Enercare Collective Agreement


[157] For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the parties` collective agreement empowers me to determine the merits of the Union`s complaint of September 9, 2016, so that the company`s objection to my jurisdiction is dismissed. [74] The company`s main assertion, the Union should have known that the books of Youfirst, in both the 1999 SDR and 2005 Direct Energy SDR plans described a kind of Category 3 utility in these brochures, stating that “Levels 3 and 4 of the SDR plan are currently available through the insurance company” (emphasizing the emphasis) has also been questioned by the EU , because the Union, according to the Union, is not at odds with the company`s obligation to provide benefits to the SDR plan while limiting its own exposure by ensuring its potential loss by an insurance company. In this context, the Union pointed out that although I had found the 1999 and 2005 youfirst books describing the terms of a binding SDR plan or plan for the Eu, there was nothing in the language of these brochures that did not include the company`s continued responsibility in the benefits of the SDR plan related to the protection of the incomes of workers with long-term disabilities Without. , even if the company had paid the premiums for an insurance policy to cover its own liability. The fact that the brochures used the word “currently” by finding that Phases 3 and 4 of the SDR plans were provided through an insurance company did not preclue the company from exercising its discretion to suspend these premiums at any time to find another form of financing of its potential liability for such claims. In the absence of clear language in the collective agreement or in the books of youfirst, which indicate that the company`s liability for these benefits was limited to the sole payment of premiums to an insurance company providing the negotiated level of coverage, the company was unable to characterize the DT plans described in youfirst Booklets as a Category 3 obligation according to brown and Beatty typologies. based on information provided by the EU. [6] Following the presentation of opening statements in which the parties referred to a large number of documents submitted for approval, including previous collective agreements between the company and the Union (under their business and estate names) and various alleged versions of the SDR plan, the parties agreed to argue in writing the previous issues within my jurisdiction. they presented on a consensual timetable. “The ratification of the collective agreement is great news for our employees, for our company and especially for our customers,” said John Macdonald, President and CEO of Enercare. “The agreement is the result of collaboration between the two parties to reach a contract that allows us to move forward together in the creation and growth of the company for long-term success.” [24] Separate collective agreements, negotiated later by CEP Local 975 (which were renamed to Unifor, Local 975 following CEP`s merger with the Canadian Auto Workers on August 31, 2013), with successive employers submitted by the parties to this proceeding, are notable for their differences in the description of health benefits covered by Section 15 of these collective agreements.

Comments are closed.