Vernon School District loses arbitration over who pays for union president's pension

Photo: Jon Manchester

A labour arbitration has sided with the Vernon Teachers’ Association over the issue of who pays for the local union president's pension contributions.

Arbitrator Randall J. Noonan found that School District 22 must pay those contributions, even though the BC Teachers' Federation reimburses the district for their salary during the term of the member's presidency.

Both sides filed grievances over the issue, which were heard together.

The issue centred around interpretation of the collective agreement, which states the union president is released from teaching duties on a full-time basis during the term of the presidency.

However, they remain an employee of the district and the district is reimbursed by the union for the cost of the president's salary.

The issue is whether the costs of pension contributions made on the president's behalf by the employer are included among the benefits that must be reimbursed. Both sides argued the other should pay.

Noonan noted in his recently posted 28 decision that the contract article has a long history of dispute.

Public school teachers in British Columbia became eligible to bargain collectively in 1987, and the first collective agreement between the district and the VTA covered the period 1988-1990. That period predated the creation of the BC Public School Employers Association.

Prior to that, bargaining was done locally and there was a "handshake agreement" in which the district agreed to release the union president from teaching duties and the union would reimburse the district for salary and benefits.

The practice at that time was that the VTA would not reimburse for pension contributions, however.

"It is significant that, at the time, the provincial government directly paid the pension contributions for teachers, including the released union president, so there was no direct cost to the employer," Noonan noted.

However, that changed in 1990 when the provincial government determined that those costs would be borne directly by local school boards.

Noonan sided with the union is stating the contract wording is ambiguous and past practice and bargaining history should be considered.

While he agreed with the employer that the term "benefit costs" is broad enough to incorporate pension contribution costs, the contract's listing of benefits lists medical, dental and other expected coverage, but does not specifically mention pension.

"In summary, I find that there is certainly no clear preponderance in favour of the meaning of the words of Article A.25.2 as submitted by the employer. Indeed, reading that article in the context of the collective agreement may tend to support the union’s interpretation," wrote Noonan.

"Any ambiguity, however, is resolved by considering the clear and consistent past practice wherein for more than 25 years, the parties conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the union's interpretation."

He found the union is not obliged to reimburse the employer for the pension contributions, and dismissed the employer’s grievance.

The district was ordered to stop including pension contributions in its invoices to the union for reimbursement.