IN THE MATTER OF A SPECIAL MEDIFLTIDN PURSUANT TD THE EQSHATCHEWAN 212113 c. ?15. 1 BETWEEN: REFINERIES LIMITED {th? ?Emphy?r? 121113: ?Dnmpanf} FIND: UNIFDR CRNADA, LDCAL 5'94 {the ?Uninr? REPBRT UP THE SPECIAL HEDIATIDRS L. READY AND RDGERS SUBMITTED TD THE PARTIES AND THE HDNDURABLE MINISTER OF MBDUR AND SAFETY ON MARCH 232D 3354f: [in February 12, 212329 we were appcinted by the I-Icncurable Dan Mcrgan, Minister at Labcur and Weritplace Safety for the Prayince cf Saskatchewan tc assist the parties in this lcng?standing labcur dispute. Clur appcintment was made under Secticn 6?23 cf the Saskatchewan Empicyment Act which reads: Special mediatcr 6?2341} [tn the request at either party ta a labaur?management dispute at an the minister?s awn initiative, the minister may dc all at any cf the italic-wing: appcint a perscn as a special mediatcr tc investigate+ mediate and repcrt tn the minister cn any labcur? management dispute; establish any terms cf reference that the minister cansiders necessary with respect tc any cf the falicwing: the remuneraticn in be paid tn the special mediatcr; [ii] the pracedures tc be fcllawed by the special mediatcr; the publicaticn cf any reparts submitted by the special mediatcr; {c1 replace the special mediatcr cr terminate the appointment at the special mediatcr. A. special mediatcr appcinted by the minister pursuant tc subsecticn has the pcwers at a cammissianer pursuant tc sectians 1 1, 15 and ?25 at The Public Inquiries Act, 2:313; and is net baund by the rules at" evidence+ but may receive and accept any evidence that the special mediatcr cansiders I. The Employer is the Co?op Re?nery Complex in Regina, Saskatchewan, which is owned and operated by Federated {Zn?operatives Limited In operation since 1935, the CRC is one of Canada?s largest integrated re?ning and upgrading complexes. It has the capacity to process approximately barrels of crude oil per day enough to fuel the needs of the Cooperative retail system. Indeed, the CRC is a critical component of the Cooperative retail system, providing fuel to the Co-Clp retail outlets acmss 1Western Canada, as well as profits which are distributed to individual Co?Dp retail cutlets to fund capital upgrades, and to individual Co-Dp members. The Union is certified to represent approximately bargaining unit members who perform processing and maintenance work at the CED in Regina, Saskatchewan- The previous Collective Agreement between the parties {Collective Agreement} expired on January 31, 2319. The parties held bargaining meetings between January 15, and January 31, 2:320. Unable to reach a deal, however, the Employer locked out bargaining unit employees on December 5, 2-019 after being served strike notice by the Union. It continues to operate the re?nery utilising replacement workers and excluded personnel. II. DUE-EVEN DF DISPUTE It would be an understatement to sayr this has been a difficult and arduous set of negotiations. Both parties have been and remain intransigent in their respective positions which has led to the current labour dispute. At the heart of this dispute is the Employer?s stated requirement to cut its costs and increase its operational ef?ciency to bring its operations in line with its campetiters. Ta that end. the has prep-seed signi?cant changes tn terms and ccnditinns in the Ccllective Agreement, mast netably tc pensinn bene?ts and and tc practices it views as everly restricting its management rights. The has alsa prapesed ta eliminate the Savings Plan, which requires it tc match centributiens up tc a maximum at 5.5% at emplayees' annual grass earnings. In place at the Savings Plan. the seeks tn a Plan"1 which is already applicable tn its excluded Under this existing Plan, empiayees receive "a target level naycut cf 6% cf annual grass base earnings, with the petential the maximum pay nut cf 9% when ne?crmance targets are exceeded." The Empleyer purchases the terms at the Plan be cutsieie the Collective Agreement and within its sale discretien ta alter er eliminate. its acted, the Empleyer is alse requesting the remcval at" certain previsiens {if the Ccllective Agreement which it asserts will ccnsiderably increase the efficiency at its cperatians. Meat nntably the deleticn c-f a partian cf LOU 53 requiring the tn maintain a minimum number at? maintenance and the deletien cf LDU 59 in its entirety which sets cut jab descripticns and guidelines for pcsiticns in the cperatinns and which has been viewed by the I?cmnany tn prevent it ef?ciently assigning wart-t tc bargaining unit members- The Empieyer also seeks ta eliminate the Master Gnerater pcsiticn item the bargaining unit- It says it will ccmbine the duties at this bargaining unit classi?caticn with an existing autret'vscene pasiticn. Friar tn the Incl-taut, there were 59 bargaining unit members in this pcsitien. The seeks varicus ether changes set cut and addressed later in this Repert. Fer its partr the Unien strengly eppeses the Empleyerb prepesed changes te the IIlellectiye Agreement. With respect te the pensien, the Unien seeks te retain the De?ned Bene?t pensien plan fer existing members whe are already enrelled in the DB Plan. in erder te de se, the Unien has effered te have empleyees make seme centributiens tewards their pensien. as under the existing Cellectiye Agreement language. the Empleyer is responsible fer the entirety ei' pensien centributiens. The Unien has alternatively prepesed the DE Plan be merged with an existing "negetiated cest DE plan" in the pulp and paper industry. Net surprisingly, the Unien rejects the Empleyer's prepessl te eliminate the Savings Plan. With respect te the Empleyer?s quest fer greater eperatienal ef?ciency, the Unien has stated it is willing te werlt with the Empleyer te help determine eperatienal ef?ciencies. It says, hewetrer. that these ef?ciencies cannet create ?havec? fer its "members? cere werlt duties?. ner eempremise safety threugh the perfermance et' skilled tasks by unquali?ed and untrained werlters. While the parties are stalemated en the issues befere us. they have agreed te the wages and certain bene?ts set cut in the Natienal Chemical and Energy Agreement. ltnewn as the ?Natienal Pattern? agreement between Unifer and certain re?neries in Western Canada. The adeptien ef all previously agreed te terms. including but net limited te these related to the Natienal Pattern, ferma part ef eur recemrnendatiens {see Recemmendatien TERMS DP REFERHEE Under the terms ef reference presided by the Heneurable Minister ef Labeur and Safety, we are required te censider the fellewing faeters in making our recommendations regarding terms and conditions to settle the present labour dispute: the need for terms and conditions of employment that are in balance with the economic interests of the Province; {bi the importance of good labour-management relations in the Province: {oi the economic interests of the members of the trade union and its members of the bargaining unit: external collective agreements within the oil re?nery sector and the Province: {cl the general impact and consequences the current labour dispute is having on all concerned interests; and if! any other relevant factor the special mediators and for the Minister deem appropriate. In keeping with the terms of reference. we have drafted recommendations that we believe properly balance the interests of the parties and represent an appropriate compromise to bring this dif?cult dispute to an end considering all ofthe relevant circumstances. N. 1531133 Ill DISPUTE General observation: As noted at the outset of this report. the Employer's approach to this set of negotiations centers around its desire to achieve cost-savings both through changes to the DE Plan and through the elimination of restrictive work practices. We start by ebeenring that these parties have enjeyeti a leng-etanding bargaining relatienship and that the previsinns in dispute have been negatiated int-s the Ceileetive Agreement ever several decades. he stated. the Employer seeks significant changes te the Celleetive Agreement it submits are fer it in bring its seats in line with ether re?neries and put itself in a favourable pesitian tn raise capital tn meet ?iture needs. ta the Empieyer, it predicts a deeiine in the Cempany?s future preiitability due in "stabilized pricing faeters?. a decline in the market fer feseii fuels. anti the impending intreduetien ef Clean Fuel Standards by the federal geyernment. The Empleyer asserts these faetere, aleng with its uneempetitiye laheur and its need fer ?signi?cant and immediate eapital investment?. preside a ratienal basis fer its bargaining peeitien. Furthennere. the Empleyer makes clear in its submissien that it has he appetite te the present dispute witheut achieving its bargaining ebjeetittes. The Unien. en the ether hand. is ef the 1view that the heftyr eeneeseiens seught by the Empleyer are net justi?ed in light ef the Empleyer's eurrent prefitahility. The Linien refutes the Employer?s data aheut the deelining need fer fessil fuels and the impaet ef gavernment green initiatives. Net surprisingly, there is eensiderable reluetanee hy the Unien te ehange lengetanding. freely negatiated pretriaiene ef the Celleetiye Agreement. 1What is necessary in this dispute, in eur View. are that apprepriately balanee these interests and ?t 1Witl?lin etir terms at reference. With that in mind. we turn new te the speci?c issues in dispute. The Retinal] Pattern he neteti abeye, we the parties adept all pre?euaiy agreed in language arising frem the Natienal Pattern. This includes, ether thingsl a fnur?year term fer the Cnliective Agreement [Februaryr l, 2019 tn ?Januaryr 31, 23533} and the fnllewing wage increases ever the term at" the Agreement: I Year 1: 2.5% I Year 2: 3'35?? I Year 3: 3.0??fn I Year 4: 3.5% in additinn tn the abrwe?neted wage increases, the parties have agreed that shift differentials and wage-related premiums will be adjusted by the same percentages and that whe retire during the negatiaticn perind wilI receive a retrnactive wage adjustment an}.F heurs wnrked between Februaryr 1, and ratificatinn at the renewed Callective Agreement. The parties have also agreed tn the feltnwing enhancements tn bene?ts: I Hearing aid enverage increase tn $543!} ever},F I Elem-eve Diabetic supply limit I Remeve suicide clause [rem bath EEG and Life Insurance pnlicies Further, the parties have agreed tn increase the severance pay multiplier in LDU 5E: 1.15 tn 1.3[1 censistent with the Natl-anal Pattern. in additinn tn the abcwe, the parties ccmmitted tn language addressing damestic vielence inte the Ccllective Agreement as set out in the Hatinnal Pattern. Tn this end, the prepdsed the fellnwing language1 excerpted t'rnm annther Unifnr Memorandum cf Settlement that is medelled an the Natienal Pattern: During negotiations the Company and the Union discussed the impact of domestic violence or abuse on employees and the workplace. Domestic violence or abuse impacts productivity and often results in absences. Employee absences can be connected to illness and J:"or their ability to report to work. Additionally; domestic violence can be dif?cult for employees to disclose and receive the necessary help or support. Knowing employees face situations of violence or abuse in their personal lives and the negative impact this issue can have on the workplace, the Company and the Union agreed on the need to bring greater awareness and make it easier for employees to disclose and salt for help. The Company agrees to sponsor a meeting with local union representatives to review and discuss the impact of domestic violence or abuse on employees and how it impacts the workplace. The purpose of this meeting will be to explore ways the Company and the Union can collaborate to address the following: a Raise awareness; - Enable disclosure from employees experiencing domestic violence or abuse; - Promote access to domestic violence or abuse support services; and II Develop a plan to have continued dialogue during the term of the agreement- We recommend this language be incorporated into a new Letter of Understanding to be appended to the renewed Collective Agreement. The Employer has further proposed a letter of understanding on the creation of a Women?s Advocate in the workplace; which it has also modeled on language in other Unifor agreements: The parties recognise that female employees may sometimes need to discuss with another woman matters such as violence or abuse at home. They may also need to ?nd out about specialised reseurces in the cemmunity such as ceunselers er wemen's shelters te assist them. Fer this reasen, the parties agree te recegnise the reie ef Wemen?s Advecate in the The 1 livalernen?s Advecate will be determined by the Unien frern arneng the female empleyees. It is the Unien?s respensihility te pay fer their training, travel cests and any lest wages. The empleyee must apply fer LTnien leave under Article sectien 5b te attend training and the leave is unpaid. The Wemen?s Advecate will previde services te empleyees after? heurs wherever pessihle. In emergent circumstances1 these services may be cenducted en cempany time subject te Article 1405;. The cempany will previde access te an e?ice fer such meetings. The Wemen?s Advecate dees net displace the services ef EFAP, Human Eeseurces er the Occupatienal Health Nurses- The parties agree te a twe year trial peried ending en twe years after the date ef rati?catien ef the Agreement. We similarly recemmend this Language be incerperated inte a new Letter ef Understanding te be appended te the renewed Celiective Agreement. Recummendatiun ii 1 As neted aheve, we recenlmend the parties adept all previeusly agreed te language {as summarised in the Agreed Upen Items decument attached as Appendix A te this Reperti, as well as the language detailed abeve arising frem the Natienal Pattern. 11 LDU ss Summary 111? Parties? Positions LDU 53 was alsa first added tn the Cailective Agreement in 1963. It requires, amangst ether things, that the Emplajrer maintain a ?xed number cf pcsiticns in its maintenance department. {liver multiple raunds pf bargaining, the Uninn has negatiatcd increases tn this minimum number. At present, LGU 53 stipulates the Emplajrer must ample}; nc fewer than 255 maintenance The Emplayer is cf the firm View that its maintenance department is averstaffed. Hat surprisingly, the seeks deietian cf the requirement in LOU 53 requiring that it maintain a number at" maintenance pa sitians. The Unian eiiminatian cf the maintenance camplement requirement feund in LOU 58. Ace-carding tn the Unian, remaving this stipulatian cauld lead ta the lass cf bargaining unit pcsitians thraugh attritian the increased use cf cantract empiajrees by the Recummaudatinn #2 We have heard nc- campelling basis far requiring the ta maintain members of the warkfarce far which there is insuf?cient waric In our Triew, the requirement unduly restricts the from determining the number af emplayees it requires ta run its aperaticrn. We accept that eliminating the minimum staf?ng requirement in LOU 53 will lead ta significant cast-savings and enhanced efficiencies far the Emplayer, and that require the ta maintain an arti?cial and in?ated number cf maltes little aperatianal sense. 12 We therefnre reenmmend that the paragraph cnntaining the minimum staffing requirement be remnved LDLT 53. In sn recnmmending, we nnte varinus nther prnvisinns exist in the Agreement preventing the centraeting nut wnrl: presently by the bargaining unit. The eliminatinn cf the minimum maintenance staf?ng requirement in nn way enhances the ability tn enntraet nut this wan-t. We therefnre feel remnval at this minimum staff requirement strikes the balance between nperatinnal efficiency and prntectinn nf bargaining unit integrity. - Mechanical Department - L011 59 Summary nf Putics? Pnsitinnl LOU 59 was first negntiated in 195:3 and has been amended time- tn-time by the parties- This LDU sets nut the wnrl-t duties and activities nf the varinus trade grnups within the bargaining unit- The Employer views LDU 5'9 as an impediment tn the efficiency nf its nperatinns. In its view, LEI-U 59 restricts its ability tn assign wnri-I: the bargaining unit- In the view, LOU 59 silns and inhibits its ability tn assign duties such as minnr preventative maintenance, shnveling nr changing lightbulbs tn members nf the bargaining unit in a brnader and mnre ?exible manner. In particular, the pnints tn what it characterizes as significant nperatinnal and cnst?savings achieved during the labnur disruptinn which it attributes tn the greater ?exibility it presently withnut the Cnllective Agreement in plane. The Uninn dnes view LDU 5'9 as restricting the tn the extent asserted by the Indeed, the Uninn indicated at varinus pnints thrnughnut mediatinn that it is agreeable tn having bargaining unit members 13 pet-farm mere diversified war}: presiding this wed-t is perfermed in a safe manner and dees net praperly fall within the care duties at' a certi?ed trade. In fact, the undisputed infarmatien before us is that the Unian?s members previeusly perfermed war}: autside the strict seepe at" their pasitians under the existing language, haweyer the Empieyer directed emplayees away frarn this practice title In caneerns abeut the quality ei' warlt. Reenmmendatien #3 Frem the material befare us. we are at" the View that the Emplayer has made a campeiling ease far the rembyal af LDU 59. The Linian dees net dispute that the assignment at broader duties ta bargaining unit empleyees may be at" bene?t ta the Empleyer. In fact, the Unian presided us with several histarieal examples ef empleyees perfenning many at? the same tasks eutside the care duties ai' their pasitians the Emplayer presently seeks ?exibility in assigning- It appears evident that cperatienal ef?ciencies can be achieved threugh the Empleyer greater ?exibility in the assignment at' merit In bargaining unit members. As LDLT 59 is viewed as an undue impediment ta this practice, we its retrieval tram the Celleetiee agreement. {It} Artiele 2 Union ?eeagnitlen Summary a! Partiel' P'Dli??nl In tandem 1with the elbninatian LUU 59. the Empleyer seeks remayal of the limitatien feund in Article 2 an its ability to assign warlt eustemarily perfarmed by emplayees cayered by the Celieetiire Agreement ta ether 14 employees. Speci?cally. the Employer proposes to strike words from the provision as follows: No work customarily performed by an employee covered by this Agreement shall be performed by-anothee-empioyeesofthe?Eo? Bperative or by a contractor1 except as provided herein. The Employer views this language as further restricting its ?exibility to assign work within the bargaining unit. The Union's position. however. is that the change sought by the Employer would "pave the way for out-of?scope employees to perform tasks only speci?c skilled operators and tradespeople are quali?ed to do." It opposes any change to Article 2. Recommendation #4 in light of our recommendations on LDUs SE and 5'3. we are not persuaded there is a demonstrated need to change the provisions of Article 2. We therefore recommend no change to this Article. Inclusion of Hunter Dporntor Position Hummus-y oi' the Partiol' Positions The Employer proposes to eliminate the Master {Jperator [Milli position from the bargaining unit and to shift the duties of this position to an out-of- scope supervisory position. Master ?Operators are responsible for informal supervision and veri?cation tasks including monitoring of in-scope team members? work amongst other duties. The Employer indicates that since the labour dispute began. it has maintained operation of the facility with I53 fewer 15 full-time operating staff. it is stated that these ef?ciencies have. in large part. been achieved by eliminating the "role duplication" of the MCI and Management Shift Supervisor positions. The Union objects to the Employers proposal to remove the MCI classi?cation from its bargaining unit. It argues to do so would r?blur the line" between supervisory and operational duties and argues that maintaining the distinction between processing supervisors and M?s is "vital for maintaining a safe work environment.? Eoeommendation #5 Iilliith the submissions before us. we are not persuaded that the elimination of the bargaining unit MCI classi?cation is necessary not warranted at this time. in so ?nding. we observe this matter may be brought before the Labour Relations Board if conditions support such an application. Pension Summary of Parties' Partitions its previously notedr the most contentious issue in this dispute is the Employer's proposal on pensions. ?ver a number of decades. the parties have bargained a De?ned Bene?ts Plan Plan"} which is fully-funded by Employer contributions. At present. the Employer is paying approximately 23% of each bargaining unit employees? gross annual earnings to meet its obligation to fund the DE Plan. In the previous round of collective bargaining, the parties agreed to have new employees join and jointly fund a Defined Contribution Plan Plan}. 16 Under the DC Plan, the Emplayer makes a 6% penaien cantrihuticn far each emplajtee, and emplajreea centrihute 11}: Hi 4% ef the earnings at their sale discretian. The la required ta match emplayee eentrihutiene far a tntal cembined cantrihutian at up in 14% {if annual earnings. he well. in the laat raund cf negatiatiane, the parties agreed that current members at the bargaining unit could convert [rent the DB Plan tn the DC Plan. the an incentive ta dd at], the Empluyer offered to pay a retirement allowance in employees who made the switch between. plane. Accerding tn the Emplayer. the retirement alIewance was meant te campeneate emplayeea traneitiuning intu the DC Plan fur lune hi the bridging benefit attailahle tinder the DE Plan. All ef the excluded were matted by the Emplayer intc the DC Plan. The Emplayer?a initial prapueal in the eutTent aet {if negatiatiene was ta mare all emplayeea enralled in the DE Plan intu the DC Plan with the retirement allawance payable ta all when the].' reach their unreduced retirement date. Juat pricr tn the lackeut, the Employer made a that weuld allaw emplayeea to remain in the DE Plan with the falldwing changes: I Emplayee cantrihutiana cf 1 1% as at June 3U, I Ellminatian at indexing an peat tinne 3D. service and at CPI capped at a maximum at 3% far tire-July enac- aenaice [current preriaiena include a 5% cap: - Having the accrual rate [mm the current to at? final atterage earnings with no penaiun rednetiun at age 65 fur CPP benefits as is eurt?entl}r in the Plan in eur first talke with the parties. the Emplayer amended the ahere prepeeal by prapeaing an accrual rate at? The Union rejects the Employer?s proposed changes to the DE Plan, which it views as overly concessionary and burdensome on its members. [ts position is that the changes proposed by the Employer would effectively mean employees in the DE- Plan would be responsible for shouldering pension contributions at of their annual earnings, whereas the Employer would be responsible for only about 5.37% of pensionable earnings. During the meetings with the special mediators. the Union tabled a proposal that would largely preserve the DE Plan for members who are currently enrolled in this Plan and which it believes addresses the Employer's concerns regarding uncertainty and magnitude of future costs arising from the DE Plan. As previously indicated. the Union?s proposal is to merge the current DE Plan into an established plan within the Pulp and Paper Industry. The Pulp and Paper Industry Plan is administered by a Board of Trustees comprised of ab: union representatives and three employer representatives selected from amongst these covered by the PPIP. The features of the Union's proposal are detailed in its submission and may be summarised as fellows: .- The immediate transfer of bargaining unit employees presently enrolled in both the DC and DE Plans into the I Employer contributions of for employees presently in the DC Plan and employee contributions of 8% for these employees; I Employer contribution of 26% for employees presently enrolled in the DE Plan. and employee contributions of 4% for these employees; .- Employer no longer responsible for any pension liabilities beyond Employer contributions The Employer rejected the Union?s proposal to merge the DB Plan with the existing PPIP for reasons set out in its submission. Speci?cally, the 18 Employer objects to the E?'lth contributions proposed for employees presently in the DB Plan. It asserts this is double the rate any of its competitors are paying in employer pension contributions. Further, the Employer states the Union's proposal leaves "great uncertainty? around the pension merger and posits that to "lticlt the can down the road? in this manner leaves open the prospect of a near future labour dispute. The Employer also objects to the fact that the Union?s proposal would talte the pension outside of its control and leave future retirement bene?ts and the amount of employee contributions ?uncertain?. Recommendation #5 Given the wide gulf between the difference in the parties' positions on the DE Plan, and having reviewed comparable pension plans within the re?ning industry [and in accordance with section [dl of our terms of reference], we recommend the following changes to the DB Plan: 1. Effective on rati?cation, employees enrolled in the DE Plan will commence contributing 4% of ?nal average earnings as employee contributions into the DE Plan. 2. ills of February 1, 21322, members of the DE Plan will commence contributing 3% of ?nal average earnings as employee contributions into the DE Plan. 3. The accrual rate be maintained at 2% of ?nal average earnings with no CPP?related reduction applied at age ES as presently exists in the DE Plan. 4. No indexation on post June 30, service and CPI capped at a maximum of 2% for pre?July 1, service. In addition to the shove, we also recommend that employees who choose to move from the DE Plan to the DC Plan over the term of the renewed Collective Agreement be eligible for the Employer's early retirement allowance as proposed in bargaining. 19 With respect tn the Unien?s prepnsal ta merge the current DE Plan and members in the DC Plan inta the PPIP, we believe this prepasal has merit. The PPIP was created same feur decades age and by all acceunts has served its censtituents well. Balancing the Emplayer's need far cast-savings and greater certainty with respect tn future pensinn casts against the Unian?s desire te- preserve pension bene?ts far its members. we are ef the view that the parties aught te serieusly eaplere the Unian's prepesai during the term ef the Cellective agreement with the assistance cf their respective actuaries. Te that end, we recemmend the parties establish ajeint cemmittee ta review whether cast savings can be realised by the Ernpleyer in the event bargaining unit members were transferred ta a separate plan with camparable pensian bene?ts. In aur view, merging bargaining unit emplayee pensians with the PPIP wauld previde the cast savings and ?nancial certainty the Emplayer seeks and pese little rial-t in terms cf future diminished benefits er increased emplayee centributie-na. There is na evidence that either has accurred in the ever faur decades the PPIP has existed- 32 - Empluyee Savings Plan Summary cf Parties? Pusitinnc The Emplayer prepcses ta eliminate the Employee Savings Plan feund in LOU 32 bf the lCallective Agreement, which the parties added tn the 1Cailective Agreement in TQTQ. Under the terms [if the Savings Plan, emplayees may centribute up te 5.5% [if their yearly earnings into the Plan and the Empleyer will equally match centributians. The Emplayer asserts the Savings Plan was devised tc supplement what was at the time an industry lagging DE Pensien Plan. It argues the Savings Plan is nc langer necessary.r new that the DB Plan has far-nutpaced industry standards. The Empleyer netes that empleyees are net utilising the Savings Plan tc augment their retirement incame. Instead, they are regularly withdrawing funds from the Plan simply tn augment their disereticnary spending. As previeusly cited, the Empleyer ta implement a ?Perfermance Plan" under which an empicyee may earn a paycut cf 6% cf annual grass base earnings when targets are met, and up ta 9% an earnings if perfermance targets are exceeded. Under the proposal, the Perfermance Plan will be administered at its sale discretic-n- The Uninn eppeses the Emplayer?s prnpesal te eliminate the Empieyee Savings Plan. It nctes that appreximately sen at" its membership currently receive the maximum matched centributien frarn the The Unien ccnsequently views the Empleyer?s prepesai as ameunting tn a 6.5% wage cut. Acting within cur terms at" reference, and having reviewed cemparable agreements in the refining industry, we ?nd that savings plans are a ccmmen feature within the industry. Indeed, appreirimateiy half at" energy sect-er bargaining units including Imperial IElli, Sunear, Spectre Energy, Enbridge, and Chevren have same type nf savings plan available tn employees- Ccnsequently, we recnmmend nn changes tn LDU 32. 21 Other Dutntanding Inne- ?nicle 16 - Classi?cations, Wage Rate: and Hour: of Work The Employer seeks to amend Article 16 by adding in a management right to modify shifts upon providing two [23 weeks? notice. At present, such alteration of employees' schedules requires agreement from the Union. The Employer explained this change is sought predominantly with respect to its annual ?turn-around? period. according to the Employer, this proposal is ?not inconsistent? with competitors some of which have the right to alter schedules for regular operations upon providing 14 days' notice. The Union's position is that it has always been reasonable and ?exible with respect to temporary changes to employee schedules when sought by the Employer in respect of the ?turn-around? period. Either than the Employer?s desire for unilateral decision?making power, we heard no basis for recommending the change sought by the Employer. We therefore respectfully decline to recommend this proposal- Article 15 and LOU: so and 31 - Employee Benefit: The parties are mostly in agreement regarding changes to employees? bene?ts and have agreed to language arising from the National Pattern- Cine proposal not addressed in the National Pattern is the Employer?s proposal to amend LOU 31 so that an employee does not receive greater base pay while receiving Workers? Compensation bene?ts than they would have received at work by deleting paragraph 22 We see no cempelling reasen te alter the existing language i'eund in L?ll 31 and censequently decline te recommend the change prepesed by the Empieyer. a further paint cf cententicn between the parties is the Empieyer's prepesal that life insurance bene?ts be calculated at 2-5: annual salary far all members, irrespective cf the number {if dependents. The Unien says this change will lewer the bene?t fer a signi?cant prepertien at its membership- In the absence {if further infermatien, we decline is recemmend any changes te the manner life insurance bcne?ts are calculated. LOU 2 - Steam Ticket Premium: The parties have agreed te malts the fellewing changes te LOU 2: The ICempany ta make a ene~time payment t'er empleyees in the ballerheuse whe achieve a class steam ticltet. The ameunt will be determined by the Cempany based en business need, will be re evaluated i'rem time ta time, and may change- Currently, the payment will be This payment will net be included in the Cellectiye Agreement at Letters ei' Understanding- Emplc-yees whe receive this payment will else be eligible fer the 2nd class steam ticltet premium as set cut belew. Effective date at rati?catien, the Illempany ta intreduce the fellewing steam ticltet premiums: a: Fer empleyees whe held a 3rd class steam ticket enly when such a ticltet is required in their pesitien - $?5?fheur; er El] Fer empleyees in the beilerheuse whe held a 2nd class steam ticket enly when such a ticket is required in their pesitien 3' hr. Such an empleyee dees net aise the $D.5?f beur premium paid te eligible empieyees with a 3rd class steam ticket- 23 Steam Ticltet Hourly Steam Ticltet Premium 1st Class Ticitet Sil'l'E [maintained from 2nd class] 2nd Class Ticket SETS 3rd Class Ticltet The only area of contention between the parties in respect to LDU 2 is the Company?s proposal to delete the one time premium of $1.5m} for employees who obtain a lClass Steam Ticket during their employment with the Employer. The Union opposes removal of this premium. We heard no compelling reason to recommend removal of the Class Steam Ticltet premium and therefore recommend it remain in LEIU 2. Lil Ell-duly Return to Work - Recommendation #3 We recommend an orderly return to work for all presently locked out employees. in the event there are any issues arising out of this Recommendation. such issues are to be referred baclt to the special mediators for a ?nal and binding decision. If. CD11 CLUSIDH I:ZlI'ur recommendations with respect to the pension plan and operational ef?ciencies sought by the Employer go a long way to meeting the cost savings and efficiency targets sought by the Employer in bargaining. Put bluntly, implementation of our recommendations would result in signi?cant cost savings for the Employer. We view these recommendations as representing an appropriate compromise basis for a renewed Collective Agreement. lElur recommendations ?t squarely within the terms of reference provided to us by the Honourable Minister of Labour and Workplace Safety and. in our view. appropriately 24 balance the interests cf the parties. Speci?cally. we ncte secticn cf cur terms cf reference directs us is ccnsider I?the general impact and ccnsequences the current labcur dispute is having an all ccncerned interests.? There can be little dcubt this dispute is having a signi?cant negative impact an icci-ted cut the Cc-cperative retail system thrcughcut Western Canada. and the residents at the Prcvinee. If the dispute is net ended in a timely way. it will ccntinue tc have an increasingly detrimental effect an the agricultural cemmunity and the pcpulaticn mere brcadly that relies en the re?nery fuel. We anticipate the parties will view cur Repcrt in this light and adapt the recammendaticns as as to bring the current labcur dispute tc an end. We therefcre reccmmend the reccmmendaticns be submitted tc a vcte cf the Unicn's membership and the principalis] cf the Ccmpany within five days cf the date cf these reccmmendaticns as as is determine acceptance cr rejecticn. and that the parties each nctify the special mediatcrs and the Hencurable Minister cf Labcur and Wcritplace Safety cf the cutccme cf this ccnsultative pee-seas. We ccn?rm that all prcvisicns cf the expired Ccllective Agreement. save and except these mcdi?ed cr deleted by these reccmmendaticns. shall be lure the new IEnllective Agreement. Further. we reccmmend that any speci?cally addressed in this Repcrt be censidered withdrawn. lt cnly remains us tc thank the respective bargaining ccmmittees their detailed and submissicns and their tender and thrcughcut these prcceedings. 25 Datcd at the City of Vanmuver in the Prmrince [If Britiah Columbia this 19'? clan}.r Df March, 2320. - . 7 45/. Vincem L. Ready Amanda Rugcra Eb EUHHARY BF RECDMMEHIIATIDHE That all language agreed tc by the parties be included in the IScliecti?ire Agreement including the language arising [mm the Naticnal Pattern between Unifcr and certain re?neries as detailed under Reccmmendatien #1 and the changes summarised in Appendix a. The paragraph cutlining the minimum staf?ng requirement be remmred LDU ES. LOU 5'3 be deleted the IEli'iliecti'ire Agreement in its entirety. Nc change tc Article 2. Ne eliminaticn cf the Master l[Ilperat-cr classi?caticn the Ccllective Agreement. Changes tn the existing DE Plan as detailed in the Repert, and that the parties ccmmit te expicring the Unicn?s te merge bargaining unit members? pensicns intc the existing PIPP. Flurtlrier1 we reccmmend the prcvide the retiring ailcwance tc elect tc mcve the DE Plan tc the DC Plan fer the term cf the Cellective Agreement. Ne changes tc LCIU 32. The parties ccmmit tc an crderiy return tc wcrit far members cf the bargaining unit as eutiined in Reccmmendaticn 2? The pertiee submit these tn their respective principals en es tn determine acceptance or rejectinn within five delve cf cur Repnrt An}? eltn-ecificellj.F in thie Repnrt be cnneitiereti withdrew.