5 workers at Sysco Fine Meats refused offer of new employment
After relocating its plant, the employer refused to pay separation allowances to workers who declined job offers at the new facility.
Five workers employed by Sysco Fine Meats refused an offer of employment at a new location when the company moved to consolidate two of its plants into one new location.
The company maintained it had offered the workers reasonable alternative employment according to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000. The company viewed the workers’ refusals as resignations and said it was not required to pay separation allowances according to the terms of the collective agreement.
The union grieved, arguing the jobs offered at the new location did not constitute reasonable alternative employment.
The union proposed the analysis in Re Hart and Cooley Manufacturing Co. of Canada to assess whether or not the jobs offered amounted to reasonable alternative employment.
That case identified “the nature of the job offered compared to the previous job, any express or implied understandings or agreements between the parties, the geographic proximity or costs of dislocation, the comparable wages, benefits, working conditions and security and any objective personal circumstances which might militate against acceptance of the position.”
Reduced job security
The new location, which was outside the geographic scope of the existing certificate, meant the new facility would be non-union.
The union argued reduced job security, changes to some of the terms and conditions of employment and the lack of collective agreement rights in the new plant reduced the reasonableness of the job offers at the new plant.
The arbitrator disagreed. It was true the old benefits scheme the union had negotiated had been recast into a new company mandated “flex benefits plan.” The arbitrator conceded that there were changes to the new plan but asserted the pros and the cons of the respective plans generally balanced each other out.
The arbitrator acknowledged the union’s argument that the reasonableness of the offer of a new job was diminished by the prospect of a lack of union representation at the new location. But in this case, the grievors did not make that argument and neither was it an issue for the vast majority of workers who had accepted job offers at the new plant, the arbitrator said.
However, the geographic proximity of the new plant and personal circumstances meant that the new jobs offered did not constitute reasonable alternative employment for three of the workers, the arbitrator said.
The arbitrator acknowledged the employer had provided workers with an introduction to the non-profit agency “Smart Commute” but that was not enough. The employer had not matched its new commuting requirements with arrangements for flex-time nor had it put its mind to developing methods to deal with the scheduling complications that arise when workers with carpooling responsibilities are either sick or on holidays.
2-hour commute
F.M. had been employed at the plant as meat packer for 30 years. Over that time, she had relied on public transit to get to work for her 5:30 a.m. shift start. Her one-hour commute employed three buses and the subway.
Public transit could not get F.M. to work on time at the new location. The earliest option would have put her on the first of three buses at 4:48 a.m. She then would have had a two-hour commute to the stop nearest to the new plant and then a 15-minute walk.
The earliest she could possibly arrive was 6:40 a.m. — 40 minutes after her nominal start time at the new plant. The plant was not reasonably accessible for F.M., the Arbitrator said. Therefore, the offer of employment was not a reasonable alternative. The employer was required to pay F.M. a separation allowance according to the terms of the collective agreement.
N.N. was a shipper. He was also a long-service worker with 28 years at the company. He had made special shift arrangements that allowed him to start earlier, take no lunch and then leave at 1:00 p.m. in order to be able to provide needed care for his grandchildren.
However, for N.N., the relocation complicated his travel requirements and no allowance was made for his special shift arrangement at the new location. The increased distance to the new plant and N.N.’s personal circumstances militated against his accepting the job offer. N.N. was also entitled to the separation allowance, the arbitrator said.
J.H. had about seven years service with the company as a meat trimmer. The arbitrator said that elements of the job offered at the new plant were not a good fit for J.H. As the father of two children, the deductibles in the new benefit plan did not serve J.H.’s family as well as the plan from his previous job.
The plant’s new location also meant that it would not be possible for J.H. to be on time to pick up his children after school. The Arbitrator said that J.H. was also entitled to the separation allowance.
Reference: United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 4000 A and J.J Derma Meats. Larry Steinberg — Sole Arbitrator. Ryan D. White for the Union. David M. Chondon for the Employer. Nov.16, 2012. 49pp.
Five workers employed by Sysco Fine Meats refused an offer of employment at a new location when the company moved to consolidate two of its plants into one new location.
The company maintained it had offered the workers reasonable alternative employment according to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000. The company viewed the workers’ refusals as resignations and said it was not required to pay separation allowances according to the terms of the collective agreement.
The union grieved, arguing the jobs offered at the new location did not constitute reasonable alternative employment.
The union proposed the analysis in Re Hart and Cooley Manufacturing Co. of Canada to assess whether or not the jobs offered amounted to reasonable alternative employment.
That case identified “the nature of the job offered compared to the previous job, any express or implied understandings or agreements between the parties, the geographic proximity or costs of dislocation, the comparable wages, benefits, working conditions and security and any objective personal circumstances which might militate against acceptance of the position.”
Reduced job security
The new location, which was outside the geographic scope of the existing certificate, meant the new facility would be non-union.
The union argued reduced job security, changes to some of the terms and conditions of employment and the lack of collective agreement rights in the new plant reduced the reasonableness of the job offers at the new plant.
The arbitrator disagreed. It was true the old benefits scheme the union had negotiated had been recast into a new company mandated “flex benefits plan.” The arbitrator conceded that there were changes to the new plan but asserted the pros and the cons of the respective plans generally balanced each other out.
The arbitrator acknowledged the union’s argument that the reasonableness of the offer of a new job was diminished by the prospect of a lack of union representation at the new location. But in this case, the grievors did not make that argument and neither was it an issue for the vast majority of workers who had accepted job offers at the new plant, the arbitrator said.
However, the geographic proximity of the new plant and personal circumstances meant that the new jobs offered did not constitute reasonable alternative employment for three of the workers, the arbitrator said.
The arbitrator acknowledged the employer had provided workers with an introduction to the non-profit agency “Smart Commute” but that was not enough. The employer had not matched its new commuting requirements with arrangements for flex-time nor had it put its mind to developing methods to deal with the scheduling complications that arise when workers with carpooling responsibilities are either sick or on holidays.
2-hour commute
F.M. had been employed at the plant as meat packer for 30 years. Over that time, she had relied on public transit to get to work for her 5:30 a.m. shift start. Her one-hour commute employed three buses and the subway.
Public transit could not get F.M. to work on time at the new location. The earliest option would have put her on the first of three buses at 4:48 a.m. She then would have had a two-hour commute to the stop nearest to the new plant and then a 15-minute walk.
The earliest she could possibly arrive was 6:40 a.m. — 40 minutes after her nominal start time at the new plant. The plant was not reasonably accessible for F.M., the Arbitrator said. Therefore, the offer of employment was not a reasonable alternative. The employer was required to pay F.M. a separation allowance according to the terms of the collective agreement.
N.N. was a shipper. He was also a long-service worker with 28 years at the company. He had made special shift arrangements that allowed him to start earlier, take no lunch and then leave at 1:00 p.m. in order to be able to provide needed care for his grandchildren.
However, for N.N., the relocation complicated his travel requirements and no allowance was made for his special shift arrangement at the new location. The increased distance to the new plant and N.N.’s personal circumstances militated against his accepting the job offer. N.N. was also entitled to the separation allowance, the arbitrator said.
J.H. had about seven years service with the company as a meat trimmer. The arbitrator said that elements of the job offered at the new plant were not a good fit for J.H. As the father of two children, the deductibles in the new benefit plan did not serve J.H.’s family as well as the plan from his previous job.
The plant’s new location also meant that it would not be possible for J.H. to be on time to pick up his children after school. The Arbitrator said that J.H. was also entitled to the separation allowance.
Reference: United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 4000 A and J.J Derma Meats. Larry Steinberg — Sole Arbitrator. Ryan D. White for the Union. David M. Chondon for the Employer. Nov.16, 2012. 49pp.
