,- ~- . -'---,--,--~--_.- ---' ...---'