IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

("the Employer") AND: THE SOCIETY OF ENERGY PROFESSIONALS

("the Society") IN THE MATTER OF: RENEWAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT SOLE ARBITRATOR: Kevin M. Burkett APPEARANCES FOR THE EMPLOYER: John West - Counsel Brian Gottheil - Counsel Associate Scott Martin - Vice President – Labour Relations, Safety, Wellness and Corp Security Glenn Zavitz - Director – Labour Relations Joe Kennedy - Manager – Labour Relations Carissa Nowak - Senior Staff Relations Officer Connie Hergert - Manager – Labour Relations, Safety, Wellness and Corp Security Brian Duncan - Deputy Site Vice President – Darlington Nuclear Mike Martelli - Plant Manager – Niagara Plant Group Tom Christensen - Director – Thermal Supply Chain Eric McCarthy - Director – Fuels Jean Beharrell - Human Resources Manager

APPEARANCES FOR THE SOCIETY: Joe Fierro - Local Vice-President Victor Chetcuti - Unit 2 Director Peter Tien - Unit 8 Director Tony Kokus - Unit 9 Director Alex Saba - Unit 16 Director Andre Kolompar - Staff Officer Elizabeth Traicus - Staff Officer Joe Lesperance - Staff Officer Hearing in this matter was held in Toronto, Ontario on January 17, 2011.

The Society of Energy Professionals (Society) has had a longstanding

collective bargaining relationship with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its

predecessor, Ontario Hydro. The Society and OPG were party to a collective

agreement that expired December 31, 2010. Pursuant to article 15 of that collective

agreement, "Future contract negotiations disputes shall be resolved by binding

arbitration (and further that) the dispute resolution process shall be mediation-

arbitration using the same individual as both the mediator and arbitrator." I have been

appointed under article 15 as the mediator-arbitrator in respect of the renegotiation of

the collective agreement between the parties that expired December 31, 2010. There is

no dispute with respect to my jurisdiction in this regard. Mediation/arbitration briefs

were submitted by both parties in advance of the mediation that took place on January

15 and 16, 2011, followed by a formal arbitration hearing on January 17, 2011.

By way of background, OPG was incorporated on December 1, 1998 as one of

five successor companies to the predecessor Ontario Hydro. OPG is charged with

generating electric power and in this regard operates three nuclear stations (Pickering

A, Pickering B and Darlington), five fossil fuel stations and 65 hydroelectric stations.

OPG employs some 11,900 employees, located at various sites across the province, of

whom approximately 3,724 are represented by the Society and 6,917 by the Power

Workers' Union (PWU), an affiliate of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The

1

Society membership is comprised of engineers, scientists and other professional staff,

including those in supervisory, administrative and engineering services.

Because Society members oversee and supervise the work of PWU members,

the differentials between these two groups of employees come to the fore in collective

bargaining. Further, given the education, training and responsibilities of Society

members, they earn sizeable incomes. The maximum for the lowest salary band

(MP2) exceeds $90,000 per annum and then, moving from MP3 to MP6, the

maximum salary ranges from $98,113 to $118,924 per annum. Six hundred twenty-

seven of the 966 professional engineers employed by OPG earn in excess of $100,000

per annum. However, as I made clear in Bruce Power LP and Society (2004) 126 LAC

(4th) 144, also an interest dispute involving the Society, "absent comparative analysis

of duties and responsibilities as between these and other similarly educated and

trained persons ... there is no basis upon which to conclude that the members of this

bargaining unit enjoy an absolute salary advantage that should act to moderate future

salary increases."

The background also requires a brief overview of the statutory regime under

which OPG operates. As part of the restructuring of the predecessor Ontario Hydro,

OPG was incorporated under the Ontario Business Corporations Act to perform the

electricity generation functions of the predecessor Ontario Hydro. Its sole shareholder

is the Province of Ontario who appoints its 12-member board of directors. This

ownership structure is especially important in this round of bargaining, given the

2

passage of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint to Protect Public Services Act

(Bill 16) and the provincial government's accompanying restraint policy, about which

I will have more to say.

The restructuring of the predecessor Ontario Hydro was designed to introduce

competition into the electricity market. As a result, OPG now faces competitive

pressure from other electricity producers that has been statutorily arranged and

encouraged. The Green Energy Act, enacted in 2009, enables the Ontario Power

Authority (OPA) to implement the "feed-in tariff (FIT)" program. Under this program,

OPA offers guaranteed contracts to producers of electricity from renewable sources

(wind, solar). These contracts offer significantly higher rates than the rates OPG is

able to charge. They also ensure that electricity is purchased from renewable sources

before it is purchased from OPG. The OPA has also entered into a number of other

generation supply contracts pursuant to ministerial directives with natural gas

generators, nuclear generators and hydroelectric generators. In the result, OPG,

because it, in effect, stands last in line, has not been able to sell all of its available

generation even though responsible for operating and maintaining the assets necessary

to supply the base power load for the province of Ontario.

OPG also faces greater regulatory pressures than did Ontario Hydro. The

Ontario Energy Board (OEB) is an independent, quasi-judicial energy industry

regulator with a statutory obligation to protect the interests of consumers with respect

to electricity prices. Given the recent spike in consumer electricity prices, for reasons

3

related to the higher price of "green" energy, it can be expected that the OEB will be

seeking to moderate these price increases, including any price increase sought by

OPG. OEB determines the rates that OPG can charge for its nuclear-generated

electricity and its regulated hydroelectric plants (70% of OPG's energy production and

45% of its generating capacity). The OEB exercises its mandate in this regard through

a public hearing process under which OPG has a legal onus to demonstrate that its

costs are just and reasonable. The OEB decision on 2011-12 rates is expected in

February 2011. Because the Province has announced that it intends to eliminate coal-

fired generation, the proportion of OPG's revenues that it derives from regulated

production will increase in the future.

While OPG develops its own business strategies and business plans, these plans

must be approved by the Government of Ontario as its sole shareholder. More

generally, the Government of Ontario also controls OPG's overall mandate and, in this

regard, ensures that OPG provides a consistent level of base power and, at the same

time, restrains OPG from pursuing certain investment opportunities, including

investments in renewable electricity generation. In addition, the Province of Ontario,

as sole shareholder, has required OPG to make significant capital investments to

upgrade and refurbish its nuclear generation facilities. The Government of Ontario

must also approve any decisions on new generation, such that OPG asserts that it

lacks control over its ability to invest in activities that it believes might increase its

revenue.

4

All of the foregoing has informed OPG's bargaining position in this round.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, OPG had a net income of $623 million in

2009 and $447 million for the first three quarters of 2010 (the most recent reporting

period). Over the 2012 to 2015 period, OPG's return on investment is forecast at the

5% to 6% range which would produce net income of between $440 million and $480

million annually throughout the period.

In this round, the influence of the Government of Ontario extends beyond the

statutory, regulatory and administrative parameters already identified. In March 2010,

the Government of Ontario enacted the Public Sector Compensation Restraint to

Protect Public Services Act 2010 (Bill 16) in response to a ballooning provincial

deficit. The bill freezes the compensation of non-unionized government employees

and non-union employees of its transfer partners. Although it does not apply to the

unionized employees of these employers, the Government of Ontario made a number

of related pronouncements having to do with wage restraint for unionized employees

and the withholding of funding for collectively bargained compensation increases that

had not already been finalized. The budget speech cautioned that there would be "no

funding for incremental compensation increases for any future collective agreements."

As recently as January 12, 2011, the week before this mediation/arbitration, the

Government of Ontario, over the signatures of both the Minister of Energy and the

Minister of Finance, wrote to remind OPG that "as an agency of the Province (it) is

subject to these obligations and expectations." Consistent with the direction of the

5

Government of Ontario, the bargaining position of OPG and the position it has taken

throughout is that there should be a zero net compensation increase over a two-year

term.

It should come as no surprise that the parties made very little progress in direct

two-party negotiation. Once OPG made it known that it was seeking a zero net

compensation agreement and that it would be maintaining that position throughout,

there was no reason for the Society to moderate its position or to seriously consider

the OPG demands designed to improve the efficiency of its operations. The effect of

the Government pronouncement and its direction to OPG was to "freeze" the

bargaining and thereby to prevent the parties from either moving to an agreement or at

least prioritizing their respective bargaining positions. In the result, an inordinate

number of issues have been put into dispute before me. These are:

Society Items

• Term

• Wages

• Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)

• Practice of Terminating Employees' Sick Leave Entitlements While Employee

has Medical Certification for Sick Leave and the Requirement for Independent

Medical Examinations

• Employee Choice on Payment Methods for Overtime Worked

6

• Modify Article 5 to Collect Dues from Society Members in Management

Rotations Beyond 90 Days

• Incorporate Vacation Carryover Language

• Improvements to Shift Change/Lack of Notice Payments

• Parties to Agree to any Changes to an Employee's Normal/Standard Hours of

Work

• Move Band N LOU (174) into Collective Agreement

• Add Additional Arbitrators to List of Arbitrators

• Improved Work Boot Allowance

• Clarify Posting of Vacancies

• Increase Eyeglasses Coverage

• Reinstate Coverage for Over-the-Counter Drugs

• Improve Coverage for Dental Implants

• Increase Retirement Bonus

• Amend Funeral Leave Provisions

• Expedited Release of Persons Selected to Vacancies and No Loss Suffered by

Them for any Delays in Release

• Remove Relief Pay 15-Day Waiting Period

• Update Language to Pay for Training Time Beyond Normal Working Hours

7

OPG Items

• Article 16 – Complaint and Grievance/Arbitration Process and Article 19 – Job

Challenges

• Article 64(b) – Non-Surplus Redeployment of Staff and Article 105 – Change

of Work Headquarters

• Article 67 – Purchased Services Agreement

• Article 65.3 – Advanced Planning

• Article 65.6.3 – Selections for Assignments Other Than Relief or Rotations

• Articles 59.3 and 60.4 – Shift Allowances

• Hours of Work and Averaging

• Article 9 – Collective Agreement Term

• Article 24 – Escalator Clause

• General Administrative Points – Review of LOUs and Midterms; Correcting

Article 59.7

OPG served the Society with notice of its intent to alter a number of practices

that it maintains, although beneficial to Society members, are not required under the

collective agreement. The Society responded with corresponding contractual demands

that are incorporated within the Society issues that are in dispute. Further, it must be

noted at this point that OPG has also moved to cancel the Award for Performance

(AFP) program that existed outside the collective agreement. The AFP program

8

provided Society members with, on average, an annual salary adjustment of about

2.5%.

The collective agreement under which I have been appointed is explicit with

respect to the factors that I am to consider in rendering an award. Article 15 stipulates

that I must weigh the following:

(a) A balanced assessment of internal relativities, general economic conditions, external relativities;

(b) OPG's need to retain, motivate and recruit qualified staff; (c) The cost of changes and their impact on total compensation; (d) The financial soundness of OPG and its ability to pay.

I have assessed the respective positions of the parties having regard to the factors

identified in article 15 above, together with the long accepted interest arbitration

criteria of demonstrated need and replication.

What account then is to be taken of the Government's compensation restraint

pronouncements and their application here? Absent legislative confirmation, these

pronouncements are of no binding force or effect and, given the specific factors under

article 15 that must govern my deliberation, they can be of no practical effect either.

Except to the extent that I must take account under article 15(a) of "general economic

conditions," that might support the Government's restraint pronouncements, these

pronouncements cannot be taken into account. To find otherwise would make the

article 15 factors irrelevant and thereby undermine the acceptability of my award and

9

raise grounds upon which to challenge its enforceability. The interest arbitration

awards that have spoken with respect to the application of the Government of

Ontario's restraint pronouncements are consistent with the conclusion that I am bound

by the contractual factors set out at article 15 and by the longstanding criteria used in

interest arbitration that must be implied as binding under language that establishes

interest arbitration as the final dispute resolution mechanism. These include:

• Science Centre and SEIU (August 19, 2010) unreported (McDowell)

• Participating Hospitals and SEIU (November 5, 2010) unreported (Burkett)

• University of Toronto and Faculty Association (October 5, 2010) unreported

(Teplitsky)

• Participating Nursing Homes and SEIU (September 15, 2010) unreported

(Jessin)

• Brain Injury Services of Hamilton, etc. and United Steel, Paper, etc. Workers

International Union, Local 1-500 2010 OLAA No. 581 (Albertyn)

I have decided on an application of the contractual factors set out at article 15

that a two-year term is appropriate with an across-the-board wage increase of 3%

effective January 1, 2011 and further across-the-board wage increases of 2% effective

January 1, 2012 and 1% effective April 1, 2012.

Factor (a), a balanced assessment of internal relativities, general economic

conditions and external relativities, supports these increases. The PWU, in voluntary

two-party negotiations, settled with OPG for 2011 for 3% effective January 1, 2011

10

(with the continuation of its goal sharing program) and has tentatively settled with

Bruce Power for 2.75% effective January 1, 2011, 2.75% effective January 1, 2012

and 3.5% effective January 1, 2013. Arbitrator Herman has awarded 3% increases for

Society members employed by the Electrical Safety Association for both 2010 and

2011. Further, the Society and Kinectrics have in place a two-party settlement that

increases wages by 3% per annum for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Inflation is projected to

exceed 2% for both 2011 and 2012, with the evidence establishing that historically

average wage settlements across Ontario (2005 to 2009 inclusive) have consistently

exceeded the increases in the CPI for the comparable periods by amounts ranging

from .3% to 1.2% per annum. The evidence further establishes that the wage increases

for Society members at OPG during this period have outstripped average Ontario

wage settlements by amounts ranging from 0% to .6% per annum.

Turning to factor (b), OPG, in its submissions to the OEB, has estimated that

20-25% of its employees will need to be replaced by 2014 due to a rapidly aging

workforce demographic. The turnover estimate for engineering staff (represented by

the Society) ranges from 25-50% in this period. In regard to the difficulties that this

presents, OPG advised the OEB as follows:

In order to support the diverse mix of generation technologies within OPG, staff must be highly skilled, and must possess a wider array of skills than employees in many other utilities. OPG's workforce is comprised of engineers, scientists, other professional staff, and skilled trades people. Approximately 8,760 employees (73 per cent of the OPG population) require post secondary education to perform their jobs. For the majority of these, two or more years of community college or a

11

university degree is required, and this education ranges from skilled technical or technologist training, to advanced university degrees in fields such as engineering and finance. The highly skilled staff are in demand across the country, and OPG must compete for these employees with Bruce Power and other private generators and energy service organizations as well as the general marketplace.

Given the foregoing, the 75th percentile link to the external market does not seem out

of line.

Factor (c) requires an assessment of the "cost of changes and their impact on

total compensation." Under this factor, account must be taken of OPG's unilateral

discontinuance of the Award for Performance program – a program that existed

outside the collective agreement. This plan had, on average, provided Society-

represented employees with an annual increase of approximately 2.5% in pay. OPG

served notice of its intent to discontinue this plan effective December 31, 2010, in

conjunction with the negotiation of this renewal collective agreement. It follows that

the cost savings to OPG, which directly impact the total compensation of these

employees, must be taken into account under factor (c). When reference is had to the

approximate 2.5% annual savings to OPG and the corresponding approximate 2.5%

decrease in the total compensation of these employees, it must be found that on any

objective assessment, the cost impact of this award is reasonable.

Finally, under factor (d), "the financial soundness of OPG and its ability to

pay," it must be found that even though being forced to operate, in effect, with one

arm tied behind its back, OPG is a profitable enterprise. OPG had a net income of

12

$623 million in 2009 and a net income of $447 million for the first three quarters of

2010 (the last available reporting period). The projections are for net income

approaching $500 million per annum going forward. While there may be an element

of financial uncertainty caused by the strict parameters that apply to the scope of

OPG's operations and by the favoured treatment afforded producers of renewable

energy, the fact remains that OPG is charged with producing the base load power that

the renewable producers cannot guarantee. It follows that OPG, absent a significant

recession, will remain a profitable enterprise capable of maintaining the relative

compensation position of its employees.

When reference is had to the foregoing analysis of the article 15 factors, salary

increases of the magnitude that are to be awarded over a two-year term (3% effective

January 1, 2010, 2% effective January 1, 2012 and 1% effective April 1, 2012),

coupled with minimal other compensation improvements (see below), are both

supportable and necessary.

It became clear that the priority benefit improvement sought by the Society is

the inclusion of coverage for dental implants in circumstances where the treating

dentist advises that dental implants are the effective treatment choice. Presently,

coverage is provided where dental implants are the least costly alternative. OPG

estimates the cost of this benefit improvement at .05% of base payroll or $210,000 per

year. The Society asserts that these figures are inflated because they are based on an

estimated cost of $4,500 per implant when, in fact, dental implants range from $1,500

13

to $4,500 depending upon the tooth that is being replaced. Even on OPG's cost

analysis, this is not an overly expensive item in the context of the two-year agreement

sought by OPG, especially where there are no other benefit improvements, where it is

awarded in the second year and where there has been a 2.5% takeaway. Accordingly,

while I acknowledge that this is a "breakthrough" item, I am prepared to award it as

the Society's priority benefit item commencing in the second year and as the only

benefit improvement that is awarded.

OPG served the Society with notice of intent to alter a number of practices that

it considers as providing benefits and/or entitlements that are beyond the requirements

of the collective agreement. One of these concerned the ability to carry over from one

year to the next a portion of one's vacation credits. There has been a practice of

allowing such carryover. Indeed, there is a form designed for the purpose of recording

and facilitating such requests. I am of the view that professionals should be able to

carry over a specified number of vacation days per year where to do so would not

interfere with the employer's operation. Indeed, as noted, this has been the practice.

The notice of intent was filed for the purposes of allowing OPG to discontinue the

practice. This would amount to another takeaway. In the context of negotiations where

there has already been a major takeaway (albeit outside the collective agreement) in

the form of the discontinuation of the AFP plan, I am not prepared to have this

practice discontinued. Accordingly, I am awarding the Society demand, which strikes

an appropriate balance between employee convenience and operating imperatives. As

14

for the remaining notice of intent items, I am awarding that, going forward, the parties

will rely on their respective interpretations of the relevant language without regard to

the past practice under that language. In other words, the practice is not to inform the

interpretation nor is it to form the basis of an estoppel.

Turning to the Employer items, I have attempted to discern where there is real

operational need and to balance that need against the need to protect essential

employee interests from arbitrary or unreasonable Employer actions. I have attempted

to identify compromises that may have resulted had these parties been faced with

strike or lockout and thereby to apply the principle of replication. In this regard, I

have proceeded on the basis that within the confines of the Society having to protect

the essential interests of its members, both parties share a common interest in the

efficient operation of the enterprise.

In addition to a number of other issues, OPG has identified the need for greater

flexibility in assigning and/or moving individuals between various worksites in its

nuclear division, especially within Durham Region. I am satisfied that OPG has a

legitimate business interest in such flexibility and that to a meaningful extent such

flexibility can be achieved without unduly impinging upon employee interests. I refer

specifically to the OPG request to redefine the Darlington work headquarters as

including a 10-kilometre radius around the station (from 5 kilometres) under article

105 and the OPG request to amend the definition of "incumbent" under article 64(B).

However, whereas I see no difficulty in amending the definition of incumbent to

15

include volunteers, I am uncomfortable with expanding the definition to include

anyone not eligible for relocation assistance. I am uncomfortable because the degree

of employee protection under article 64(B) would then be determined by where an

employee resides. Where an employee resides is a matter of an individual choice that

involves a host of family, personal and economic considerations that ought not to

determine whether an employee is entitled to avail him/herself of the article 64(B)

process. Having said this, the current application of article 64(B) is overly expansive.

I intend to remit this narrow issue back to the parties for the purpose of having them

negotiate a definition of incumbency that includes not only volunteers but also

employees subject to work location changes of less than a stipulated distance and to

remain seized.

Having regard to the foregoing, I will be awarding that, under article 105, the

Darlington site be defined as including a 10-kilometre radius around the station

(provided there is no change to the administration of the relocation assistance); the

definition of incumbents in article 64(B) be expanded to include volunteers and those

subject to a work location change of less than a stipulated distance (this issue to be

remitted back for determination by the parties with the arbitrator remaining seized);

article 65.3 be amended to make the clause applicable to work arrangements of greater

than five working days' duration; and finally, I will be awarding the incorporation of

an LOU confirming the Society agreement to averaging hours of work under the

Employment Standards Act.

16

The Society argues that I am without jurisdiction to award a letter of

understanding confirming its agreement to averaging of hours of work beyond that

stipulated under the Employment Standards Act. Subsection 22(2) of the ESA states

that in order to average an employee's hours for overtime purposes, the employer must

have both an agreement with the employee and a permit from the Director. An interest

arbitrator imposes whole collective agreements. Indeed, these parties have clothed me

with the jurisdiction to make an award with respect to any and all disputes arising out

of the renegotiation of their collective agreement. The parties are free to include an

averaging provision, confirming employee agreement, within a collective agreement.

The question of an averaging agreement was the subject matter of negotiation between

these parties and ultimately a disagreement. It follows, therefore, that it is within my

jurisdiction to award where the parties are in dispute with respect to the averaging

specifics. Further, the Society's policy argument that an averaging agreement should

not be imposed because it will not be subject to ratification ignores the essential

function of the interest arbitrator – to award a collective agreement that itself is not

subject to ratification. If the issue of an averaging agreement is a legitimate matter for

collective bargaining, which it is, and if the parties are in disagreement, which they

are, it falls to the interest arbitrator to decide the issue as part of his overall award –

which is not subject to ratification by either side.

In circumstances where the parties have agreed to 74 arbitration dates for 2011,

where the parties have agreed between themselves in this round to add three

17

arbitrators to the list of mutually acceptable arbitrators and where the transformative

amendments sought by OPG have not been the subject of extensive discussion and

analysis between the parties, I have not awarded the OPG proposals under article 16,

Grievance and Arbitration. This is not to say that the even-handed and efficient

operation of the grievance and arbitration procedure should not be the subject matter

of ongoing monitoring and discussion between the parties.

The parties tendered extensive briefs and made oral submissions dealing with

all the issues in dispute. I have given full consideration to these submissions. Having

regard to these submissions and to the foregoing commentary, I hereby award as

follows.

A W A R D

The parties are hereby directed to enter into a renewal collective agreement for

the term January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 that contains all the terms and

conditions of the predecessor collective agreement save and except that it is amended

to incorporate the following:

1. All matters agreed between the parties prior to the date hereof.

18

2. Across-the-board salary increases applicable to all salary schedules as follows:

Effective January 1, 2011 3%

Effective January 1, 2012 2%

Effective April 1, 2012 1%

3. Maintain article 24, escalator clause, unchanged except for updating to reflect

the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 term.

4. Effective January 1, 2012, amend dental coverage to provide for coverage for

dental implants where dental implants are recommended by the treating dentist

as the most effective treatment choice.

5. Amend article 5.1.2 to provide that dues shall be deducted and remitted to the

Society for the entire period of a temporary assignment of a Society member to

perform work outside the bargaining unit.

6. Add a new article 39.3, Leave with Pay for Remembrance Day Observation, to

read as at pgs. 57-58 of the Society's mediation/arbitration brief.

19

7. Amend article 38.13 by adding the following regarding vacation carryover:

Employees will be allowed to carry over two (2) weeks of

vacation per year with the approval of the manager. Any such

request will not be unreasonably withheld.

8. Insert a clause into the collective agreement to provide that with respect to the

"notice of intent" practices identified by the Employer as part of its bargaining

agenda, except with respect to vacation carryover that has been awarded upon,

the parties agree to be bound by their respective interpretations of the collective

agreement language and not to rely upon the past practice.

9. Effective April 1, 2011, amend article 59.2, Shift Workers, to insert the

following:

Management shall provide an opportunity for input from

employees prior to establishing shift schedules.

Management will provide a minimum of seven (7) days' notice

for shift workers and non-shift workers working on shift,

when their hours of work, as shown on their shift schedule,

are to be changed. Failure to provide appropriate notice will

20

require payment at the appropriate overtime rate for all

hours worked during the notice period.

In the case of a forced unit outage or for reasons of equipment

failure or safety, employees can be shift changed effective

immediately and overtime rates apply for all hours worked

during the first three (3) days.

Where a PWU represented employee working on shift receives

"Penalty" payment for insufficient notice of a shift change,

their direct shift supervisor will be entitled to the equivalent

"Penalty" treatment. For clarity, where both the Society

represented shift supervisor and the PWU represented crew

member(s) have received insufficient notice of the shift

change, the Society represented shift supervisor shall receive

the equivalent premium rates as the PWU represented

employee for work performed on shift until the notice has

expired.

Written notification, such as email, shall be provided. In

situations where the employee is absent from their regular

21

work location, verbal notice shall be given and will be

followed by written notice.

Management will use reasonable efforts in revising the regular

schedule so as to provide the following minimum hours off

between shifts:

10. Amend article 66.4 to provide that a Society member will receive the increase

in salary resulting from a temporary assignment to a higher rated job from the

first day of such assignment.

11. Amend article 57.7 to read as follows:

Where management directs an employee to attend a training

course, he/she will receive overtime payment for all hours spent in

training beyond his/her standard hours of work. Management

agreement to an employee request for training does not constitute

a management direction to attend.

12. Amend article 105.2 to read:

Darlington, including a 10-kilometre radius around the station and

including the following location – 1908 Colonel Sam Drive.

22

Note: Relocation assistance under Part XI of the collective

agreement will continue to be applied as if a 5-kilometre radius is

in effect.

13. Amend article 64(B) to include in the definition of incumbent "volunteers." The

parties are directed to negotiate a further amendment to article 64(B) to include

within the definition of incumbent any employee subject to a move of less than

a stipulated distance.

14. Amend article 65.3 to make the clause applicable to work assignments of

greater than five working days' duration.

15. Effective April 1, 2011, incorporate an LOU dealing with ESA averaging hours

of work approval, to read as follows:

1. In accordance with the ESA the Society consents to

employees working schedules that average hours over a

period of greater than two weeks. Specifically, the Society

agrees to average employees' hours over a period of five

weeks for A-E crews and over a period of 52 weeks for

project crews.

23

2. This letter of understanding will come into effect April 1,

2011 and shall form part of the collective agreement

between the parties and shall continue in effect until March

31, 2016.

16. Retroactivity – Wage retroactivity based on all paid hours is to be paid to all

bargaining unit employees employed since the expiry of the predecessor

collective agreement within sixty (60) days of the date hereof. Any bargaining

unit employee who has left the employ of the Employer since the expiry of the

predecessor collective agreement is to be notified in writing at the address on

file within thirty (30) days of the date hereof. The retroactive payment to a

former employee is to be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of

entitlement.

I remain seized to deal with any errors or omissions and with respect to the

implementation of this award. I am also seized in the event the parties are unable to

agree upon the expanded definition of incumbent under article 64(B).

Dated this 3rd day of February 2011 in the City of Toronto.

Kevin Burkett

KEVIN BURKETT

24