Newfoundland arbitrator rules in favour or employee in pension related grievance
August 09, 2023
A multi-year long delay was not enough to stop a Newfoundland and Labrador grievance from proceeding after an arbitrator found a “culture of acquiescence” had developed between the employer and the union regarding the enforcement of the grievance time limits set out in the Collective Agreement.
Noseworthy, an employee of Newfoundland Power Inc., filed a grievance alleging that Newfoundland Power Inc. provided Noseworthy with incorrect pension information which compromised his pension benefits.
Noseworthy claimed that an HR professional at Newfoundland Power Inc. informed him around the time of his 2012 separation that he could split his pension with his ex-wife and then rebuild his pension in full by working longer years. However, by December 2015, Noseworthy was informed that the maximum pensionable credited service is 35 years, and that any pensionable service lost due to his marital breakdown is included in his 35 years maximum. The union filed a formal grievance on his behalf in February 2022.
Newfoundland Power Inc. sought a preliminary objection dismissing the grievance as untimely. Per the Collective Agreement, a grievance must proceed to arbitration within 45 days of the occurrence or the employee becoming aware of the circumstances.
The preliminary objection was denied. The Arbitrator found that the grievance time limits under the Collective Agreement were not historically enforced. Simply put, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that there was a culture of acquiescence in terms of grievance time limits up until January 2021. Then, in January 2021, when the time limits began to be strictly enforced for “new timelines”, it was noted that Noseworthy’s pension issue was an already existing issue at that time, and it was actively being discussed. If Newfoundland Power Inc. wanted to place a “time limit” on an existing matter (such as Noseworthy’s pension issue in January 2021), then Newfoundland Power Inc. should have done so explicitly.
Thus, the Arbitrator rejected the employer’s preliminary objection, permitting the matter to proceed based upon the “unusual and specific circumstances of this case”.
Click on more information below to read the arbitrator's decision:
