Arbitration Awards - Benefits

BCGEU and Community Home Support - #985 (June 16, 2009)

Home support workers filed grievances seeking reimbursement of mileage costs for car travel between clients. The union argued the employer was required to pay them because of the way the schedules are created. The employer argued it was only required to reimburse mileage up to the cost of a monthly bus pass and there is no requirement to use a car. The arbitrator agreed with the union. The employer violated Article 27.11 of the agreement by scheduling them in a way that required workers to continue to use their cars to conduct the employer's business. The arbitrator ordered retroactive (from 2007) and current pay for the members.

BCGEU and Ministry of Provincial Revenue, January 12, 2009 #979

The worker grieved the denial of sick leave benefits. Before her case proceeded to arbitration, she filed a human rights complaint on the same facts and issue. The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed her complaint on March 29, 2007 on the basis that her health circumstances did not meet the definition of disability. At the arbitration hearing, the employer filed a preliminary objection arguing the grievance was a "collateral attack" on the Human Rights Tribunal decision. The arbitrator agreed with the employer and dismissed the grievance.

Government of BC and BCGEU (November 28, 2007)-Expedited

The issue concerned the level of benefit entitlement while the member was on maternity and parental leave. The member had been working on a part-time job share of her previous full time position. She took a temporary assignment with another Ministry (.75 position). The member understood that her job sharing arrangement had ended and at the conclusion of the temporary assignment, she would be expected to return to work full time. During the temporary assignment, the member commenced maternity leave. She was paid the maternity/parental leave allowance for the remaining time of the temporary position but her allowance was reclassified based on the part time job share rather than a full time position. The arbitrator accepted the union argument that her employment status was full time at the conclusion of the temporary assignment.

BCGEU and CSSEA #958 (October 31, 2007)
The Union Bargaining Association filed a policy grievance with respect to the health and welfare benefits coverage provided by some of its members. The Unions' position is that the benefits provided are not equivalent in the sense that the term is used in Article 27 of the collective agreements. The Arbitrator used the jointly developed Equivalency Document as an interpretative guide.

The Unions argued if the benefit coverage does not include a CRC process it does not meet the equivalency requirements of Article 27 as employees facing the denial or cancellation of a LTD claim must commence a court action to obtain a final resolution. The Arbitrator concluded that the absence of a CRC process is a breach of the requirement in Article 27 that the coverage be "equivalent."

On the second issue relating to plans that include provisions that exclude LTD eligibility coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, the Arbitrator found that the significance of such an exclusionary provisions is self-evident. E concluded that this limitation on eligibility is expressly prohibited in the Equivalency Document and the inclusion of a pre-existing medical condition clause is a breach of the Article 27 requirement for "equivalent" coverage.