Corrections: Reject this offer!
On January 5, 2009, your Corrections Bargaining
Team met in Toronto to review the latest offer put forward from
the employer. After reviewing all of our options, it is clear
that the employer will NOT move off of their punitive sick time
position or make any substantial improvements. As such, the Team
will put this offer to the members, and asks that all members
vote NO on Jan. 27, 28 and 29 to reject this insulting offer.
Employer leak ‘shameful’
First, a warning to all Corrections Bargaining
Unit members: The team has become aware that the employer has
leaked a document that is allegedly their latest offer. This
document is not the correct one! This shameful tactic by the
employer (who was constantly worried about our side leaking
information) shows how underhanded the employer can be.
You can
download the correct employer offer here
This offer has NOT been negotiated
Since Nov. 4, 2008, your team has been trying to
negotiate with the employer the demands Corrections locals put
forward. These demands included wages, special cases, pensions,
premium pay, vacancy management and workload issues.
However, for the past month and a half, the
employer has refused to negotiate ANY of these items unless the
team first agrees to the employer’s horrific sick plan.
Let us be clear: The offer now before us
is an offer that has NOT been negotiated by your Corrections
Team. It is an offer made by the employer to undercut your
bargaining team, in the hopes members will swallow the “poison
pill” – namely the sick time takeaway.
Below is an explanation of the employer’s offer,
and reasons why you should REJECT this offer at the end
of January.
Sick time plan rooted firmly in place
As mentioned earlier, the employer has refused
to negotiate any of the union’s demands until the team agrees to
their sick time takeaway for correctional officers and youth
workers ONLY.
In December, the union signed an agreement with
the employer to move the issue of correctional officer and youth
worker sick time from the Central Table to the Corrections
table. We wanted to ensure that the team that negotiated this
issue directly represented the two classifications that were
affected.
On Dec. 22, the team published an issue sheet on
the employer proposal - Targeted benefits? THIS PLAN IS SICK
(http://www.opseu.org/ops/barg2008/issue-sheet/sickleave_v2.pdf).
None of these provisions have changed. The employer still wants
to remove correctional officers and youth workers from the OPS
Short Term Sickness Plan (Article 44) and implement a new plan
to replace it. Under this plan:
· Sick time will be managed by an outside insurance
carrier.
· Sick time is only accrued at a rate of five hours per
month, only if you have full attendance that month.
· After four consecutive days of absence without pay,
Correctional Officers and Youth Workers move to 66 2/3 per cent
pay on the fifth day if the claim is approved by the insurance
carrier.
· If you do not have any sick time in the bank, any
absence that is less than five consecutive days is unpaid.
· If the insurance company denies the claim, the employee
gets paid nothing.
· This denial is not grievable. An appeal must be made to
the Joint Insured Benefits Review Committee (a joint
management-union committee that has no adjudication process).
Since Dec. 22, the employer has made one
change; a change that they mistakenly thought the team would
accept. The employer has proposed that a Joint Attendance
Strategy Implementation Committee (management-union) be
established to improve sick time. Of course, there’s a catch.
Under the employer’s proposal, the current OPS
sick plan would stay in place. In Year 1 of the agreement, the
yearly provincial sick time average for correctional officers
and youth workers must fall to 13.33 days. In Year 2 of the
agreement, the provincial sick time average must fall to 10.66
days. If either of those targets is not met, the NEW
employer sick time plan goes into effect. Even if both
targets are met for the first two years, the new employer plan
remains a threat and will be implemented anytime the yearly sick
time average exceeds 10.66 days. And yes, the second target is
below the current ministry-established provincial sick time
target of 11 days.
It’s not hard to read between the lines. Since
this committee is a joint management-union committee, all the
employer has to do to get their new sick plan is ensure that the
committee fails. In Las Vegas, this is called a sure bet, with
the employer holding the loaded dice.
Your Corrections Bargaining Team, from Day 1,
has stood firm and completely opposed this plan. We believe that
there can be constructive methods to address long-standing
issues that are the root of sick time problems. However, we will
not accept a plan that punishes any of our members.
The rest of the employer’s offer contains
so-called “improvements” that only sound good until you really
think about them. And don’t forget: They are all contingent
on acceptance of the sick time plan! They are:
A 50-30 Pension Plan
Don’t confuse this with Factor 80. In response
to the union’s proposal for a reduced pension factor for public
safety occupations (as allowed under federal legislation) as
well as a permanent Factor 80, the employer responded with their
“50-30” plan for correctional officers and youth workers only.
As opposed to Factor 80 (age + years of service = 80), under
50-30 you must be at least 50 years old AND have 30 years of
service. The employer has offered correctional officers and
youth workers an extra six per cent in wages which would just
pay the cost for this “improvement.” However, during the
four-year life of the collective agreement, less than 350
members would be able to access this provision. This is
totally inadequate.
Unclassified rollovers
The employer has proposed to roll over 250
unclassified positions to permanent classified positions during
the four-year contract. Sound good? Consider this: During the
previous collective agreement, the Corrections MERC Team
negotiated nearly 500 rollovers. In those terms, the
employer’s proposal is actually a takeaway.
Here’s something else to consider: If those 350
members took the employer’s 50-30 pension plan, the 250
unclassified rollovers would still leave the bargaining unit
short 100 classified positions on top of the regular vacancies
that occur. Some deal. Additionally if the sick time takeaway
passes, forcing classified workers to come to work sick,
unclassified hours will be greatly reduced and may result in
unclassified contracts not being renewed.
The team firmly believes that unclassified
40-hour work weeks will disappear, preventing unclassifieds
from earning attendance credits, Appendix 24 seniority and
affecting continuous service date.
Increase to meal allowance
The employer proposes to increase the overtime
meal allowance from $10 to $11.25. A huge increase. So, if you
are asked the question, your answer is: “No. I still can’t
afford fries with that.”
Increase to on-call pay
On-call pay will be increased from $1 per hour
to $1.25 per hour in the first year of the agreement. In the
fourth year of the agreement, it will be increased to $1.40.
Yes, it is technically an improvement, but for who?
Schedule 6 overtime
Schedule 6 Probation and Probation and Parole
Officers would receive time and one-half pay for working
overtime on weekends and holidays under the offer, but only if
pre-authorized by the employer. “Pre-authorized” also replaces
the word “required” that is in the current agreement.
Translation? Overtime will never be “pre-authorized.”
Hiring of PO3 positions
The employer wants to create only 10
(ten) Probation Officer 3 positions, province-wide - six in
Corrections (for 118 offices) and four in Children and Youth
Services (for 64 offices). These positions would be filled by
competition.
Since the creation of the PO3 position, NONE
have been hired. This completely insufficient employer proposal
was in response to the union’s demand that the PO3 wages be
converted to additional steps on the PO2 grid.
Which, of course, the employer ignored.
Don’t forget what else was ignored
What is most important about this so-called
“offer” by the employer is what it doesn’t have. Don’t forget
what you said was important for your next collective
agreement, which helped form the team’s opening position on Nov.
12, 2008 (http://www.opseu.org/ops/barg2008/pdf
/CORRECTIONSopeningproposal_081112.pdf).
· Clear identification for work of the Corrections
Bargaining Unit – IGNORED
· Improvements for employer-requested shift changes –
IGNORED
· Increase to shift premiums – IGNORED
· Increase to weekend premiums – IGNORED
· Improvements to call-back provisions – IGNORED
· Improvements to standby time – IGNORED
· Improvements to holiday pay – IGNORED
· Improvements to the legal indemnification provisions –
IGNORED
· Protection against employer abuse of surveillance
technology – IGNORED
· Increase of PO/PPO allowance from seven days per year to
20 days per year – IGNORED (current allowance only
recognizes unpaid overtime of less than one hour per week)
· Workload issues across the entire bargaining unit –
IGNORED
· Delete Correctional Officer 1, Probation Officer 1 and
Recreational Officer 1 classification grids. Entry level for
these positions would be at the CO2, PO2 and RO2 grids
respectively – IGNORED
· Add a retention grid steps to all classifications at the
8, 15 and 25 years (similar to OPPA) – IGNORED
· Some special case submissions from the local demand set
process were completely ignored. Other special case adjustments
were minimized and contingent on sick time takeaways.
Almost all of these improvements are to
compensate members of the Corrections Bargaining Unit for the
pain and suffering of dealing with hazardous work environments,
high stress, interacting with often dangerous and violent
offenders, losing precious time with family and friends, missing
holidays and shouldering a tremendous responsibility in the
protection of the public.
Callously, the employer (the same employer who
said a few short months ago that you were the “key to our
success,”) has ignored every demand that would increase
morale and improve your working lives.
Reject this offer!
In the coming weeks, members of the Corrections
Bargaining Team will be travelling to local and regional
meetings to answer your questions about this offer. Watch for
information about meetings in your area.
Every member, whether working in the community
or in an institution, should be insulted by this offer. On
Jan. 27-29, your Corrections Bargaining Team asks that you give
us a 100 per cent rejection and strike vote. You are worth
much more than this. You know it. We know it. And the employer
knows it. And it’s time for us to remind them, as only
Corrections can.
In summing up, previous gains for corrections
came only after you rejected the first offer. Turn this
offer down and give your bargaining team the mandate to get the
real settlement we all deserve.
We thank you for your support.
Only Corrections Bargaining Unit affected
Only the Corrections Bargaining Team has
recommended that their members reject the employers offer
(affected job classifications are listed on pages 467-472 of the
current OPS collective agreement).
Original authorized for distribution:
David Kerr, Chair Corrections Team
Warren (Smokey) Thomas, President Ontario Public
Service Employees Union
Download this issue
