IN THE MATTER OF AN INTEREST ARBITRATION FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1997

BETWEEN

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK

(“City”)

and

THE WOODSTOCK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 477, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

(“Association”)

SOLE ARBITRATOR: James Hayes

APPEARANCES

For the Association Jeffrey Sack, Q.C., Counsel Chris Davidson, IAFF Advocate Jason Barnes, President/Bargaining Chair Trevor Ford, Bargaining Committee Member Mike Morris, Bargaining Committee Member Sean Beer, OPFFA District 2 VP

For the City John W. Saunders, Counsel Jessica M. Toldo, Counsel David Creery, Chief Administrative Officer Jeff Slager, Fire Chief Trevor Shea, Deputy Fire Chief Laird Crooks, Director, Human Resources Marcy Macdonald, Manager, Human Resources

Heard: by video conferences on June 3, 2020 (mediation) and July 13, 2020 (arbitration). Post hearing submissions were filed in September with further mediation through October.

AWARD

Background

1. This interest arbitration relates to the renewal of the collective agreement that expired on December 31, 2017.

2. Woodstock has a population of approximately 41,000 people. The City employs 52 career firefighters, including 48 in the Suppression Division, who work from two full time stations.

3. The parties exchanged initial proposals on September 25, 2018 and met on many dates throughout 2018 and 2019. The Association filed for arbitration on December 13, 2019. I was advised that the issues in dispute were significantly narrowed in bargaining but that agreements on particular issues were reached ‘without prejudice’. The City insisted, if the entire package of proposals was not agreed upon, that it would revert to its original position on all items. Now, the City submits that I should take into account any pre-arbitration ‘agreements’, the Association vigorously opposes that approach given the City’s earlier insistence.

4. As it happened, both parties submitted proposals that previously had been tentatively resolved or withdrawn. Therefore, in addition to disagreement over wages, 19 issues were referred to arbitration by the Association and 6 by the City. The City proposed a duration of four years until December 31, 2021. The Association expressed confidence that the Arbitrator could determine the appropriate term.

Introduction

5. I have considered the criteria identified in ss. 50.5(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act (“FPPA”), including the recent amendments thereto, together with the generally accepted principles of interest arbitration: replication, comparability, demonstrated need, and total compensation. Arbitrators seek to replicate collective

2 bargaining objectively having regard to the actual practice of comparators. They have no freestanding mandate to impose what they may prefer as ‘right’ regardless of the parties’ experience in the sector.

6. Both parties accept Woodstock police, St. Thomas fire and Stratford fire as direct comparators, depending upon the issue, and both looked to developments elsewhere in the province. St. Thomas has a population of approximately 39,000 and Stratford 31,000.

7. Neither party proposed that the renewal collective agreement extend beyond 2021; therefore, the new term will be for a four-year period from January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2021.

Salary

8. Salary was the most significant issue for both the City and the Association.

Association position

9. The Association maintains that the practice of Woodstock fire wages matching Woodstock police should be followed. The prior fire shortfall was eliminated in 2010 through interest arbitration and the parties voluntarily chose to continue local police/fire parity in the next round. The Association argues that continuation of this pattern would mirror practice across the province.

City position

10. The City argues that police/fire replication has resulted in outsized fire salaries beyond what a municipality the size of Woodstock should be expected to pay. It submits that the previous practice should be replaced offering two alternatives. It says that either proposal would place Woodstock in an appropriate provincial rank position for fire wages:

3 1) the blended formula developed in the Corporation of the City of , 2017 CanLII 7602 (ON LA) (Hayes); or, 2) blending based on a new comparator group comprised of 20 municipalities ranging in population size from approximately 17,000 to 61,000.1

Guelph award

11. Guelph broke no new ground in expressing the following opinion:2

Local police wage rates will always be relevant and should be accorded significant weight, particularly where fire salaries have been in close harmony with police for an extended period

Wage rates obtained by firefighter comparators, particularly those freely bargained, will always be relevant and should be accorded significant weight.

12. The City suggests that a blend of St. Thomas and Stratford fire with Woodstock police salaries would produce a reasonable outcome.

13. Guelph averaged police wages derived from an interest award (Guelph police)3 and a voluntary settlement negotiated by a direct comparator (Kitchener fire). The award recognized an established local police/fire pattern while, at the same time, taking into account the most relevant comparative product of free collective bargaining. Because Kitchener fire, unusually, moved ahead of Guelph police, those rates were averaged to produce a wage rate for Guelph fire.

14. The predicate for Guelph was the indubitable linkage of Guelph fire wages with both local police and Kitchener fire.4 As stated in the award: “Both Guelph police and Kitchener

1 Belleville, Bradford, , Chatham-Kent, Collingwood, Cornwall, East Gwillimbury, Halton Hills, Innisfil, LaSalle, Midland, Orangeville, , Owen Sound, Quinte West, St. Thomas, Stratford, Timmins, Welland, Whitchurch Stouffville. 2 At para.26 3 Guelph Police Services Board, 2016 CanLII 63431 (ON LA) (Steinberg) 4 Cambridge and Waterloo fire wages had not yet been set.

4 fire present reliable benchmarks given their previous direct connection with Guelph fire salary levels.” 5

15. In that case, Cambridge, Kitchener and Guelph fire presented with a close salary relationship for at least 20 years and dollar-for-dollar parity as of 2014. There had been relatively minor wage differences between Guelph and Kitchener fire since 1997 with one exception and they had been identical since 2012. Guelph fire and police had been identical since 2011 and virtually identical since 2006. The Guelph Board was required to consider a situation where a freely bargained Kitchener fire agreement produced higher wages than Guelph police against this backdrop.

Woodstock and the Guelph award

16. The Guelph blended approach is not applicable to Woodstock fire.

17. First, Woodstock firefighters achieved exact parity with local police in 2010. Of crucial significance, these parties then agreed in the last round of free collective bargaining to replicate that outcome. This practice, a powerful indicator of recent bargaining expectation, must be accorded significant weight. It should not be dislodged in the very next round by a third party without compelling justification.

18. Second, there is no history of connection of Woodstock fire salary levels with St. Thomas, and Stratford fire as there had been in Guelph. Fire wages paid by these three municipalities have never been the same and they bear no discernible relationship one to another. St. Thomas fire has not come within $1600 of Woodstock since 2010 and the gap between Woodstock and Stratford fire reached a peak of $3442 in 2017.6 Nor have St. Thomas and Stratford fire ever matched each other. Stratford fire was $1460 ahead of St. Thomas in 2018, the most recent year for which comparative data is available. What the collective bargaining history of Woodstock, St. Thomas and Stratford does show,

5 Guelph, at para.50; italics added 6 The Association presented data back to 2001. Woodstock fire has led both Stratford and St. Thomas in every year since then. Stratford came much closer in 2014 ($50) and 2015 ($96) but these years were exceptional.

5 concerning wages, is that each of them has generally tracked their own local police independently of nearby fire. 7 That is the only discernible pattern.

19. Given this, I conclude that a continuation of police/fire parity, even should it maintain Woodstock fire well ahead of both St. Thomas and Stratford, would fit within any reasonable expectation of the parties.8 Whether that should be the case is another point entirely. It is worth repeating that the task of an interest arbitrator is to seek to replicate collective bargaining not to impose a subjective preference.

20. Third, in any event, the requisite data to apply some form of Guelph blend to Woodstock is lacking. The renewal agreement at issue here will have a four-year term between 2018 and 2021. St. Thomas has fire wages set only through 2019 and Stratford through 2018. How would a blend be constructed even should it be appropriate to do so? Any putative blend would require fire settlement projections for St. Thomas and Stratford based, presumably, on the local police numbers. 9 How else would it be done? Which, of course, raises the question as to why Woodstock fire should be treated any differently. Guelph required no such speculation. The history was clear. The data was solid.

21. I turn now to the alternative analysis proposed by the City.

New comparator group

22. In oral argument, the City pointed out that Woodstock fire salaries had reached the top rank of all fire groups in the province.10 In the same vein, a Table offered by the City

7 St. Thomas fire and police have been at par since 2001 excepting only 2004; Stratford fire has been virtually equal wit police since 2004, excepting 2016-17, with the gap closing again to $349 in 2018. 8 Stratford and St. Thomas have 2018 rates lower than Woodstock police as has St. Thomas for 2019. 9 Stratford police have settled through 2021 with an end rate $600 behind Woodstock police. St. Thomas police have settled through 2021 with an end rate $674 behind Woodstock police. The gap between St. Thomas and Stratford police appears to be narrowing. 10 #10 (2010); #9 (2011); #10 (2012); #12 (2013); #19 (2014); #15 (2015); #8 (2016); #1 (2017)

6 confirms that Woodstock fire during the recent 2013-2017 period ranked at the top of its proposed comparator group with wages that were significantly higher than the average.11

23. On the basis of this information, the City submits that maintaining police/fire parity would sustain fire wages at too high a level. It says that this arbitration presents an opportunity to correct the current situation. The City argues that, if the Woodstock police rate were blended with an average of fire salaries paid by municipalities of roughly equivalent size, a more appropriate wage rate and provincial ranking would be achieved.

24. As previously emphasized, the general idea is that interest arbitrators should attempt to arrive at a collective agreement that would have been a likely product of free collective bargaining.12

25. A significant difficulty with the City’s position is that it asks an interest arbitrator to reverse a ranking for fire wages that the City perpetuated, indeed, accelerated in the last round. 13 The City did nothing in the 2015 settlement, reached in free collective bargaining, to address what the City now asserts is an unacceptable problem.14 It was that voluntary settlement that placed Woodstock fire salaries at the rank to which it now takes exception.

26. Furthermore, the City’s position asks an interest arbitrator to reset Woodstock fire wage determination on an entirely new footing, one that would constitute an unprecedented change in bargaining direction for these parties. Notably, such a change would also be at odds with the current collective bargaining conduct of other municipalities all over the province as I now move to describe.

11 Woodstock fire ranked #1 in 2017, #2 in 2013, 2014, 2016 and #3 in 2015. The gap over the average for Woodstock fire wages was: $1524 (2013); $1118 (2014); $1366 (2015); $1758 (2016); $2376 (2017). 12 Bearing in mind statutory criteria. 13 There is also an unavoidable problem that is not uncommon in interest arbitration. The City’s proposed list of comparators shrinks as one looks forward from 2018. As the available number of settlements/awards reduces, the utility of the list for wage determination purposes declines. This of course may be said of many future projections. 14 An ‘early’ settlement may cause some temporary rank distortion but, regardless, Woodstock firefighters have secured superior wage rates for many years,

7 Recent bargaining in the sector

27. There is current practice across the fire sector that an interest arbitrator is obliged to consider when attempting to replicate the likely product of free collective bargaining. And, that practice is not equivocal.

28. Parties across the province have continued, almost invariably, to negotiate fire wages that replicate police.15 Furthermore, when interest arbitration has been invoked, arbitrators have consistently awarded firefighter wages equivalent to police -- or more.16 Significantly, this pattern also applies to the alternate comparator group of smaller municipalities assembled by the City.17 Only where policing has been contracted out to the OPP have fire wages lagged police.18

Conclusion on wages

29. In the result, I prefer the conventional outcome represented by the Association proposal for reasons that may be readily summarized.

30. First, the actual difference between the parties should not be overstated.

31. The City’s proposed Guelph averaging formula would amount to a 6.8% increase over four years.19 If its proposed new comparator group were referenced, the increase would produce 6.2% over the same period.20

32. Against these numbers, an awarded increase of 7% over four years appears unexceptional; that is, 1.5% for both 2018 and 2019; 2.0% for both 2020 and 2021 (St. Thomas fire obtained 2% for both 2018 and 2019). A 2021 fire salary level replicating

15 Cambridge, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, , St. Catharines, Burlington, Central York. Exceptions: London; (where fire settled before police). 16 Guelph, Waterloo, Sault Ste. Marie, , Sarnia, Clarington, Thunder Bay 17 Brockville, LaSalle, Timmins, Owen Sound, Chatham-Kent, Bradford, Innisfil, East Gwillimbury, Welland, Halton Hills, Whitchurch-Stouffville, St. Thomas. [Belleville, Orillia, Cornwall fire did not have wage information after 2017] 18 Collingwood, Quinte West, Midland. 19 0.70% (2018), 1.75% (2019); 2.1% (2020); 2.1% (2021) 20 0.5% (2018), 1.6% (2019), 1.9% (2020), 2.2% (2021)

8 Woodstock police will be within $282 of at least 14 other municipalities and within $83 of 8 of those. Looked at province wide, available statistics appear to demonstrate a growing compression of fire wages generally. No rates have yet been reached for at least 46 other municipalities including 14 on the City’s proposed comparator list.

33. Second, most importantly, an award accepting established police/fire wage parity will replicate the approach taken by the parties themselves in the last round.

34. Third, such an award will also replicate what is happening in fire collective bargaining across . Fire/police parity continues to be the norm.

35. Fourth, such an award will effect no radical change to salary rankings achieved by the Association in recent years either locally having regard to St. Thomas and Stratford or from a provincial perspective.21

36. Fifth, by way of contrast, the City’s proposal would undo local police/fire parity in one fell swoop leaving an end rate premium for police greater than any since 2004. 22 And, certainly, its proposal would not replicate current collective bargaining where police/fire parity continues to be the prevailing practice -- either in the smaller municipalities referenced by the City or in the fire sector more broadly defined.

Remaining issues

37. I have approached the remaining issues bearing in mind a useful admonition from The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, 2019 CanLII 129522 (ON LA) (Burkett) at p.4:

An experienced interest arbitrator, in attempting to replicate what would have occurred had the parties themselves bargained an outcome, will always be cognizant of emerging fire sector bargaining trends and the need to produce a balanced result.

21 This is not to suggest that there is any arbitral presumption that an existing rank should be preserved. 22 From a starting point of zero, the gap in favour of police over fire would be as follows: $923 (2018); $799 (2019); $904 (2020); $742 (2021).

9 38. All of the many issues in dispute have been considered and two warrant specific mention. There is a strong fire sector trend supporting an award of a Health Care Spending Account (HCSA) typically tied to a savings set-off.23 Also, Woodstock police have already secured a HCSA and St. Thomas fire has a retiree benefit. The Line of Duty Death Benefit is now commonly granted.24 Certain proposals, for example, the updating of a longstanding sick leave policy, are best left to the parties.

39. Other changes and rejected proposals reflect an effort to achieve balance. Change is frequently introduced incrementally. Considerations of total compensation have been at play here as they should be in any interest arbitration. Therefore, dismissal of proposals should not be seen as implied negative comment on the merit of any particular proposal. Where there is no specific reference to an issue, the proposal is denied without prejudice to future bargaining.

40. The parties are directed to enter into a renewal Collective Agreement that shall consist of all terms in the predecessor Collective Agreement and as follows.

AWARD

1. All matters agreed between the parties prior to the date of this Award.

2. Term: January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2021

3. First class firefighter annual salaries:

Effective January 1, 2018 $99,538 Effective January 1, 2019 $101,031 Effective January 1, 2020 $103,051 Effective January 1, 2021 $105,112

All other classifications adjusted by the same percentage increases on the same effective dates.

23 See, most recently: Corporation of the City of Welland 2020 CanLII 36022 (ON LA) (Stout). 24 See, for example: Welland; Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 2019 CanLII 91554 (ON LA) (Parmar).

10 4. Effective January 1, 2021, classifications to be adjusted as follows for new hires:

Probationer (60%), 4th Class (70%), 3rd Class (80%), 2nd Class (90%)

5. Captain differential:

Effective January 1, 2021: 116%

6. Retroactivity

Salary retroactivity shall be based on paid hours to all bargaining unit employees who have been employed in the period from January 1, 2018 to the date of the implementation of the salary increases. Employees who have left the employ of the City are to be notified in writing at the address on file within 30 days of the date of this Award and are to respond within a further 30 days. Payment is to be made within 90 days of the date of this Award.

7. Health Care Spending Account:

Effective January 1, 2021, to apply to retirees between the ages of 65 and 75 who retire on or after January 1, 2021, with the following conditions:

• Applicable to eligible retired employees and spouses to a combined maximum of $2500 per year; • Those eligible must be qualified to receive an unreduced pension at the time of retirement in accordance with the terms established by OMERS and thereafter be in receipt of an unreduced pension; • Claims for reimbursement must be made first through the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) , the Ontario Drug Plan (ODP) or other public or provincial insurance as may be applicable. Reimbursement will be provided for medical or dental expenses to the extent that these expenses exceed coverage available from OHIP, ODP or other applicable public insurance plan and are permitted by the Canada Revenue Agency; • Non-cumulative. No redeemable cash value. In the event that the eligible retired employee (and spouse when applicable) does not exhaust the maximum entitlement for the year, the balance cannot be carried over to the next year; and, • No survivor benefits.

8. Article 13.02

Members of the Association Executive, including the Occupational Health and Safety Committee, will be granted up to a total of eleven 12-hour days with pay per calendar year to attend conventions, seminars and health and safety meetings. Such time away shall not directly cause overtime to be incurred by the City. The Association shall provide one month’s notice and the Fire Chief or his/her designate shall allow such member to be absent from work, provided they determine that operational requirements permit such absence.

11 9. LODD/AD&D

Article 8.06 to include line of duty death due to occupational disease, whether or not the death occurs during or following active employment, as determined by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

10. Article 12.10 (new)

The Corporation shall pay the medical expenses required for the maintenance of the Class D driver’s license to a maximum of $125.

11. Article 8.05

Generic drugs to be required unless doctor states in writing that name brand is required.

12. Article 8.05 Mental Health Benefit

Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker, Psychotherapist, Family Therapist with an annual cap of $2000, no per visit maximum

13. Article 8.05 Vision

Increase to $500 every two years

14. Article 8.05 Paramedicals

No visit maximum

15. Article 8.05 Master Benefit Plan

Association to receive a copy of the Master Benefit Plan annually.

16. Article 12.05 Recognition Pay

To be included in statutory or declared holiday wages.

17. Article 13.03 Bereavement Leave

Add: “Bereavement leave may be used for any of the following: celebration of life, memorial, funeral, other services as agreed by the parties.”

18. Article 3.04

Remove

19. Article 11

Amend Stage 1 to 5 business days and Stage 3 to 10 business days.

12

41. I remain seized with respect to any issues of interpretation and implementation, and to correct any inadvertent errors or omissions, until the parties enter into a formal agreement.

Dated at Bracebridge, Ontario this 5th day of November, 2020.

James Hayes

13 IN THE MATTER OF AN INTEREST ARBITRATION FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1997

BETWEEN

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK

{“City”}

and

THE WOODSTOCK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTER’S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 477 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

(“Association”)

SOLE ARBITRATOR: James Hayes

APPEARANCES

For the Association

Chris Davidson, IAFF Advocate Jeffrey Sack, Q.C., Counsel

For the City

John Saunders, Counsel

Written submissions received with a final Reply on September 11, 2021.

AWARD

1. Pursuant to an interest arbitration decision dated November 5, 2020, I remained seized with respect to any issues of interpretation and implementation until the parties entered into a formal agreement. Woodstock (City), 2020 CanLII 85013 (ON LA).

2. Three issues have been referred back and are determined as follows.

Recognition Pay

3. The City has confirmed its understanding that Recognition Pay is required to be included in statutory and declared holiday wages. That is the practice.

4. The City’s proposal is awarded.

Differential Changes

5. From a practical point of view, the only difference between the parties is whether a probationary Public Information Coordinator is paid 62.5% or 60% of the rate for first class suppression firefighters.

6. The Association maintains that the original award did not intend to change the differential/grid applicable to the Public Information Coordinator. The City says that there is no such indication in that award.

7. The Public Information Coordinator classification was not raised at the original hearing. I am not aware of any specific comparator data.

8. The City’s proposal is rejected.

Line of Duty Death

9. The extension of compensable LODD to occupational disease is a relatively new development in firefighter interest arbitration.

10. The City raises an interesting issue as to the salary calculation to be made in the case of a post-retirement LODD payment. It asks for a determination that such annual salary should be the lesser of the salary at the time of retirement or the time of death.

11. I am not aware of any award that has addressed this narrow but important question. Nor have I been advised that there is any comparator information relating to this specific point. In the circumstances, I decline to make the order requested and suggest that the parties, if so inclined, consider the matter in future collective bargaining.

2 12. Article 8.06 shall be amended to read:

In addition, effective November 5, 2020, this coverage will include Line of Duty Death (LODD) due to occupational disease, at the same level as ADD&D, whether or not the death occurs during or following active employment, as determined by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. There shall be no duplication of entitlement for AD&D and LODD coverage.

13. I remain seized as may be required.

Dated at Bracebridge, this 20th day of September, 2021.

James Hayes

3