A salesperson who went on maternity leave is entitled to all the accounts she worked on before she went on leave, an arbitration board has ruled
A salesperson who went on maternity leave is entitled to all the accounts she worked on before she went on leave, an arbitration board has ruled.
Tina Mancusi worked in the advertising department of the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. In late 2004 when she returned from maternity leave she was given a different list of clients than what she had before. She filed a grievance through her union, claiming this violated a clause in the collective agreement that after maternity leave, “the employee shall be immediately reinstated to her original or comparable position.”
Mancusi said that before she went on maternity leave she worked in auto sales. This became her “vertical market” – it dealt consistently with the same kind of product, and all ads in that category were directed to her.
She said that on her return she was assigned “after market auto,” and that she tried the new list of accounts for a month or two. It didn’t generate much revenue and previous salespersons had neglected the list so it contained a number of angry clients, she said.
The company said Mancusi was an accounts executive before and after her leave; that the potential value of her new accounts exceeded that of her previous one; and that it would pay any difference in income that came from her working the new list.
The Manitoba Arbitration Board noted there is more to a job than wages and benefits, and that in considering the protection given a worker returning from maternity leave those — plus status, responsibility and working conditions — must be roughly similar for positions to be considered “comparable.”
In this case Mancusi was not given a comparable position, the board said. Her status was adversely affected, and so was her income and her opportunity to earn future income.
In addition, a clause in the collective agreement specified that, “accounts will not be moved without mutual agreement… (unless) accounts of equal or greater value are exchanged.” Mancusi had never agreed to change accounts, and a vertical market or new geographic territory had not been created for her. So Mancusi was protected whether or not she’d been on maternity leave, the board said.
Mancusi’s replacement had done very well with Mancusi’s accounts. So the company had a good economic reason to give the accounts to the replacement, said the board. But this was forbidden by the collective agreement.
The board said the accounts Mancusi had before going on maternity leave should be returned to her, and she was entitled to the commissions they generated from the time she returned to work to the date of its ruling.
For more information see:
• C.E.P., Local 191 v. Winnipeg Sun, 2005 CarswellMan 523 (Man. Arb. Bd.)
Tina Mancusi worked in the advertising department of the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. In late 2004 when she returned from maternity leave she was given a different list of clients than what she had before. She filed a grievance through her union, claiming this violated a clause in the collective agreement that after maternity leave, “the employee shall be immediately reinstated to her original or comparable position.”
Mancusi said that before she went on maternity leave she worked in auto sales. This became her “vertical market” – it dealt consistently with the same kind of product, and all ads in that category were directed to her.
She said that on her return she was assigned “after market auto,” and that she tried the new list of accounts for a month or two. It didn’t generate much revenue and previous salespersons had neglected the list so it contained a number of angry clients, she said.
The company said Mancusi was an accounts executive before and after her leave; that the potential value of her new accounts exceeded that of her previous one; and that it would pay any difference in income that came from her working the new list.
The Manitoba Arbitration Board noted there is more to a job than wages and benefits, and that in considering the protection given a worker returning from maternity leave those — plus status, responsibility and working conditions — must be roughly similar for positions to be considered “comparable.”
In this case Mancusi was not given a comparable position, the board said. Her status was adversely affected, and so was her income and her opportunity to earn future income.
In addition, a clause in the collective agreement specified that, “accounts will not be moved without mutual agreement… (unless) accounts of equal or greater value are exchanged.” Mancusi had never agreed to change accounts, and a vertical market or new geographic territory had not been created for her. So Mancusi was protected whether or not she’d been on maternity leave, the board said.
Mancusi’s replacement had done very well with Mancusi’s accounts. So the company had a good economic reason to give the accounts to the replacement, said the board. But this was forbidden by the collective agreement.
The board said the accounts Mancusi had before going on maternity leave should be returned to her, and she was entitled to the commissions they generated from the time she returned to work to the date of its ruling.
For more information see:
• C.E.P., Local 191 v. Winnipeg Sun, 2005 CarswellMan 523 (Man. Arb. Bd.)
