Labour Arbitration Awards — Ontario
deployment — collective bargaining — staffing — operational — two-officer cars
cited by 2 cases
An interest arbitrator considered whether she had jurisdiction to remove a provision of the collective agreement that established minimum levels of constable deployment. The employer argued that the provision is unenforceable because it conflicted with the police chief’s exclusive jurisdiction over operational matters under the Police Services Act. The arbitrator ruled that the legislation should be interpreted to give effect to the constitutional protection of collective bargaining as defined in B.C. Health Services: “…a statute should not be interpreted or applied in a way that would substantially interfere with or undercut the ability of an association or union to engage in the process of negotiating working conditions.” The arbitrator held that, absent a clear directive that staffing and deployment are outside the scope of bargaining, there should be “an interpretive presumption” to allow the parties to engage in the process of negotiating such working conditions. The employer also argued that consistent with international law, interpreting the scope of collective bargaining for police forces is much different than it is for other employee groups. The arbitrator disagreed. Where there is a right to collective bargaining recognized in the police sector by the legislative scheme of a province, the general principles concerning the exclusion of police from collective bargaining do not apply.
Tag: Application of International Law; B.C. Health Services as an Interpretive Tool; Public Sector (Police)