Bargaining information for OPSEU members
at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Issue 5 - February 23, 2010
Download this issue 
Employer files for conciliation
Talks cave in…because the union WON’T
After eleven days at the bargaining table, your Bargaining
Team was notified by the employer that they will be filing for conciliation.
What does this mean? Well it should be familiar to MPAC
members who have been around awhile. It means talks have ended until a
conciliator is appointed by the Office of Conciliation. The conciliator’s
role is to act as an intermediary between the parties in order to get to a
contract.
The conciliator, whoever that is, has their work cut out
for them.
Other than some extremely minor progress on a few issues,
the two sides are still miles apart. Your Bargaining Team is refusing to
cave in on the demands you said were important in the next collective
agreement. And the employer is adamant that the union accept concessions in
the contract that will likely have serious ramifications for every MPAC
member.
So we will wait until the conciliator arrives. In the
meantime, read on to find out what’s at stake.
Re-org: The other side of the story
Last Friday, the employer sent out a
memo outlining their version of what’s involved in the much-anticipated
Organizational Review.
The memo appears to paint a very rosy picture indeed. The
focus is on a realigned structure, advancement opportunities for staff, and,
as the employer stresses, “no job loss.”
Not surprisingly, there are a few things the employer
doesn’t go into a lot of detail on. If you read this memo closely, we’re
sure you noticed them.
The Plan without a plan
The whole employer re-org plan…isn’t. The employer still
refers to “proposed models” and “details” that aren’t yet confirmed. This
boils down to only one thing…whatever the employer is telling you right now
is certainly not the whole story. Yet, they still want the union to
negotiate a collective agreement without knowing all the information.
Now that we are no longer blocked by the February 19 gag
order, what we CAN tell you is that this re-org has been in the “planning”
stages for years. Brought to you by the same bright lights that brought you
“Futures,” there doesn’t appear to have been a whole lot of planning at all.
The Bucket List
Let’s start on a positive note. The employer does plan to
combine the PA3 and PA4 positions at the PA4 level. Of course, this is
something that staff and the union have been recommending to the employer
for years. But the employer still paid $500,000 to KPMG to get the exact
same advice. The employer says this moves operations from “silos” into
“buckets.” We aren’t sure what that means, other than buckets are easier to
empty.
But don’t think this was in any way a simple process. No,
the employer wanted us to pay a price for doing this. How? Their initial
proposal was to put the top rate of pay for the combined positions in
between the top rates for PA3s and PA4s. Then, the employer wanted the
Bargaining Team to toss in all the outstanding PA3 classification
grievances…and they wanted us to do it without telling the grievors. We
refused.
No job loss (but maybe not the job you want)
Then comes the elimination of the Property Inspection
Analyst positions, an elimination the employer has not provided any
rationale for. 41 PIA positions are being eliminated…and the employer only
planned on having 28 Parcelization Coordinator positions for those jobs to
turn into. The union argued for the remaining 13 jobs, and as a result the
employer will offer all PIAs the PC jobs. What the employer doesn’t tell you
is that if a PIA doesn’t want a PC job (and many don’t), their only choice
is to take a Property Inspector job – at the PA2 level with the resulting
$12,000 a year loss in pay. The union had to fight to save these jobs,
because the employer had planned to terminate PIAs who didn’t want to
convert. The employer may say there is no job loss, but that’s only because
the union stopped it from happening.
Where will all the jobs be?
The employer has said they will now have two core business
streams: Residential/Farm Property Valuation and Business Property
Valuation. Here’s the questions they can’t…or won’t…answer in writing:
· How many jobs will be in each stream?
· How will employees be assigned into the business
streams? Will they have a choice?
· How will employees be transitioned into each
stream?
· Will employees be moved from their current
sections?
A slight fork in the tongue
What has your Bargaining Team extremely concerned is the
real conflict between what is in the Isenburg memo and what has happened at
the bargaining table. You be the judge:
“No job loss”
The employer says there will be no job loss as a result of
the re-org (which is not finalized). YET, a union proposal for a “no job
loss guarantee” has been completely refused by the employer. Remember - “No
job loss” doesn’t mean you keep the same job you have, with the same
classification or the same pay…it just means you keep A job.
“Grow your career”
Carl Isenburg says it is “particularly important” to him
that you have the opportunity to grow within MPAC. It sounds like the
employer wants employees to be able to get promotions. YET, the employer has
a demand on the table that would see employees have to do an additional
six-month probationary period if they are successful in competing for a
posted job. Is that a chance you are ready to take?
“Fine-tuning the framework”
While the employer says there will be no job loss, they also
acknowledge that their “plan” isn’t final. The employer may want you to
believe your job is safe. YET, the employer is refusing a union proposal for
a “no lay off” clause in the next collective agreement. “It isn’t necessary”
they say. But they refuse to put it in writing.
It would appear that the rosy memo may have a few thorns.
What we are fairly certain of is this: the employer has used the entire
re-org process as a distraction tool from the real bargaining issues. They
are playing on employees’ fears and uncertainties regarding the re-org, and
hoping that maybe employees would be just happy to have a job (or any job)
and forget about making gains at the bargaining table.
Your Bargaining Team will NOT be swayed from the real
issues.
Employer will not part with Part-Time
Brace yourselves. This employer will not be swayed on their
demand to create part-time positions at MPAC.
Despite Team Chair Ivan Herrington not receiving ONE e-mail
from any member interested in giving up their full-time job, the employer
still insists that part-time positions must be created.
“All this will give us is Wal-Mart-style property
assessment,” Herrington said. “This is a slippery slope that only benefits
the employer.”
Ask the employees of the LCBO. Decades ago, part-time
positions were introduced as a measure to “fill in gaps” for the
full-timers. Today, 60 per cent of their workforce is part-time.
“There is no practical or compelling operational reason to
do this,” Herrington said. “The employer is still completely stonewalling us
on Compressed Work Week, stating they are a ‘five-day-a-week’ business.
Therefore, their only motivation has to be cost savings.”
And costs they WILL save. Under the employer’s
scheme, part-timers will not receive any benefits, and have a reduced
pension. The supposed “promotional opportunities” the employer is crowing
about could be part-time positions, and allow the return of retirees or
ex-managers into them.
“This is not about what the employer says will happen, it’s
about what the language in the contract will allow them to do,” Herrington
said. “While the employer is saying that current jobs won’t be converted
into part-time, this could affect every future vacancy at MPAC. Everywhere,
unions are fighting against part-time work, demanding decent full-time jobs.
Now, MPAC wants to create part-timers.”
The union also plans to talk to municipal leaders and ask
their thoughts on the kind of service they expect with a part-time MPAC.
“Municipalities are already dissatisfied with the backlogs,” Herrington
said. “It sure won’t get better with employees working less hours.”
There is one last thing to consider: there is no guarantee
that current full-time jobs may not turn into part-time if the persons
holding those positions quit or retire. And if that happens, the number of
full-time employees paying into the benefit plan shrinks…so imagine what
THAT will do to the cost of premiums. Think about it.
Here’s what you (don’t) get
With all the distractions of the re-org and the employer’s
insistence on part-time jobs, we can’t lose sight of the issues we are
SUPPOSED to be bargaining. Not that the employer seems interested in
anything you told us was important in your next contract.
Benefit improvements – DENIED
The union wants to eliminate the $3 dollar charge on the
drug card and gain improvements to vision care. N-O says the employer.
Instead, they want to take away benefits by putting additional limits and
reduced caps on paramedical, dental and orthopedics and orthotics.
To illustrate the employer’s complete disregard in this
area, they gave the union their “benefit costing” proposal just last
Thursday morning, a document we have been requesting for months. They then
expected the union to wade through all these figures, AND reach a tentative
settlement by the next day. NOT.
Post-retirement benefits – DENIED
The union wants all employees moved into Group B in Letter
of Understanding #4, which will provide lifetime benefits to all Group C
employees (who only have benefits until age 65) and all Group A employees in
the event their pensions transfer to OMERS. That proposal has received a
flat out NO.
Protection for IT Platform members – DENIED
The employer still refuses to make any adjustments to their
plan that will potentially see 11 ITA4 positions downgraded to ITA3s. We
still believe that the newly-created ITA5 positions will be filled by
current IT consultants, and the employer maintains the position that “it may
be too late” to train the current ITA4 members to fill the
higher-classification jobs
Improvements to the hiring process – DENIED
The employer refuses to bargain language that will eliminate
the current “FFF” hiring practice (Family, Friends and Favorites). The
employer only wants to commit to “meeting” with the union to discuss
issues…the same meetings we have been having for years. Oh, and in exchange
for these meetings, the employer wants the union to withdraw its policy
grievance on hiring. The employer also won’t budge on our demand that would
stop them from placing employees in acting assignments without
competition…and of course THAT person gets the training and experience to
get the full-time job (refer to “FFF” above).
Overtime improvements – DENIED
The union wants to eliminate the current two-tiered overtime
system, which would allow ALL employees to earn overtime after 36 and
one-quarter hours. The employer says no.
Compressed Work Week – DENIED
As mentioned earlier, the employer is “not interested
whatsoever” in CWW. Unless they get their wish for part-time, in which case
members may find their work week severely compressed.
A decent wage increase – DENIED
Last week we told you the employer’s wage offer was woefully
low. This week, we can announce that the employer is offering 5.75 per cent!
Which sounds good…except it’s over four years.
That’s right…the offer is 1, 1.5, 1.5 and 1.75. And they are
insisting on a four-year collective agreement. This wage offer is paltry
compared to the wage settlements for other recent public sector contracts.
Gains, we have a few…but then again, too few to mention…
But we will mention them anyway. The union has settled some
issues at the table. They are:
· Family Day is now officially a holiday in the
collective agreement (it became law in 2008).
· For full-time employees, bereavement for parents,
spouse and children has been increased from four days to five. Contract
employees get three days bereavement for parents, spouse and children, and
one day for others. Apparently, the employer believes that contract staff
are less bereaved when they lose a loved one.
· Minor improvements for the employer to respond to
a grievance, from 30 days down to 20 days.
· Recall rights for laid off employees have been
extended from 18 months to 24 months (of course, if there are no layoffs,
there should be no issue).
Now it’s time to show the employer
At the beginning of the newsletter, we said conciliation
should be familiar to MPAC members who have been around awhile.
“Bargaining heads for the crunch – Employer files for
conciliation.” Déjà vu? It should be. That was the headline from Issue 3 of
our bargaining newsletter on February 20, 2006 – almost EXACTLY four years
ago.
This time, things are a bit different. THIS TIME, the
employer is firmly rooted in their takeaways. Negotiating alone will not
remove them. What your team needs is strong support…and a strong strike
vote.
“We are not taking this step lightly,” Team Chair Ivan
Herrington said. “We know we will need a very strong strike vote from the
members to get the takeaways off the table, and make some gains in our
contract.”
Herrington is angry that the employer doesn’t believe the
members can deliver.
“The employer said to us that the union is posturing, and
that the members won’t give us a strong mandate to back their demands and
prevent the takeaways,” Herrington said. “They think so little of the
contributions our members make to this organization that the employer feels
they can create a part-time workforce, downgrade jobs and rip concessions
out of the contract. They think we are going to roll over and die. We are
going to prove them 100 per cent wrong.”
The Bargaining Team will be sending out details in the weeks
ahead for dates and times for the vote. In the meantime, please continue to
voice your support in the workplace. Tell the employer you aren’t ready
to roll over.
Keep in touch!
To ensure a speedy response to your questions, your leadership team has divided up all MPAC offices in the province. If you have a question or a comment, please contact the bargaining team member responsible for your office. Contact us by e-mail at work or at home, as follows:
Ivan Herrington, Chair: Barrie, Kitchener,
London, Milner (CCC, CPF, LPU),
Mississauga, Trenton.
E-mail: iherrington@cogeco.ca ;
herriniv@mpac.ca
Gary Cooper: Brantford, Chatham, Goderich, Hamilton, Owen Sound, Sarnia, Windsor.
Email: gcooper@iaw.com ;
cooperga@mpac.ca
Everett Kelly: Oshawa, Peterborough,
Pickering, Richmond Hill, Toronto.
E-mail: evkelly@rogers.com ;
kellyev@mpac.ca
David Lynch: Bracebridge, Dryden, Fort
Frances, Kenora, North Bay, Ottawa, Parry
Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins.
E-mail: opseu409@yahoo.ca ;
lynchda@mpac.ca
Bill Robertson: Bancroft, Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, Pembroke.
E-mail: robertson2@cogeco.ca ;
robertbi@mpac.ca
Rob Field, OPSEU Staff Negotiator
E-mail: rfield@opseu.org
ImpacT At the Table
is produced by the bargaining team for the Property Assessment Division of
the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and authorized for distribution
by Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president.
Download this issue
