Email

Print

Ella Waight, Deputy Union Rep.
"It is strange that all of a sudden he interprets it differently, because he signed the CBA are currently using. He is the one who signed the CBA. So the last payment that was made, the board approved it under his chairmanship. How come he is interpreting it another way. The uniform was first at 12 months. When we went to the previous negotiations, they said let's take it to 18 months because the quality is a little better, because it's from out of the country. We do not decide where the uniforms are made. The board does that. They sent it out of the country 18 months. But if the uniforms do not reach when that time is expired, we have to buy clothing. Because the organization requires we wear professional clothing. We have a reputation to uphold at Social Security. We are supposed to be customer service oriented, we need to look proper. So when uniforms expired, the day after we are supposed to be compensated with a clothing allowance. Because the uniforms, we had done fitting and everything was sent out of the country to be done, the company does not know when the uniforms would arrive. So they cannot pay you this clothing allowance of $450 the very next day when the previous ones expires, because they don't know when it will come. It might come before the year ends. So we do not demand or ask for that payment then. We agreed we will wait until the uniforms come, as in the past and then they would calculate how much months we were without uniform and they would provide us an amount prorated for that amount. We agreed to that in good faith. That wording is not specifically in our CBA, but it's in our MOE that is signed behind it where it says "as per the CBA, the previous payment was made"

On the issue of who is to blame for the lateness of the uniforms, both sides also differ. Chairman Singh told us that the management will not take the full blame because the union members themselves are on the committee in charge of the uniforms. Well, Deputy Union Rep. Waight said they do not have any control over when the uniforms arrive and they simply attend meetings and make suggestions.

Doug Singh, Chairman, Social Security Board
"Why would you then expect the institution to pay more because you were late, when in fact the lateness is directly attributable to your committee of 5 which includes 3 union representatives not bringing it on time and I don't see why you would reasonably say that the fund should pay you more because we were late. That is saying that compensate me for coming to work late."

Ella Waight, Deputy Union Rep.
"As in any organization, no member or no officer from an organization cannot call a meeting. We are there to do the work of the company. Anything besides our job, the management, in this case the HR manager calls, dictates when these meetings are held. We do not do that. So the timeframe depends on them when meetings are called... when the company comes in to do these things. We just attend and give suggestions of what our members feel the color should be, the design etc. That's all the input we have into it."

Another issue that was addressed is the pension increase under the employee pension program - Singh explained that based on his calculation it is 16% but the union says - not so!

Doug Singh, Chairman, Social Security Board
"The release deals with about 3 main areas if my memory serves me correctly and one of them deals with them saying that I misrepresented a number of things they said relative to the request by the pension fund for an increase in pension on behalf of the staff. I stated that it was about 16% increase and they said first of all that that's wrong and secondly that has nothing to do with any benefit program under the collective bargaining agreement. There is a line item under the collective bargaining agreement that says that pension should be paid for as provided in the pension act. So it is listed in the collective bargaining agreement and recognized as a benefit. Secondly, the funds that go to pay pensions, a separate pension from Social Security pension, so it's a second pension to employees comes out of contributors' funds. Everything that the employees benefit from comes from the contributors' fund. So you can't treat these things on isolation. So that is really a distraction as far as that comment is concerned. The fund pays for any pension and any increase in such pension would mean an increase in contribution to the pension fund."

"Secondly, they said that the amount wasn't 16%. Well I didn't go to law school, but I was pretty good in math in school and I have the document in front of me from the trustees of the pension fund where it says "the trustees agree to increase the annual pension rate from 1.2% of whatever the base it, to 1.4%." That's a .2% increase. That .2% over a base of 1.2 calculates to 16%."

Lenora Flowers, Supervisor, Legal Dept. - SSB
"The recommendation was for an increase to pensioners and there are 5 pensioners existing at this current day. You become a pensioner when you finish working and you come off, then you get pension from the pension fund. People would go on the pension fund when they turned 60. Some people would go in 6, 7, 8 years. At this current time we have 5 pensioners who would have benefited and it's not at 16%. It's prorated. We don't even have that figure, but the committee told us it's not 16%."

A lot of back and forth right? Well, Singh also told us that he hopes that they can both at least agree on the point that the fund is there for the beneficiaries and that they are the priority - not employee uniform allowances. But, it does not seem that they agree on that either - today President Matura - Shepherd told us that it is simply unfair that Chairman Singh would make such a comment.

Doug Singh, Chairman, Social Security Board
"The priority for the fund is for the beneficiaries. That is a fundamental principle that we have to agree on. If it wasn't for that, you would have no employees managing the fund and so if you put it in its proper perspective and that's what we are charged with a board of director. That's what they are charged with as administrators of the fund."

Audrey Matura Shephard, President - CWU
"I don't think what he is doing is fair, because what he is trying to say is then pity the members who contribute to Social Security Board against the employees. As though the employees are the ones who make decision, as to how many people who go to Social Security Board don't get certain benefits, as to the limited benefits under the law. The employees can't change the law. It is the board that make recommendation to the parliamentarians as to any increase/decrease - anything. It is the board that decides how much tens of millions of dollars they will allow the government to use for BEL and BTL. It is the board in cahoots with the government that decides how to siphon money. Especially around elections, to make certain projects occur. It is the board that decides who is the investor that gets money. It is the board that decides how certain transaction goes that benefits certain people within the board though their companies and so. We will reveal a lot of these things and throw it out there to warn the chairman careful what you say because you have skeletons in your closet."

The workers told us that the uniform issue is only one of many issues that the workers have been facing at SSB and that they plan to continue industrial action until their demands are met.