- -- --- ----shy

r IL-I ~~-~=~~~~~~~~=~~~~~-~~PETERBORO July 301981

8I -oioshyI

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATIONPURSUANT TO THE POLICE ACT RSO

I

1970 Chapter 351 AS AMENDED

I

BETWEEN The Board of Commissioners of Police I of the City of Peterborough

(The Board)

I

- and shyI

I

I

The Peterborough Police Association(The Association)

I

BEFORE Peter G BartonArbitrator

I

I DATE July 17 1981

I PLACE Peterborough Ontario

I APPEARANCES

For the BoardI

J F McGee Spokesman Chief WJ Shrubb

I

For the AssociationI

S Kirkland Spokesman I R Blakely President Association

R Hotston Bargaining ChairmanR Knapp Chairman H Todd MemberI

I

-shyI

I

I

I

I

- - laquo--- _ --- ------shy

AWARD

The Association represents approximately 93 members

including 7 staff sergeants and 8 sergeants For the last

several years the Association and the Board have been able to

negotiate their Agreements without excessive problems This

year it appeared that the same would occur but for reasons into

which I will not go this did not happen Showing unusual ability

to cooperat~ the parties did narrow the issues down to two ( being

pensions and salaries for which action I am grateful

The parties did agree that the duration of this contract

would be from January 1 1981 to December 31 1982 Because this

was the subject of agreement between the parties I am able to

include it in this Award

The first major substantive issue is the matter of

pensions The Association was requesting a Type 1 and 3Q

early retirement benefit Presently the officers are covered

by the basic OMERS plan plus the OMERS supplementary Type 1 which

wa~ introduced in January of 1979 At the hearing the Board

took the position that it had tentatively agreed to provide for

the supplementary Type 3 benefit (early retirement) with the

Board paying all past service costs and the Board and the employee

each paying 1 of future service costs The only matter outstanding

as fr as the Board was concerned in this hearing was the question

of the implementation dateThe Board wished the date to be postshy

poned to January 1st 1983 and asked that if it were implemented in

January 1st 1982 some consideration of the extra cost should be

--I

_-shy

-- - -- - -

- -shy

-

--

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

- -

- - - - - -- - shy

- 2

reflected in the salary award of the same date I indicated

that I did not have jurisdiction to make an Award as late as

January~~~983 and that if I were to irnplement~t itwo~

be on the earlier date-At present close to 90 ~f the municipal officers in

-

Onta~i9 ~re covered by the early retir=~ent_~enefit It is

true however that most of - these are in the ~arg~r -Lo)ces--irL

the province It is also true that this benefit is a very

expensive be~efit amounting as ~uch as 5 of the personnel costs

in the operating budget I have mentioned in other Awards that

the trend may be away from such benefits but in this case because

the Commission and the Association agree that it is an appropriate

benefit I feel I should award it

The cost as -of January 1st 1982 is a lump sum cost

of $93469300 with an annual payout of $9623600 for 15 years-~ ~

Clearly this is a considerable cost and one that a municipality

should not have to shoulder on top of a substantial wage increase

This will be taken into account in my percentage increase for

January 1st 1982

The second major issue between the parties was salaries

There were two components to this ~k differentia~ salarie~

With respect to the first component the Association was requesting

that the present differentialsbetween ranks be changed so that

particularly at the higher levels there would be a greater distinctiol

between such ranks as Staff Sergeant and Staff Sergeants Group 2

and between the latter group and Staff Sergeant Group 1 At

-~

I

I

I

I

I

------

- --- - -- -

- - - - -------

-- ~~--~ -shy ---------shy -- -- -- ~

-~ do - -

-- ~ - - ~ - 0gt ~

~

-

I

3

present a First Class Constable makes $2281000 a Sergeant

makes 108 of that a Staff Sergeants Group 2 makes 104 of

I

I

that and Staff Sergeant Group 1 makes 117 of t~ The

Association request was that a Sergeant would move tollO~I

Staff Sergeant Group 2 would move to~ and Staff Sergeant

I Group 1 would move to 125 By virtue of simple mathematics

it can be seen that the changes would provide for an increase

I

of 2 in the Sergeants salary 6 in the Group 2 salaries and- -shy8 in the Group 1 These additions would be of course in

I

addition to the salary increses across the board The Board

brief suggests thatthe cost of this in the first year would

be approximately $13648 5Q A comparison of the rank differential

I

I in forces of a similar size in the same geographical area shows

that the differentials inPeterborough may in fact be a bit lowI

I am not convinced that the fact that a First Class Constable~ -

can work overtime and make as much as a Sergeant is a legitimateI ~ ~

~rnen~ sUPPQrt~~n increas~in the differenti~~b_etwen -I

~s~o~1ss ~n~ 0 min_d~le -poundrincip~-2 total compensa~on

which w~l~ecome apparent as I conclude the Award I must reject - -- -- - ~ ~ 1-- -shyI

thisrequest at this time--- -- -- shy

with respect to salaries the Association request isI

~or a 15 increase in 1981 a 122in 1982 bringing a salary as

I

of Jnuary 1st 1982 of a first class constab)sto i~509 OO~

The Board request is that I provide for a split increase in 1981 I

of 1066 in January and 389 in July followed by an increase-

I

I

I - - shy

- - laquo--- _ --- ------shy

AWARD

The Association represents approximately 93 members

including 7 staff sergeants and 8 sergeants For the last

several years the Association and the Board have been able to

negotiate their Agreements without excessive problems This

year it appeared that the same would occur but for reasons into

which I will not go this did not happen Showing unusual ability

to cooperat~ the parties did narrow the issues down to two ( being

pensions and salaries for which action I am grateful

The parties did agree that the duration of this contract

would be from January 1 1981 to December 31 1982 Because this

was the subject of agreement between the parties I am able to

include it in this Award

The first major substantive issue is the matter of

pensions The Association was requesting a Type 1 and 3Q

early retirement benefit Presently the officers are covered

by the basic OMERS plan plus the OMERS supplementary Type 1 which

wa~ introduced in January of 1979 At the hearing the Board

took the position that it had tentatively agreed to provide for

the supplementary Type 3 benefit (early retirement) with the

Board paying all past service costs and the Board and the employee

each paying 1 of future service costs The only matter outstanding

as fr as the Board was concerned in this hearing was the question

of the implementation dateThe Board wished the date to be postshy

poned to January 1st 1983 and asked that if it were implemented in

January 1st 1982 some consideration of the extra cost should be

--I

_-shy

-- - -- - -

- -shy

-

--

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

- -

- - - - - -- - shy

- 2

reflected in the salary award of the same date I indicated

that I did not have jurisdiction to make an Award as late as

January~~~983 and that if I were to irnplement~t itwo~

be on the earlier date-At present close to 90 ~f the municipal officers in

-

Onta~i9 ~re covered by the early retir=~ent_~enefit It is

true however that most of - these are in the ~arg~r -Lo)ces--irL

the province It is also true that this benefit is a very

expensive be~efit amounting as ~uch as 5 of the personnel costs

in the operating budget I have mentioned in other Awards that

the trend may be away from such benefits but in this case because

the Commission and the Association agree that it is an appropriate

benefit I feel I should award it

The cost as -of January 1st 1982 is a lump sum cost

of $93469300 with an annual payout of $9623600 for 15 years-~ ~

Clearly this is a considerable cost and one that a municipality

should not have to shoulder on top of a substantial wage increase

This will be taken into account in my percentage increase for

January 1st 1982

The second major issue between the parties was salaries

There were two components to this ~k differentia~ salarie~

With respect to the first component the Association was requesting

that the present differentialsbetween ranks be changed so that

particularly at the higher levels there would be a greater distinctiol

between such ranks as Staff Sergeant and Staff Sergeants Group 2

and between the latter group and Staff Sergeant Group 1 At

-~

I

I

I

I

I

------

- --- - -- -

- - - - -------

-- ~~--~ -shy ---------shy -- -- -- ~

-~ do - -

-- ~ - - ~ - 0gt ~

~

-

I

3

present a First Class Constable makes $2281000 a Sergeant

makes 108 of that a Staff Sergeants Group 2 makes 104 of

I

I

that and Staff Sergeant Group 1 makes 117 of t~ The

Association request was that a Sergeant would move tollO~I

Staff Sergeant Group 2 would move to~ and Staff Sergeant

I Group 1 would move to 125 By virtue of simple mathematics

it can be seen that the changes would provide for an increase

I

of 2 in the Sergeants salary 6 in the Group 2 salaries and- -shy8 in the Group 1 These additions would be of course in

I

addition to the salary increses across the board The Board

brief suggests thatthe cost of this in the first year would

be approximately $13648 5Q A comparison of the rank differential

I

I in forces of a similar size in the same geographical area shows

that the differentials inPeterborough may in fact be a bit lowI

I am not convinced that the fact that a First Class Constable~ -

can work overtime and make as much as a Sergeant is a legitimateI ~ ~

~rnen~ sUPPQrt~~n increas~in the differenti~~b_etwen -I

~s~o~1ss ~n~ 0 min_d~le -poundrincip~-2 total compensa~on

which w~l~ecome apparent as I conclude the Award I must reject - -- -- - ~ ~ 1-- -shyI

thisrequest at this time--- -- -- shy

with respect to salaries the Association request isI

~or a 15 increase in 1981 a 122in 1982 bringing a salary as

I

of Jnuary 1st 1982 of a first class constab)sto i~509 OO~

The Board request is that I provide for a split increase in 1981 I

of 1066 in January and 389 in July followed by an increase-

I

I

I - - shy

--I

_-shy

-- - -- - -

- -shy

-

--

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

- -

- - - - - -- - shy

- 2

reflected in the salary award of the same date I indicated

that I did not have jurisdiction to make an Award as late as

January~~~983 and that if I were to irnplement~t itwo~

be on the earlier date-At present close to 90 ~f the municipal officers in

-

Onta~i9 ~re covered by the early retir=~ent_~enefit It is

true however that most of - these are in the ~arg~r -Lo)ces--irL

the province It is also true that this benefit is a very

expensive be~efit amounting as ~uch as 5 of the personnel costs

in the operating budget I have mentioned in other Awards that

the trend may be away from such benefits but in this case because

the Commission and the Association agree that it is an appropriate

benefit I feel I should award it

The cost as -of January 1st 1982 is a lump sum cost

of $93469300 with an annual payout of $9623600 for 15 years-~ ~

Clearly this is a considerable cost and one that a municipality

should not have to shoulder on top of a substantial wage increase

This will be taken into account in my percentage increase for

January 1st 1982

The second major issue between the parties was salaries

There were two components to this ~k differentia~ salarie~

With respect to the first component the Association was requesting

that the present differentialsbetween ranks be changed so that

particularly at the higher levels there would be a greater distinctiol

between such ranks as Staff Sergeant and Staff Sergeants Group 2

and between the latter group and Staff Sergeant Group 1 At

-~

I

I

I

I

I

------

- --- - -- -

- - - - -------

-- ~~--~ -shy ---------shy -- -- -- ~

-~ do - -

-- ~ - - ~ - 0gt ~

~

-

I

3

present a First Class Constable makes $2281000 a Sergeant

makes 108 of that a Staff Sergeants Group 2 makes 104 of

I

I

that and Staff Sergeant Group 1 makes 117 of t~ The

Association request was that a Sergeant would move tollO~I

Staff Sergeant Group 2 would move to~ and Staff Sergeant

I Group 1 would move to 125 By virtue of simple mathematics

it can be seen that the changes would provide for an increase

I

of 2 in the Sergeants salary 6 in the Group 2 salaries and- -shy8 in the Group 1 These additions would be of course in

I

addition to the salary increses across the board The Board

brief suggests thatthe cost of this in the first year would

be approximately $13648 5Q A comparison of the rank differential

I

I in forces of a similar size in the same geographical area shows

that the differentials inPeterborough may in fact be a bit lowI

I am not convinced that the fact that a First Class Constable~ -

can work overtime and make as much as a Sergeant is a legitimateI ~ ~

~rnen~ sUPPQrt~~n increas~in the differenti~~b_etwen -I

~s~o~1ss ~n~ 0 min_d~le -poundrincip~-2 total compensa~on

which w~l~ecome apparent as I conclude the Award I must reject - -- -- - ~ ~ 1-- -shyI

thisrequest at this time--- -- -- shy

with respect to salaries the Association request isI

~or a 15 increase in 1981 a 122in 1982 bringing a salary as

I

of Jnuary 1st 1982 of a first class constab)sto i~509 OO~

The Board request is that I provide for a split increase in 1981 I

of 1066 in January and 389 in July followed by an increase-

I

I

I - - shy

------

- --- - -- -

- - - - -------

-- ~~--~ -shy ---------shy -- -- -- ~

-~ do - -

-- ~ - - ~ - 0gt ~

~

-

I

3

present a First Class Constable makes $2281000 a Sergeant

makes 108 of that a Staff Sergeants Group 2 makes 104 of

I

I

that and Staff Sergeant Group 1 makes 117 of t~ The

Association request was that a Sergeant would move tollO~I

Staff Sergeant Group 2 would move to~ and Staff Sergeant

I Group 1 would move to 125 By virtue of simple mathematics

it can be seen that the changes would provide for an increase

I

of 2 in the Sergeants salary 6 in the Group 2 salaries and- -shy8 in the Group 1 These additions would be of course in

I

addition to the salary increses across the board The Board

brief suggests thatthe cost of this in the first year would

be approximately $13648 5Q A comparison of the rank differential

I

I in forces of a similar size in the same geographical area shows

that the differentials inPeterborough may in fact be a bit lowI

I am not convinced that the fact that a First Class Constable~ -

can work overtime and make as much as a Sergeant is a legitimateI ~ ~

~rnen~ sUPPQrt~~n increas~in the differenti~~b_etwen -I

~s~o~1ss ~n~ 0 min_d~le -poundrincip~-2 total compensa~on

which w~l~ecome apparent as I conclude the Award I must reject - -- -- - ~ ~ 1-- -shyI

thisrequest at this time--- -- -- shy

with respect to salaries the Association request isI

~or a 15 increase in 1981 a 122in 1982 bringing a salary as

I

of Jnuary 1st 1982 of a first class constab)sto i~509 OO~

The Board request is that I provide for a split increase in 1981 I

of 1066 in January and 389 in July followed by an increase-

I

I

I - - shy

--

gt s-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~~~~~-~-~-lt~ ~ ~~gtraquo~~~~

~ ~ ~~~C~-~lt-~~~ ~ L~~_gt-~~~~

- r --

4

on January 1st 1982 of 960 bringing a first class constables

salary to $2874200 It will also be recalled that the Board

requested that if I implemented the pension request as of January

1st 1982 as I have donethat I reduce the January 1st 1982

increase by approximately 5

The case for police police comparisons has been made

many times and as pointed by Arbitrator Teplitski in the recent

Windsor Award comparisons can be found to support almost any

argument Both the Board and i7he Association asked me to compare

somewhat similar forces and the lists wereCsurprisingly) approximately

the same These lists show that although the first class salary

of $2281000presently paid in Peterborough may be a touch low

it is not out of line with that paid to officers in other forces

of similar size and in the same geographical area Accordingly

I do not feel that a substantial catch-up in salary is justified

In its brief the Board looked at salary increases in 1981 in

those forces of a similar size and in the same geographical area

and suggested that an increase of 1066 would be appropriate

I feel that this is a touch low and because I am reducing the

1982 increase r feel that the appropriate increase as of January

1st 1981 should be 12 If my mathematics are correct this means

that the effect of the increase is to increasethe salaries to

$25 4720

I also feel that in order to bring the salaries as of

December 31 1981 up to a comparable level a 3 increase should

be put into force as of July 1st 1981 This will bring the

salaries as of December 31 1981 of a First Class Constable to

~~ ~ ~ ~ -- ij ~~~gt--~~~~~~~ ltraquo~gt- L+shy

5

$2631362 It will be seen that this is approximately $10000

over the Board request

Predicting the salary increases that may occur in 1982

is a very difficult matter I do have some indication of what

the salaries may be during that year from the first class

salaries that will be paid to many persons in places where the

contract has already been agreed to I am aware that in many

of the jurisdictions with forces of a similar size and in the

same geographical area the first class salaries that will be paid

as of January 1st 1982 are in the $2900000 range The major

exception to this is in Kingston where the first class salary

is going to be substantially lower as of that date This is in

part because of an Award ofthis Chairman in Kingston a few years

ago which reduced a salary request to pay for a substantial pension

request It would I think be irresponsible of me not to take

into account the fact that as of January 1st 1982 the Board will

be paying approximately $10000000 per year for 15 years to pay

for the pension request The point must be made that the benefits

cost money and that the money must come from somewhere Although

I am not prepared to reduce thesalary award as of January 1st

1982 by 5 I am prepared to reduce it somewhat and accordingly

award that the increase as of January 1st 1982 be 80

In closing I would like to compliment both the Board

and the Association for their professional submissions and helpful

briefs and again congratulate the bargaining committees for agreeing

on so many of the items in dispute

DATED Ar London Ontario

~J--~-shy30 J1ly 1981

Peter G BartonArbitrator