16 March 2006

Arbitrator's ruling affirms Guild members can choose whether, when to retire

Victoria-Vancouver Island Newspaper Guild | TNG Canada Local 30223

About 170 Guild members who work at the Victoria Times-Colonist are not subject to a mandatory retirement policy unilaterally imposed by the company, an arbitrator has ruled.

"We're thrilled," says administrative officer Deborah Service-Brewster. "It's an important win in that there is now choice for a majority of our members on whether and when they want to retire."

"One of our members would have had to retire in April and she has stated that, with this win, she intends to continue to work past age 65. Another member who would have had to retire next year is also intending to stay past age 65," she says.

Arbitrator Rod Germaine found that the mandatory retirement policy introduced in January 2004 is not consistent with the terms of the collective agreement.

Service-Brewster says the Guild won the case on a very narrow point, but it should prompt other Locals to examine their contract language, especially in those provinces such as B.C. where human rights legislation permits age discrimination.

In examining the history of bargaining at the Times-Colonist, the arbitrator concluded that "there was a practice of employees continuing to work past the age of 65. ... the company understood it was required to secure the Guild's agreement before it could compel retirement."

Germaine notes that, in 1983, the parties adopted (a Letter of Understanding) which, in exchange for job guarantees, provided for mandatory retirement of all existing employees at age 65. (That agreement affects about 30 Guild members today.)

"The purpose of the disputed policy," the arbitrator writes, "is to extend mandatory retirement to all employees by covering post-1983 employees."

Years earlier, the company had also negotiated a "special retirement allowance" as an inducement for employees affected by technological change to not work beyond the age of 65.

Essentially, says Service-Brewster, the company had long ago chosen the vehicle of collective bargaining to introduce mandatory retirement. By trying to unilaterally impose mandatory retirement on post-1983 employees with its 2004 policy, the company "wanted to change horses in the middle of the stream."

"The collective agreement is consistent with the practice of employees enjoying the option to continue working past age 65," says the arbitrator. "Since the collective agreement is consistent with voluntary retirement, logic dictates that a policy of mandatory retirement is likely to be inconsistent with the collective agreement."