N.W.T. gov't challenges arbitrator's order to review its hiring of relief workers
Union wants to know how many employees may have been working outside terms of collective agreement
A union arbitrator has ordered the government of the Northwest Territories to come clean on how many relief employees may be functioning as term employees, in contradiction to the collective agreement between the Union of Northern Workers and the government.
But the territorial government is asking the courts to overturn the arbitrator's decision.
Todd Parsons, president of the Union of Northern Workers, said the dispute is about fairness to employees, and ensuring the government as an employer is adhering to the conditions of its collective agreement with the union.
According to court documents, a relief hospital worker in Inuvik turned up in a routine staffing report to the union last year classified as "term/relief."
But no such classification or category exists in the collective agreement. An employee hired for a term of four months or more must be hired as such, and is entitled to benefits — including pension, vacation leave and sick leave — not available to relief employees.
According to the collective agreement, government relief workers are meant to be a short-term remedy for staffing shortages. A relief employee is meant to work no more than 21 days in a row, and receives few benefits. In lieu of those benefits, relief workers receive an additional 16 per cent in pay over their base wages.
They are also hired without a best before date. They are available for relief work "indefinitely," unless they quit or are fired.
"We don't want to see them [relief workers] hired into categories of employment such as term, when they are working as a relief employee," Parsons told the CBC.
The government is not supposed to use relief employees, or a number of them, to avoid hiring full-time term workers. Parsons said the union would prefer the government abide by the terms of its collective agreement and hire term workers when they are needed instead of using relief workers.
"We have an agreement with the government ... governing how term employees are compensated, and their terms and conditions [of employment]," Parsons said.
"We're fighting that they are paid within agreed upon terms."
Gov't acknowledges one error
In a letter included in the arbitrator's June 21 written judgment in favour of the union's position, the government acknowledged the Inuvik employee in question was mistakenly identified as "term/relief." The government said the mistake was corrected, and that it was an isolated case.
But the union wanted a full audit to discover how many relief employees may have been working in what were essentially term positions since 2013. The arbitrator agreed, and ordered a full audit.
Parsons said the union knows of circumstances of other relief workers who were essentially working under term contracts.
Last September the union undertook an advertising campaign inviting concerned relief workers to come forward. The campaign wasn't only meant to address this issue — it involved other grievances as well — but Parsons said the campaign uncovered "considerable" response on the matter.
The union included the results of that campaign as evidence submitted to the arbitrator.
According to the arbitrator, a straightforward computerized database search would turn up any more errors — or the absence of them — and satisfy the union's concern there may be government workers employed under conditions outside the collective agreement.
But instead of complying with the arbitrator's decision, the territorial government is challenging it in court.
According to documents filed on July 20 in N.W.T. Supreme Court, the government is asking the court to quash the arbitrator's decision. The government claims the arbitrator was mistaken when he sided with the union; that he overstepped his jurisdiction as arbitrator; and that he made errors of fact and law in forming his decision.
The government declined to comment on the matter as it is before the courts.
The government's motion for a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision will be heard on Aug. 11.
Parsons said he doesn't understand why the government would choose to dig its heels in on this decision.
He doesn't believe there are any significant financial implications.
"If there are any, they are minimal," Parsons said.