Forced retirement battle finally over
Retired city fireman Fred Holmes is going back to work as a platoon chief. (Don Gibb , The London Free Press)
The news clippings tell the story.
“Retirement at 70 advocated as option” says a headline on an article taped to the window of the credit union office. “Pressure beginning to mount for change in retirement age,” says the other.
For Fred Holmes, a retired 63-year-old fireman and part-time manager of the London firefighters credit union, his fight against forced retirement took on new life because of a recent supreme court of Canada decision.
Since his retirement in November 1978 – at age 60 – he has wanted back on the London fire department where he worked for 32 years.
Holmes, who had been chief of a 70-man platoon for two months before retirement, didn’t have any choice but to leave under the mandatory retirement clause in the contract between firemen and the city.
Early retirement was a hard fought right won by the London Firefighters Association in 1975 when members sacrificed more money in their pay cheques for the chance to quit eating smoke at an earlier age.
“Age shouldn’t be the sole criterion,” said Holmes. “There should be something else.” And that something else is the lack of mental or physical capabilities to perform the job.
As platoon chief, the most physically strenuous part of his job at a fire, Holmes said, “is to get out of the car.”
The Ontario Human Rights Commission took up his cause and the city and union – normally adversaries across the bargaining table – were united in opposition.
Several months ago, city administrator Maurice Engels said London has a contractual arrangement with the firemen and intended to abide by it. “I think the supreme court was relying mainly upon the evidence in front of it. A different case may result in a different decision.”
So, at that time, the city had no intention of reinstating Holmes. On Wednesday, however, that position had changed, with Engels recommending reinstatement of Holmes and fellow retiree Fred McCullagh, who had been the department’s stores keeper.
What has produced the delicate dilemma for many municipalities is the court’s decision in February that two Etobicoke firemen retired at the mandatory age of 60 should be given their jobs back. The judgment said the Ontario Human Rights Code “may not be waived or varied by private contract.”
Clearly, the decision gave human rights legislation priority over contracts that negotiate a mandatory retirement age of 60. (The code prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against anyone between 18 and 65.)
And, just as clearly, the decision has created uncertainty and uneasiness among municipalities and firefighters’ unions.
While London was initially reluctant to reinstate retired firemen, Hamilton reinstated a 60-year-old firefighter lieutenant after the court decision.
Hamilton personnel director Arthur Gillespie said the court ruled mandatory retirement at 60 was contrary to public policy. “One does not defy the supreme court of Canada.”
Gillespie said its mandatory retirement clause will have to be amended in future negotiations perhaps calling for yearly medical examination for those 60 or older.
However, supreme court Justice Willard Estey said in an interview recently in London that the court doesn’t have the power to legislate when people retire. “Our job is to see that the arbitrator followed the rules.”
Engels read the court decision as saying no one presented any proof firemen couldn’t continue past age 60. “So obviously, you have to look at that aspect if any other case proceeds in the future.”
Gord Sturdy, president of the local firefighters union, agrees “each case must be assessed on its own merit.”
He said there hasn’t been a “bare-ass” fireman who ride the truck, hauls the hose and lays the line, apply to stay beyond age 60. Only those in the officer or staff category have rocked the boat.
He doesn’t sympathize with Holmes. “The membership wanted that plan. We’ve all paid for it.”
And there is good reason for the early retirement clause, said Sturdy. “Our people were going off and dying very quickly. We used to have our retirees at one little table. Now we’ve got four tables together and they’re full.”
From 60 on, said Sturdy, a fireman’s agility, quickness and strength is strained. “You reach a point in time where you’re not capable of performing.”
He took umbrage with Holmes’ comment about lack of stress for the platoon chief at the scene of a fire. “When we go to a high-rise fire, we don’t look at rank. What are you going to do? Say “I’m an officer, I’m over 60.
Since retirement, Holmes has worked 22 hours a week as manager of the 690 member, $1-million asset credit union in the basement of the central fire hall.
As platoon chief, he earned about $24,000. That rank now earns $40,000. And considering the best five years of earnings are taken into account in determining pensions, Holmes would benefit from a larger pension if reinstated.
Holmes said he opposed mandatory retirement when it was introduced in 1975 and opposed it when he was on the union executive five years earlier.
When it was forced on him in 1978, he immediately took his case to the human rights commission where it has been in limbo awaiting judgement on the Etobicoke case.
Today, Holmes is not alone.
Ontario human rights executive officer Howard Jones said there are nine cases before the commission on the same issue.
To resolve such disputes, an attempt is first made at conciliation. If that fails and the commission believes there is evidence of discrimination, a board of inquiry is recommended. The board chairman would decide the issue and could order reinstatement, payment of lost wages or both, said Jones.
One fireman told Holmes he would be happy to while away his retirement at the dry end of a fishing pole. “The minute you can do it every day,” said Holmes, “it’s not the same thing. I guarantee he’d throw away his pole in three months.
Original Article (London Free Press)
Forced retirement battle finally over
Retired city fireman Fred Holmes is going back to work as a platoon chief. (Don Gibb , The London Free Press)
The news clippings tell the story.
“Retirement at 70 advocated as option” says a headline on an article taped to the window of the credit union office. “Pressure beginning to mount for change in retirement age,” says the other.
For Fred Holmes, a retired 63-year-old fireman and part-time manager of the London firefighters credit union, his fight against forced retirement took on new life because of a recent supreme court of Canada decision.
Since his retirement in November 1978 – at age 60 – he has wanted back on the London fire department where he worked for 32 years.
Holmes, who had been chief of a 70-man platoon for two months before retirement, didn’t have any choice but to leave under the mandatory retirement clause in the contract between firemen and the city.
Early retirement was a hard fought right won by the London Firefighters Association in 1975 when members sacrificed more money in their pay cheques for the chance to quit eating smoke at an earlier age.
“Age shouldn’t be the sole criterion,” said Holmes. “There should be something else.” And that something else is the lack of mental or physical capabilities to perform the job.
As platoon chief, the most physically strenuous part of his job at a fire, Holmes said, “is to get out of the car.”
The Ontario Human Rights Commission took up his cause and the city and union – normally adversaries across the bargaining table – were united in opposition.
Several months ago, city administrator Maurice Engels said London has a contractual arrangement with the firemen and intended to abide by it. “I think the supreme court was relying mainly upon the evidence in front of it. A different case may result in a different decision.”
So, at that time, the city had no intention of reinstating Holmes. On Wednesday, however, that position had changed, with Engels recommending reinstatement of Holmes and fellow retiree Fred McCullagh, who had been the department’s stores keeper.
What has produced the delicate dilemma for many municipalities is the court’s decision in February that two Etobicoke firemen retired at the mandatory age of 60 should be given their jobs back. The judgment said the Ontario Human Rights Code “may not be waived or varied by private contract.”
Clearly, the decision gave human rights legislation priority over contracts that negotiate a mandatory retirement age of 60. (The code prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against anyone between 18 and 65.)
And, just as clearly, the decision has created uncertainty and uneasiness among municipalities and firefighters’ unions.
While London was initially reluctant to reinstate retired firemen, Hamilton reinstated a 60-year-old firefighter lieutenant after the court decision.
Hamilton personnel director Arthur Gillespie said the court ruled mandatory retirement at 60 was contrary to public policy. “One does not defy the supreme court of Canada.”
Gillespie said its mandatory retirement clause will have to be amended in future negotiations perhaps calling for yearly medical examination for those 60 or older.
However, supreme court Justice Willard Estey said in an interview recently in London that the court doesn’t have the power to legislate when people retire. “Our job is to see that the arbitrator followed the rules.”
Engels read the court decision as saying no one presented any proof firemen couldn’t continue past age 60. “So obviously, you have to look at that aspect if any other case proceeds in the future.”
Gord Sturdy, president of the local firefighters union, agrees “each case must be assessed on its own merit.”
He said there hasn’t been a “bare-ass” fireman who ride the truck, hauls the hose and lays the line, apply to stay beyond age 60. Only those in the officer or staff category have rocked the boat.
He doesn’t sympathize with Holmes. “The membership wanted that plan. We’ve all paid for it.”
And there is good reason for the early retirement clause, said Sturdy. “Our people were going off and dying very quickly. We used to have our retirees at one little table. Now we’ve got four tables together and they’re full.”
From 60 on, said Sturdy, a fireman’s agility, quickness and strength is strained. “You reach a point in time where you’re not capable of performing.”
He took umbrage with Holmes’ comment about lack of stress for the platoon chief at the scene of a fire. “When we go to a high-rise fire, we don’t look at rank. What are you going to do? Say “I’m an officer, I’m over 60.
Since retirement, Holmes has worked 22 hours a week as manager of the 690 member, $1-million asset credit union in the basement of the central fire hall.
As platoon chief, he earned about $24,000. That rank now earns $40,000. And considering the best five years of earnings are taken into account in determining pensions, Holmes would benefit from a larger pension if reinstated.
Holmes said he opposed mandatory retirement when it was introduced in 1975 and opposed it when he was on the union executive five years earlier.
When it was forced on him in 1978, he immediately took his case to the human rights commission where it has been in limbo awaiting judgement on the Etobicoke case.
Today, Holmes is not alone.
Ontario human rights executive officer Howard Jones said there are nine cases before the commission on the same issue.
To resolve such disputes, an attempt is first made at conciliation. If that fails and the commission believes there is evidence of discrimination, a board of inquiry is recommended. The board chairman would decide the issue and could order reinstatement, payment of lost wages or both, said Jones.
One fireman told Holmes he would be happy to while away his retirement at the dry end of a fishing pole. “The minute you can do it every day,” said Holmes, “it’s not the same thing. I guarantee he’d throw away his pole in three months.
Original Article (London Free Press)
