Put city police back on the beat

In the usual pattern of labour disputes, tensions ease when two sides reach a tentative agreement. Not so with the pact between Toronto’s police board and its 7,700- member union. A troubling hostility lingers. Both sides say they have a good deal, but police officers vow to continue a job action that includes wearing non- regulation clothing and cutting back on issuing traffic tickets. They are on a collision course with Police Chief Bill Blair who understandably wants officers fully on the job. He has also expressed a determination to punish staff who violated a direct order by wearing uniforms and guns while protesting at city hall. Emotions are running high. If allowed to grow, this strife could derail the deal. The agreement, hammered out in a gruelling 30- hour bargaining session, is a welcome one. Collective bargaining works best when two sides arrive at a mutually acceptable contract rather than having to submit to terms dictated by an arbitrator. Toronto police have no right to strike. Several times in the history of the force deadlocked labour and management officials have had to turn to arbitration. This time both sides, to their credit, were able to reach a deal. Details are sketchy and are not to be released until the union briefs its members at a meeting over the weekend. But pay raises have been reported to be 3.75 per cent this year, 3.1 per cent next year and 3 per cent in the final year of the pact. That would be roughly in line with increases accepted by other Toronto municipal workers earlier this year.

Reports also indicate that management backed away from an effort to cut retention pay. And the contentious issue of having officers serve for long days in a compressed workweek was set aside for separate talks, with arbitration to follow should those talks fail. That set- aside seems a smart strategy. It had become painfully obvious — as tensions escalated in recent weeks — that an agreement was unlikely on the issue of shift schedules. Rather than allow deadlocks like these to linger, potentially poisoning the entire bargaining process, negotiators in future talks should be prepared to set aside issues sooner. Had such action been taken earlier this year, police may not have worked more than 10 months without a contract. Labour and management might also consider, in future bargaining, replacing retention pay with a merit pay system geared to rewarding initiative and fresh thinking. Members of the Toronto Police Association will rule on the tentative deal by mailing in their ballots, with voting ending on Dec. 5. That means it will take almost a month for the rank- and- file to pass judgment on this pact. Union leaders intend to continue with job action until then. They also want Blair to back down on punishing those officers — a minority of about 150 — who ignored his order and protested in full uniform. The union’s stance is unwise. It should instruct officers to cease their job action. Police association leaders can always summon their members back to protesting should the tentative contract be rejected.

Blair, too, should consider a compromise. Rebellious officers mustn’t go unpunished. But they were urged to violate Blair’s order by their union. Perhaps some nominal sanction will suffice, such as having a warning letter placed in their file. With a deal in hand, both sides must move forward rather than dwell on the past and allow lingering hostility to poison the future.