Must negotiate in civil manner
Re Law and disorder Nov. 6.
Linda Diebel’s story regarding the predicament in reaching a collective agreement between the police services board and the Police Association contained a reference by Pam McConnell (police board vice chair) to “ an old boys’ club” in which contracts were signed with “ a nod, a wink and a handshake. The association told the board what it wanted and it gave it to them.” This statement is an insult to the board members who served with me during my tenure as chairman of the Toronto Police Services Board and to those who participated in mediation. It has no validity whatsoever and, if anything, shows why this lack of competency on her part has led to the divisive situation that exists today.
I participated in three collective agreements. Prior to my assuming the chair, there were at least eight arbitrated collective agreements. The police services board couldn’t get the association to back off on any items. During my tenure, we settled pension overpayment disputes along the lines of previous settlements concluded by other police services boards. So much for the wink and nod. The last collective bargaining I was involved with required mediation by former judge George Adams. This was a tough bargaining session with a time line agreed to by my members and the association. It took place at a time when 1,800 police were eligible for retirement within a two- year period and the attrition rate was anywhere from 35 to 50 officers a month. The ability to hire and train replacements was limited to just more than 300 replacements a year, which could not even replace those leaving the service. The consequences of this predicament was higher overtime costs to ensure police backup, which was a safety issue and the plucking of officers from the special squads and investigative units, which would have decimated those respective units. The retention pay issue was already set as a precedent in Western Canada.
In accepting the implementation of retention pay, the police association gave up existing court elect, which was around $ 1 million of annual expenditure. It gave up the senior officers’ 2 per cent seniority differential along with annual increments. It brought attrition down to three to five officers a month, thereby salvaging our investigative units and keeping experienced officers in the service rather than going elsewhere.
McConnell’s statements indicate a lack of knowledge as well as a lack of ability to negotiate fairly with the association. It is important when conducting labour relations to have respect for the other party and to negotiate in a civil manner. Unfortunately, that civility by the board has not surfaced in these negotiations and has led to the tension between the chief and the association. Norman Gardner, Thornhill