Conciliation board report – TB partial dissent

190-02-335

PARTIAL DISSENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE NOMINEE OF THE
TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONCILIATION BOARD ESTABLISHED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD BETWEEN:

THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA (THE EMPLOYER)

AND

THE PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA (THE UNION)

CONCERNING

THE PROGRAM AND ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES GROUP (TABLE 1)

Ken Norman, Chairperson
Rosemary Warskett, Nominee of the Public Service Alliance of Canada
Pierce Sutherland, Nominee of the Treasury Board of Canada

I would like to thank Ken Norman, the chairperson of this Conciliation Board and Rosemary Warskett, the nominee of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for their efforts throughout the Conciliation Board process. Despite the differences of opinion that arose on a number of issues, the Conciliation Board was able to function in a business-like, problem solving environment with the objective of assisting the parties work towards a settlement.

I would also like to thank both the Employer and Union negotiators and their bargaining teams. The bargaining process, which is often frustrating and difficult, requires perseverance and commitment, which were displayed by both parties throughout this process. I would also commend the teams for their civility and positive approach which should ultimately enable them to find the necessary solutions leading to a settlement.

In my view, there were a couple of issues facing this Conciliation Board that lessened the likelihood of success. The multi-table structure used by the parties, which has them looking over their colleagues’ shoulders at other tables with a reluctance to make moves for fear of conceding an important matter or dropping an important demand, severely inhibits the bargaining process. Unfortunately, the table setup and timing process that was followed inevitably leads to this result.

The other inhibiting issue was the large number of outstanding issues brought before this Board. Some progress was made to narrow the issues and the parties are to be commended for their efforts. However, if the parties had started the process the first day where they ended up at 8 PM on the fifth day of the Conciliation Board proceedings, much more meaningful progress could have been made. For a Conciliation Board to be in a position to provide more meaningful assistance to the parties, or provide well thought out and reasoned recommendations on important and often extremely complex issues, the Board requires extensive presentations and analyses of a handful of matters over a number of days. To do otherwise results in a disservice to the parties. To categorically adopt one parties’ position over the other after having received limited evidence and argument simply because there are so many items in dispute is often impossible, and, in some cases, irresponsible.

I have reviewed the Chairperson’s report and support his constructive approach to identifying areas where the Board believes solutions lie on the key issues in dispute. I agree with the Chairperson’s report on all matters except for the following four areas:

1) The inclusion of references to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code Part II in the collective agreement. I do not agree with the Chair’s recommendation that ‘relevant articles in the collective agreement flag these statutes…’ In my opinion, education and learning on these types of matters can best be accomplished through training and education programs. A broadly based learning program applicable to all bargaining agents and all public servants might be a more appropriate avenue to explore to accomplish these objectives. There are dozens of statutes and policies that apply to public servants on a vast array of issues. The inclusion of these matters by reference in the collective agreement does little by itself to promote education and learning. It simply adds language that could result in endless litigation and argument over the significance of their reference in the collective agreement. Another possible alternate approach to further access to this type of information would be through the use of a website. Today’s workforce is technologically literate and the use of more innovative approaches to educate individuals on matters of this nature should be explored.

2) Expansion of the leave provisions related to work-life balance. In the main report, the Chair rightfully points out that workplace pressures as a result of family related issues continues to grow. I would argue, however, that the benefit package already enjoyed by employees in this bargaining unit is very generous. In fact, the President of the Alliance in her appearance before the Conciliation Board cited the accomplishments that the union had made in producing some of these ‘important gains.’ While these types of issues cannot be ignored, the obligation of the Employer to deliver programs and public services must also be recognized. There is a limit to which any Employer can go to accommodate these work-life matters. I would submit that this Employer already has been extremely responsive to these issues.

3) Expansion of exemption to conversion of days to hours for leave benefits. While I concur with the thrust of the Chair’s recommendations on this issue, I do not agree with his suggestion that leave for family related responsibilities be added to bereavement leave as an exemption to other types of leave that will be converted to hours. The fact that bereavement leave is the ONLY leave benefit in the collective agreement expressed in calendar days is significant. The parties clearly intended that this type of leave would entail the employee being away from the workplace for a blocked period of time up to five full calendar days (including weekends and working days). It is distinct in the collective agreement and as such should be the only exemption to the conversion of all leave benefits to hours.

4) Rates of pay. Over the course of the Conciliation Board proceedings and in the Board’s deliberations, much discussion focused on pay equity gains and the comparison of wages in this bargaining unit to the private sector. While I am sensitive to the pay equity issue, one cannot completely ignore the reality of rates of pay in the private sector. The recent large pay equity increases for this group resulted from internal comparisons of wage rates between occupations within the federal government.

(a) Do similar pay equity issues exist in the private sector? Probably, but who knows the extent of the problem?

(b) Should all private sector comparisons be avoided because there may be pay discrimination practices? Why are pay comparisons with the private sector appropriate for table 2 which is behind the market but not appropriate for table 1 which is ahead of the market?

(c) What should drive the pay lines within the federal government? If pay equity considerations are the fundamental consideration, should collective bargaining be eliminated because of its private sector wage comparison base?

Despite these questions, the Conciliation Board is charged with the responsibility to weigh the parties’ submissions and develop recommendations. While the Chairman’s approach on this issue is interesting, and could prove prophetic, it does not reflect the reality that the Employer’s position is far closer to an appropriate settlement position than is the Union’s.

There are two key elements to consider in crafting a recommendation on pay: internal relativities which were addressed by the pay equity settlement and external relativities. On this later point, a major respected Canadian human resource firm in the wage forecasting business (Morneau Sobeco) recently released its 2005 wage projections. It estimates that the public sector average wage increase for 2005 is expected to be approximately 2%. Evidence provided to the Conciliation Board indicates that this group of employees is paid significantly more that their counterparts in the private sector (in excess of 20%). In addition, there is persuasive evidence provided by both parties which indicated that the CPI for 2004 and 2005 should be 2% or less. Based on all the above, and with due respect for the Chair’s recommendation, I would recommend a wage increase of 2.5% for 2003, 2% for 2004 and 2% for 2005.

With regard to the issue of pay adjustments for the CBSA employees being paid above existing rates of pay, I believe the Employer’s approach is sound. At the present time, even though these employees are receiving a pay rate ABOVE that paid for others at the same group and level, the Employer’s proposal to give these employees lump sum payments as long as their existing rate exceeds the job rate is a fair and equitable way to handle the situation.

Pierce W. Sutherland