News

With Toronto's unionized workers already back to work today after a 38-day strike, Mayor David Miller kicked off what's expected to be a contentious debate at council by urging members to approve the deal.

“I don't need to say what the consequences are if councillors vote this down today, you know, you know,” said Mr. Miller, wagging his finger in the air in the council chambers at city hall. “ I don't need to mention it because you all know.”

Leaders of the two civic unions already have warned that their members will go back on strike if council rejects the agreement that includes a controversial provision that allows employees to keep a sick-pay perk as part of a larger effort to phase out the benefit over time.

In his campaign-style speech, Mr. Miller repeated that the terms of the tentative settlement fall “squarely within the mandate given to our bargaining team and met the city's bargaining goals of being fair, of being affordable and allowing us to run effectively and efficiently into the future.”

Mr. Miller said that changes to the sick-day benefit, no longer available to new employees under the proposed deal, means the current estimated liability of $140-million “is not only capped but will diminish considerably and ease pressure on our operating budget.”

In explaining the deal to councillors, city manager Joe Pennachetti said the terms are within the instructions set by council’s employee and labour committee. “We are definitely within, and in fact below, our financial mandate,” he said. "Firstly, in regard to salaries, we are within the mandate, as outlined with salaries averaging 2 per cent per year. Our salary increase is an incredible achievement and our increases are effectively the lowest in the province for total compensation in closing salaries and benefits for 2009.”

The council debate began with a series of procedural disputes, with councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 33, Don Valley West) demanding to see the terms of a back-to-work protocol, including amnesty for strikers for aggressive behaviour on the picket line, negotiated between the city and union negotiators.

The document will be shared with councillors for information, not debate.

Yesterday, Mr. Miller had launched a blistering attack on his foes, particularly those in the right-leaning responsible government group, whose 11 members publicly denounced the deal Thursday as a “betrayal” of what had been promised to council and the public.

Mr. Miller said the group's complaint – that the deal city negotiators signed fell outside the bargaining mandate set by the labour and employee relations committee – is false and an “appalling” attack on city staff.

There is little chance that council will reject a tentative agreement that would give existing unionized workers wage increases and the option to keep a controversial sick-pay perk.

Councillors in the group, meanwhile, said constituents had bombarded them with more than 1,000 e-mails begging them to vote down the deal.

“The people of Toronto will not be distracted by personal attacks,” said Cliff Jenkins, a member of the group. “The people of Toronto understand that this is a bad deal.”

The political jockeying came after members of CUPE Local 416 greeted their president, Mark Ferguson, as a conquering hero when he arrived to kick off a day of voting that ended with outside workers ratifying a new contract by a “large margin.”

Mr. Ferguson boasted that, along with beating back the city's demands for concessions on the contract itself, union leaders won amnesty for workers who misbehaved during the labour dispute.

“The city wanted to terminate and prosecute those few who got a little excited on the picket lines. We made sure of amnesty for everybody involved,” he told the cheering crowd. “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!”

After the vote, Mr. Ferguson said that while “there is every reason to believe” council would approve the deal, he warned of the consequences of a no vote.

“If city council decides not to ratify the collective agreement, our members will once again be in a strike position and they will be walking off the job,” he said, speaking at a joint press conference with Local 79 president Ann Dembinski, whose members approved the new contract on Wednesday.

Mr. Miller also warned that council rejection of the proposed deal would extend the strike, prolong use of temporary dump sites and delay the return of programs for children and the city's most vulnerable residents.

“In all of [my] years of elected office, I have never seen such a disgraceful and completely unwarranted attack on staff,” Mr. Miller fumed at a news conference, where he and city officials laid out a planned resumption of city services that began this morning.

“I am very, very upset,” added city manager Joe Pennachetti. “We definitely followed the mandate.”

Mr. Miller singled out councillors Frances Nunziata and Mr. Jenkins, who sit on the labour committee and plan to vote against the deal, saying they “know full well what the bargaining mandate was and that this agreement is well within it.”

At issue is the sick-day benefit. Full-time employees can collect, bank and cash out up to six months worth of sick pay upon retirement. The new contract seeks to phase out the perk by giving current workers the choice of the status quo or a cash payout with a switch to a new short-term disability plan, which will be automatic for all new hires.

“It's the equivalent of continuing to pay a retirement supplement for the next 30 years,” said Ms. Nunziata, who noted that her office has been inundated with calls and e-mails from constituents opposed to the deal.

She and Mr. Jenkins insisted that the labour committee approved only the outright elimination of the sick bank, although they agreed to the option of an immediate payout. It was this plan the mayor made public on July 10 in the middle of negotiations with CUPE Locals 79 and 416.

Mr. Jenkins also said the proposed wage increases over three years of 1.75 per cent, 2 per cent and 2.25 amount to more than councillors authorized, although he wouldn't elaborate.

Friday's council vote is expected to be held mostly in public, with a simple majority needed to endorse or reject the deal. The Globe and Mail contacted every councillor by e-mail Thursday to survey their intentions. Of 44 councillors, 23 responded: 14 said they would vote against the deal, six said they would vote yes, and three declined comment.

Councillor Case Ootes, who was deputy mayor under Mel Lastman during Toronto's 16-day strike in 2002, said he was willing to accept responsibility for a prolonged walkout if it meant getting a better deal for Toronto taxpayers. Asked why he didn't tackle the sick bank during his time in the Lastman administration, Mr. Ootes said the “jobs for life” controversy was the city's sole bargaining focus until the province stepped in and legislated employees back to work.

“They never had the guts to try and deal with this sick bank,” Mr. Miller said. “They left it through three collective agreements and it lies very ill in their mouth to criticize the way we've been able to deal with the sick bank.”

Deputy mayor Joe Pantalone said he's confident the agreement will be approved and he dismissed the uproar as little more than base politicking.

“What you are seeing is the 2010 municipal elections starting a bit early,” said Mr. Pantalone, a close ally of the mayor, who raised questions about the flood of e-mails to councillors' offices. “I can't believe that so many people are getting so many e-mails that sound the same unless somebody is organizing that.”