Something needs to be clarified here...

There appears to be some discontent and misconception on how the arbitrators ruling was arrived at. There are some allegations that there was some sort of trade off made by the Union and the Employer. There is no evidence to support those allegations, and allegations without evidence of their validity serve no purpose other than to cause mistrust and anger.
When issues are taken to the Labour Board they are being taken to a Provincial Court. When at the Labour board the issues are heard and decided on based on testimony and evidence presented by both parties involved. The court is bound by specific rules as is the judge or arbitrator that sits at the hearing. The arbitrator must base his judgment on the evidence provided and must follow rules of conduct because if he doesn't he will have to face what is called a Judicial Review, which brings into question every action the board of arbitration takes.
When a ruling is made it is almost never what we want it to be. I have been a member of Teamsters, CAW, and OPSEU and I have never seen an arbitration go exactly as anticipated.
If the union wanted a trade off, they could have done it when these grievances were initially filed and then again when bargaining our last agreement.
The employers intent was to force us to pay back the 9 month over payment, and based on the physical number printed in the collective agreement the arbitrator ruled that they had made an error in what they paid us, leading to what was ruled as an over payment. The arbitrator also ruled that based on that same number we were not entitled to have the extra nickel added to our hourly wage. They Employer also filed a counter grievance to claw back the over payment, but was forced to withdraw it based on the physical dollar amount printed in the collective agreement. So as I said previously the company has to absorb the loss of the 9 month over payment. It is not perfect win, but it is still a success. The Union went ahead with the support of many people from all shifts, I personally spoke to at least 30 people, and there was not a single one that did not want this to go forward on principle alone. Not one officer I spoke to really cared about the money, it was the principle of the matter that drove their resolve.