In a landmark decision rendered 13 May 1999, the Honourable George Adams, Q.C., acting as sole arbitrator, declared that the child care benefit under section 29.2.3 of the APUO collective agreement is discriminatory and in contravention of the Human Rights Code insofar as it treats biological and adoptive parents differently.

La disposition 29.2.3 prévoit un congé parental dit de «garde d’enfant» pour la mère ou le père après la naissance d’un enfant ou à l’arrivée d’un enfant adoptif.  Ce congé distinct s’ajoute au congé de maternité prévu pour la mère naturelle en vertu de la disposition 29.2.1 et au congé de paternité du père naturel en vertu de la disposition 29.2.2.  L’article prévoit un congé de 18 semaines pour les deux parents naturels et adoptifs afin qu’ils prennent soin du nouveau-né ou de l’enfant nouvellement adopté, mais seuls les parents adoptifs obtiennent une rémunération de l’employeur sous forme d’un supplément aux prestations d’assurance-emploi pouvant atteindre 10 semaines.  Voilà la question en litige.  En vertu de la disposition 29.2.3.6, un parent adoptif obtient ce supplément qui peut atteindre 95 % de sa rémunération.  Dans le cas des parents naturels cependant, la disposition 29.2.3.7 prévoit un congé sans rémunération et l’intéressé(e) obtient seulement les prestations d’assurance-emploi (413 $ par semaine au plus) au cours de la période de congé applicable.

Un professeur masculin a présenté un grief après avoir demandé un congé parental à la suite de la naissance d’un enfant, car il voulait obtenir les avantages accordés en vertu de la disposition 29.2.3.6, c’est-à-dire jusqu’à 95 % de la rémunération sous forme de supplément aux prestations d’assurance-emploi.  Le congé devait commencer en janvier 1998.  L’employeur a répondu en insistant sur le congé non rémunéré prévu à la disposition 29.2.3.7 et l’APUO a déposé le grief en arbitrage.  L’Association et l’employeur ont discuté de l’affaire et conclu une entente prévoyant dans ce cas en particulier l’octroi du congé et du supplément pouvant atteindre 95 % de la rémunération, selon la demande présentée en janvier 1998, mais le principe général remis en question par le grief ferait l’objet d’un arbitrage ultérieur.

L’audience a eu lieu le 26 avril 1999, John Henderson représentait l’APUO et Darryl Grandbois, l’employeur.  Ce dernier a soutenu que les distinctions dans la convention collective ne sont pas discriminatoires et, de toute façon, la disposition ayant été convenue par les parties au cours des négociations collectives, elle ne devrait pas être modifiée par processus d’arbitrage.  L’APUO a admis que la disposition a été convenue il y a un certain temps au cours des négociations collectives, mais elle affirme qu’il s’agit de la première situation du genre portée à l’attention des parties et, compte tenu de la jurisprudence pertinente, il n’est plus valable d’accorder l’avantage à un seul des deux groupes.  L’Association a souligné que la disposition a pour objectif de fournir aux parents adoptifs et biologiques l’occasion de prendre soin de l’enfant nouveau membre de la famille.  Il est donc discriminatoire de prévoir une rémunération pour un groupe, mais pas pour l’autre.

L’arbitre a accepté la position de l’Association.  Il a déclaré que la disposition en question est discriminatoire et à l’encontre des paragraphes 8.1 de la convention collective et 5(1) du Code des droits de la personne en raison du sexe et de la situation familiale.  Compte tenu de l’entente antérieure entre l’APUO et l’employeur, l’arbitre n’a pas formulé d’ordre de recours immédiat, mais il se réserve le droit de considérer la question si l’APUO et l’employeur ne peuvent en arriver à une solution mutuellement acceptable.

Following the issuance of the award, APUO met with the employer and there has been an exchange of positions.  The APUO position is that the 10 week top-up benefit available to the adoptive parents should be extended to natural parents.  This is the model at Carleton University, although at Carleton the benefit is greater, in that it is paid for a period of 12 weeks.  The employer response was to remove entirely the existing top-up for adoptive parents, thereby leaving both adoptive and natural parents without any compensation beyond employment insurance benefits.  Notwithstanding further attempts to move the employer from this position, there has been no progress.  APUO has now filed a request with the arbitrator to re-convene the hearing for the purpose of determining the remedy, but no date has been set.

Any member in a position of requiring a parental leave under section 29.2.3 in the near future should contact the APUO office for further information.

In a landmark decision rendered 13 May 1999, the Honourable George Adams, Q.C., acting as sole arbitrator, declared that the child care benefit under section 29.2.3 of the APUO collective agreement is discriminatory and in contravention of the Human Rights Code insofar as it treats biological and adoptive parents differently.

 Section 29.2.3 provides a parental or so-called child care leave following the birth of a child or the arrival of an adoptive child, and is available to either the mother or father.  This leave is separate and in addition to the maternity leave provided to the natural mother under 29.2.1 and paternity leave for the natural father under 29.2.2. At issue was the fact that while the section provides for an 18 week leave of absence to both natural and adoptive parents for the care of a newborn or a newly adopted child, only the adoptive parent receives compensation from the employer in the form of a top up to employment insurance benefits for up to 10 weeks. Under section 29.2.3.6, an adoptive parent may benefit from this top up payment to 95% of salary.  However, in the case of the natural parents, section 29.2.3.7 provides for a leave without pay, leaving only the employment insurance benefit (maximum $413 per week) as compensation during the applicable period of the leave.

The grievance arose out of a request for parental leave by a male faculty member after the birth of a child but with benefits accorded pursuant to 29.2.3.6, that is, at 95% of salary in the nature of a top up to employment insurance benefits.  The leave was to commence in January 1998.  The employer responded by insisting on the unpaid leave pursuant to 29.2.3.7, and the APUO filed the grievance to arbitration.  Following discussions between the Association and the employer, an agreement was reached providing for an accommodation in the specific case by granting the leave as requested in January 1998, but leaving the general principle raised by the grievance to be submitted to adjudication subsequently.

 The hearing took place on 26 April 1999, with APUO represented by John Henderson and the employer by Darryl Grandbois.  The employer argued that the distinctions in the collective agreement were not discriminatory and, in any event, as the provision was arrived at by the parties through collective bargaining, it should not be altered through the arbitration process.  APUO acknowledged that the provision had been agreed to some time ago through collective bargaining, but argued that this was the first such situation brought to the attention of the parties, and that as a result of relevant jurisprudence, the failure to provide the same benefit to both groups was no longer valid.  The Association pointed to the purpose of the provision as providing, to both biological and adoptive parents, an opportunity for child care after the arrival of a child.  That being so, creating a compensation scheme for one group and not the other was discriminatory.

The arbitrator accepted the Association’s position and issued a declaration to the effect that the provision in question is discriminatory, being contrary to both section 8.1 of the collective agreement and section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code on the grounds of both family status and sex.  By earlier agreement of APUO and the employer, the arbitrator did not include an order for an immediate remedy, but rather retained jurisdiction to deal with the issue of remedy if the APUO and the employer could not arrive at a mutually acceptable one.

Following the issuance of the award, APUO met with the employer and there has been an exchange of positions.  The APUO position is that the 10 week top up benefit available to the adoptive parents should be extended to natural parents.  This is the model at Carleton University, although at Carleton the benefit is greater, in that it is paid for a period of 12 weeks.  The employer response was to strike the existing top up for adoptive parents, thereby leaving both adoptive and natural parents without any compensation beyond employment insurance benefits.  Notwithstanding further attempts to move the employer from this position, there has been no progress.  APUO has now filed a request with the arbitrator to re-convene the hearing for the purpose of determining the remedy, but no date has been set.

Any member in a position of requiring a parental leave under section 29.2.3 in the near future should contact the APUO office for further information.