Watson Labour Lawyers Watson Labour Lawyers
Summary of OHP Decisions - OCTOBER 2006 Parties Arbitrator Date of Decision Result Rationale Proceeding to Judicial Review? Jazz Air Inc. and Airline Pilots Association M. Teplitsky Sept. 27, 2004 Grievance dismissed - Employer not obliged to pay OHP Arbitrator found that the OHP was a tax and therefore no obligation existed for the employer to pay for it. Not proceeding to judicial review Lapointe Fisher Nursing Home and UFCW Local 175/633 A. Barrett Oct. 6, 2004 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP Arbitrator found that language of CA did obligate the employer to pay the OHP; found the tax distinction irrelevant. Also found that the funds for OHP were raised for the purpose of health insurance Divisional Court upheld arbitral decision. Colleges Compensation and Appointments Council (Academic) and OPSEU O. Shime Oct. 29, 2004 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay Arbitrator found obligation that the OHP was a tax and that the reference to "government health levies" did not include a new tax Division Court upheld arbitral decision. February 27, 2006 Goodyear Canada Inc. Collingwood Plant and USWA Local 834L M.L. Tims Nov. 1, 2004 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay Arbitrator found that CA language contemplated premium payment to qualify for health insurance or an increase in premium implemented for OHIP Application by union abandoned Walker Exhausts and USWA J. Samuels Nov. 9, 2004 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation to pay insurance premiums did not extend to a tax Judicial review application filed by union College Compensation Appointments Council (Support) and OPSEU K. Whitaker Dec. 15, 2004 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation for employer to pay premiums if assessment reverted to pre-1989 circumstances did not apply. Employer still obliged to pay employer health tax. Division Court upheld arbitral decision. February 27, 2006 City of Hamilton and Hamilton Professional Firefighters Association R. Goodfellow Dec. 17 2004 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP CA obligation on employer to pay the "cost of medicare plan (OHIP)" found by arbitrator to cover any cost to employees of government-funded or government-provided health care benefits. Divisional Court upheld arbitral decision. January 10, 2006. Smurfit-MBI and USW, IWA Council Local 1-500 B. Fisher Jan. 27, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA language obliges employer payment for "cost of direct premiums for legislated mandatory basic hospital and medical programs". Arbitrator finds that OHP does not meet this requirement, because the ITA legislation does not require that revenue be used solely for purpose described in CA. Judicial review application filed by union H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada and UFCW G. Brent Feb. 1, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligations in respect of cost of health insurance plan are limited to employee costs for the specific insurance plan. OHP does not directly impose a cost upon employees in respect of insurance plan. No application as yet Woodbine Entertainment Group and SEIU H.D. Brown Feb. 15, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligations to pay premiums for OHIP do not apply to a tax under the Income Tax Act No application as yet Unibord New Liskeard Inc. and IWA Canada Local 1-2995 M.B. Keller Feb. 22, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation to pay for OHIP was premised on obligation to pay to receive benefit. This is not the case today No application as yet TTC and ATU Local 113 D. Harris Mar. 17, 2005 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP Arbitrator found that the CA obligation to pay OHIP premiums was broad enough to encompass OHP payments based on interpretation of Health Insurance Act (HIA) and ITA. HIA provides that insurance plan covered other related health benefits and that OHP raised for provision of health services. Divisional Court upheld arbitral Decision. February 14, 2006 Placer Dome (CLA) Limited Porcupine Joint Venture R. Kennedy Mar. 21, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligations to pay premiums for OHIP do not apply to pay for a new tax such as OHP. Relies heavily on insurance law. No application as yet Selkirk Canada Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers International Association O. Shime April 11, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation on employer to pay OHIP premiums does not apply to OHP. OHP is not statutorily linked to OHIP and health insurance and there is no obligation to use revenue for OHIP. No application as yet Regional Municipality of Waterloo and Canadian Union of Public Employees Locals 1656 and 1883 M. Nairn 38432 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligations to pay premiums for OHIP do not apply to pay for a new tax such as OHP. Relies heavily on insurance law No application as yet Kawneer Company Canada Limited and Shopmen’s Local Union 835 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers M.K Saltman May 13, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation in respect of OHIP premiums does not apply to a tax. Arbitrator relies on previous premium payment as condition of entitlement to health benefits and rejects Hamilton firefighters linkage between OHIP and other health benefits. No application as yet Participating Hospitals and Ontario Nurses Assoc. H.D. Brown - Board Chair May 16, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation to pay OHIP premiums does not apply to OHP. Premiums are payments for entitlement, not taxes. Premiums were replaced by the EHT. OHP is a tax based on income, not on premium value for insurance services. No application as yet Ontario Power Generation and Power Workers Union K. Swan May 25, 2005 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP CA obligations on employer to pay OHIP premium apply to OHP, because both are taxes and both were not specifically tied to provision of insured services. Consistent renegotiation of premium payment into CA after obligations from premiums disappeared in 1989 also relied upon. Judicial review application filed by employer Thames Valley District School Board and CUPE Local 4222 G. Brent June 3, 2005 Thermal Ceramics and USWA Local 16056 J. Samuel - Chair of Board June 14, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation in respect of premiums does not apply to OHP. OHP is premium payment for OHIP. OHP not a premium in which payment is a condition of coverage. OHP is an income-based tax. CA obligation to pay the premium does not apply to a tax. CA is limited to OHIP obligations. No application as yet London Hydro and Power Workers Union P. Knopf June 14, 2005 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP CA obligation is in respect of OHIP premiums. Arbitrator adopts reasoning in Hamilton firefighters and OPG case to conclude that OHP and OHIP premiums are both taxes with revenues not specifically designated to health care. On that basis, arbitrator finds no significant difference between OHIP premiums and OHP. Divisional Court upheld arbitral Decision. July 6, 2006 Toronto Hydro R. D. Howe July 21, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obligation for costs of OHIP does not apply to OHP. Arbitrator rejects Hamilton firefighters decision reasoning that OHP not materially different from OHIP. No application as yet National Steel Car Limited and United Steelworkers of America Local 7135 B. Herlich July 22, 2005 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP Distinction between tax and premium is meaningless for purposes of CA interpretation. CA provides for employer to pay OHIP premiums - nothing that states that OHIP premiums must be spent for health care. OHIP and OHP are reasonably similar and therefore the employer must pay OHP No application as yet Re Associated Spring Operations and USWA Local 871 P. Knopf August 19, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA required employer to pay "full premium costs for employees’ OHIP". As OHIP premiums no longer existed, and OHP was not a premium, the employer was not responsible for paying a portion of employees’ taxes. Re Toronto (City) and CUPE Local 79 R.J. Herman September 12, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA provided for er to pay "100% of the premiums which will include any premiums payable under the Health Insurance Act." Arbitrator found the intent was for the employer to be liable for all individual premiums paid by employees. Did not intend to pay a portion of fixed taxes though, only a fixed levy. OHP not materially or reasonably similar to OHIP premium. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1587 v. Ontario (Greater Toronto Transit Authority - GO Transit) (Benefits Grievance) D. Harris October 19, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obliged er to pay the OHIP monthly premium. OHP was materially and reasonably similar to OHP. However, context of the CA suggested that the er was obliged to pay the EHT, not the OHP. Peel Housing Corp. v. OPSEU Local 280 (Ontario Health Tax Grievance) W. Kaplan November 14, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The OHP was a tax. Had the parties wished to negotiate an obligation for the er to pay health related taxes were imposed they should have clearly stated so. Instead the CA only obliged the er to pay the EHT. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada Local 195 v. Flex N Gate Canada Co (Ontario Health Premium Grievance) M. V. Watters November 16, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA obliged the er to pay 100% of any cost under the listed benefits, inclusive of any and all premiums. The OHP was not one of the listed benefits, nor was it a premium. Therefore, there was no obligation on the er to pay the OHP. Skf Canada Limited and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 901 Kevin M. Burkett Novem- ber 16, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA obliged the er to pay for 100% of the government OHIP benefit. The arbitrator found that there was no intention for the er to pay for post-OHIP premiums or any other health related charges, fees etc. The Arbitrator took exception in particular to the position of Arbitrator Swan in Ontario Power Generation. Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Union of Postal Workers Kevin M. Burkett November 16, 2005 Grievance dismissed- Employer not to pay St. Gobain Abrasives Canada Inc. and CEP Local 12 (Ontario Health Premium Grievance) L. Trachuk November 16, 2005 Grievance upheld - Employer to pay OHP Relying on the Divisional Court decision on Lapointe Fisher and Swan’s decision in OPG, the arbitrator found that the company was obliged pay the cost of the OHP since they would have been obliged to pay 100% of the OHIP premium. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 416P v. Smucker Foods of Canada Co. B. Etherington November 21, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA required the employer to pay the "total cost" of the OHIP. The arbitrator held that these cases were to be determined based on the language in the CA and look at what the intention of the parties was when the provision was negotiated. The arbitrator found that the intent was to pay the "total cost" of the health insurance plan - it was to meet health expenses generally, not just the cost of OHIP CEP Local 200-0 and PPG Canada Inc. (Health Care Benefits Grievance R.O. MacDowell November 21, 2005 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA obliged the er to pay for certain benefits both in connection with OHIP and other insurance schemes. The OHP, however, was not the same as the previous OHIP premium as it was not a "payment for access to benefits." The OHP was materially different than the OHIP premium and under the current CA language, the er was not obliged to pay it. CEP v. PPG Canada Inc. R. MacDowell November 25, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay Certain words in the CA were to be given meaning. The key question was whether or not the words used were elastic enough to embrace the new OHP tax. The OHP was materially different than the OHIP premium and therefore the employer did not have to pay. Aventis Pasteur Ltd and C.E.P. Loc. 1701 K.M. Burkett December 19, 2005 Grievance dismissed-Employer not liable to pay CA required the Er to pay 100% of the OHIP premiums with language that referenced the "Provincial Health Tax". Meaning of Health Tax was the Employer Health Tax introduced in 1990. No open ended obligation to pay future health premiums. Re AOC Canada Inc. and U.N.I.T.E. K.M. Burkett December 20, 2005 Grievance dismissed-Employer’s obligation satisfied going forward by payment of EHT CA required the Er to pay 100% of premium costs of OHIP. Article was amended after OHIP premiums discontinued in 1990. OHI premiums were different in character from OHP (OHP not payment required for access to medical services.) Er’s obligation was only to pay EHT introduced in 1990. USWA Local 6571 and Gerdau Ameristeel M.E. Cummings January 6, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay premiums CA said that the Er would "continue to pay for any increases to OHIP, EHC and semi private premiums". Additional sentence was added that "Services currently being provided must continue to be provided" Arbitrator disagreed with the line of cases that compared the OHIP premium and OHP, but still found that the employer was not required to pay the premium Re Peterborough Regional Health Care and O.P.S.E.U. W.Kaplan January 23, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA required the ER to pay 1000% of billed OHIP premiums. Payment of OHP was not a precondition for access to medical services. OHP was a tax. Grievance dismissed. Quaker Oats Co. of Canada v. Quaker Oats Employees Independent Union (Health Premium Grievance) W. Rayner January 28, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA required the ER to provide benefits under the Ontario Health Services Insurance Plan. Arbitrator reviewed Divisional Crt decision in Lapointe Fisher and Swan OPG decision and found them distinguishable. No promise by the Er to pay OHIP premiums or OHIP costs. No obligation to pay the OHP. Re Toronto Zoo (Board of Management) and C.U.P.E. D.K.L. Starkman February 8, 2006 Grievance Dismissed- Employer not obligated to pay CA required Er to pay 100% of "OHP (billed rates)." Language contemplated payment by employer after receipt of bill. OHP was not a billed rate associated with OHIP and therefore Er not obliged to pay. Owens-Corning (Canada) Inc. v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Local 1305 S. Raymond February 9, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay After OHIP premiums eliminated in 1990, CA altered to provide for Er’s obligation to be to pay for Employer Health Tax and "total cost of the plans" Bargaining history showed that parties had negotiated changes to the CA in the past. Employee cost of OHP not subsumed into the wording of current CA. London (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 107 H. Snow March 10, 2006 Grievance Upheld - Employer to pay OHP CA obliged ER to pay 100% of OHIP premiums. The new OHP was sufficiently similar in nature to the old OHIP premium to be considered a "premium" and therefore covered under the CA. Arbitrator paid close attention to the intention of the parties when negotiating the CA. The Er was obliged to pay the new OHP. Judicial Review Application filed - Employer had refused to pay in interim - Arbitral Award (July 20, 2006) ordered Er to pay in interim Vaughan and CUPE Local 905 W. Kaplan March 20, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay The provisions in the CA required the Employer to pay the EHT while at the same time deleting pre existing obligations to pay the OHIP premiums. What the parties had bargained did not encompass the passage of any future tax, even one that was health related. BASF Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, Local 775 P.C. Picher March 31, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obliged the Er to pay 100% of the cost of the OHIP premiums. . Arb accepts the approach taken by Swan re intent of the parties for future premiums. Does not accept however that the OHP is materially and reasonably similar to OHIP premiums Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 2003 v. University of Guelph J.H. Devlin March 27, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay CA obliges the ER to pay for "basic medical and hospital legislation." That the issue was not contemplated at the time of negotiation is not determinative. However, the OHIP premiums and the OHP were not similar enough in nature to require the Er to pay the OHP. Similar conclusion to Brent’s decision in Heinz. Ottawa Police Assn v. Ottawa Police Services Board R. McLaren March 29, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay The original intention of the parties in prior Cas was cost allocation and the procurement of health benefits. After 1990, no need for the employer to pay anything in order to procure a medical plan for the employee. The OHP similarly did not require the cost to be paid to procure the medical plan. No loss of OHIP benefits if the amount was not paid, so Er not required to pay. Stepan Canada Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 17 C.G. Simmons March 30, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay Issue was whether the Er was obliged to "pay the 100% of the premium cost" of the OHP as it had for the OHIP premiums. Considered the intention of the parties with regard to future legislative changes that might trigger the employer’ obligation to pay premiums. Concluded that the language did not contemplate the Er being obliged to pay the OHP Windsor (City) v. CUPE Local 543 R. McLaren April 19, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay The OHP was a tax even if it as called a health premium. It was similar to the EHT which was a tax on the employer imposed in 1989. The requirements to pay the OHIP premium was not triggered by the OHP’s introduction. There was a tax consequence if one failed to pay the OHP, not a loss of OHIP coverage. TRW Canada Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers of Canada (CAW Canada) Local 1411 H. Brown April 21, 2006 Grievance dismissed - employer not to pay The distinction between a tax and premium was critical in the interpretation of the CA. The language had remained the same for 20 years. However, any requirement to pay the newly introduced OHP, which was a tax, was not triggered by the obligation to premiums for OHIP insurance coverage prior to 1989. Toronto District School Board and CUPE Local 4400 L.M. Davie May 15, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA contained "reverts back" language which the Union argued was to be used if the OHIP premium was to be reintroduced. The arbitrator found that the OHP and the OHIP premium were not materially similar and that the reverts back language did not apply Cascades Boxboard Group Toronto v. CEP Local 1112 T. Cjrljenica June 5, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The OHP was a tax and not a true premium like the former OHIP premium. As the two were not materially similar, the grievance was dismissed. Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd. v. UFCW Local 1000A R.J. Herman July 13, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The CA stated that certain premiums were to be paid by the Employer. If the parties had intended that health costs levied against employees were to be covered, the CA would have clear language to that effect. Nestle Canada Inc v. CNFIU K.M. Burkett July 13, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The OHIP premium and the OHP were not materially similar and therefore any reference to the employer’s obligation to pay the OHIP premium did not extend their obligation to pay the OHP OPSEU Local 116 and Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex K. Whitaker August 18, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not to pay The parties had language that said if the OHIP premium was reintroduced, the Er would pay. The OHP was a new form of assessment, not a reintroduction of the pre 1989 scheme, and therefore the Er was not obliged to pay Norfolk Power Distribution Inc. And CUPE Local 1000 H.D. Brown August 31, 2006 Grievance allowed - Employer to pay The CA provided that the Er was to pay "100% of a the cost of a Health Plan...". The language was similar to that in Knopf’s London Hydro case. The OHP was a cost for health care and fell into the Er’s obligation to pay 100% of the health plan. Timmins v. Timmins Professional Firefighters Assn S. Tacon October 10, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay The CA said the Er was obliged to pa "10% of the cost of the premiums for the medical/hospital benefits" of OHIP. OHIP premium was a condition of access to health care and was not a tax. The wording in the CA did not require the Er to pay anything other than the OHIP premiums (which no longer existed). Arbitrator endorsed the reasoning of Arb. Howe et al. Autoliv Canada Inc. V. International Assn of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 2113 C. Albertyn October 13, 2006 Grievance dismissed - Employer not required to pay Both parties accepted that the OHP was a tax and a premium and that this did not matter. The issue was the language in the CA which said "OHIP for Employees and Dependants - Company Paid". The bargaining history found that the Er would pay costs to cover health benefits. However, the OHP was not the same type as arrangement as the one set out in the CA and the Er was not required to pay.