Waiting for the ETA…

The two government employers, Canada and BC, will soon have their final Employee Transfer Agreement (ETA) in hand. We know this process has been frustrating for many of the affected members and the union shares in your frustration.

Now seems as good a time as any to pause and reflect.

The government of Canada is required by the Workforce Adjustment Agreement (WFA) to consult with the union. While the ETA is not directly negotiated by the union, the WFA certainly was and is a crucial part of your collective agreement during a process like this transfer. It establishes a baseline on, for example, a reasonable job offer, salary protection, viability of the receiving employer’s pension plan and lump sum payments. We have used the WFA consultation to set out specific input on all the complexities which make up this transfer. We will keep giving our input as long as there is a chance to persuade the employers –persuade them about the choices they could make which would be the best option for transferring employees.

Discussions about the ETA invariably widen out to talking about implementation issues. The WFA enforces certain timelines like the date of letters of offer. We have also pressed the employers on issues like communications and transition planning on benefits, pay and pensions. Thus far the province has declined to meet face-to-face with the Workforce Adjustment Committee until after the ETA is signed.

BCGEU, on the other hand, has met with CEIU many times and has made available its resource staff on issues like classification and pensions. We thank them for their solidarity and their commitment.

Influencing or, in our view, improving any ETA would have been easier if the union had been brought into the loop by your employer sooner. We now know the two employers have been working on the ETA language since the fall. Not because that was openly disclosed. When a surprised BCGEU officer was approached by the province to effectively sign off on an ETA, that union wisely got in touch with CEIU. The employer claimed it was only a “draft” and a “work in progress” but one has to wonder what would have happened if BCGEU had not be vigilant.

That the ETA is crafted by the two employers is something we all know too well. Does consultation with other parties complicate matters? Of course. We believe for the better. We have over the last few months of meetings suggested many changes to the “draft” language to make sure that there is no doubt as to meaning and, therefore, entitlements. Clarity should not be controversial no matter who makes the suggestion.

We have heard the constant talk about how committed the governments are to making the LMDA a success. We expect, as do you, that considering the needs of workers who will deliver those programs should be every bit as important to the two employers.

Greater flexibility right now in alternating members on or off the transfer list would be an opportunity for the employer to demonstrate that consideration. There is no logic in forcing the transfer of employees who are committed to retirement in the near future and are asking to be pulled from the list. There is no logic in refusing to consider the business case of an employee who wants on the list while there is a colleague in the same office with the same qualifications who wants off the list. There is no logic in forcing the transfer of disabled employees when it is well known that the software critical to their ability to work will not mesh with provincial systems.

The employers’ ETA will tell you what they agreed upon.

We want you to have a sense of what your union argued for on your behalf:

• That inclusion or exclusion to the transfer list would take into account personal circumstances, hardship issues, accommodation needs, retirement plans, flexibility on geographic location;
• That alternations or “swaps” on and off the list be facilitated wherever possible;
• That “business as usual” on deployment requests and staffing outcomes will be a real world commitment from the federal employer so programs staff will not be held back from opportunities in other business lines;
• That members currently in satellite locations near the planned pan-Canadian program “hubs” who are willing to commute be considered for remaining federal programs jobs, or, alternatively, that the pan-Canadian structural model not be completely consolidated into “hubs” but allow for some workers to remain in satellite locations;
• That part-time workers who want their job offer from the province to be for a full-time position have that facilitated;
• That, in addition to full salary protection for three years, the matching of transferring federal jobs to provincial job descriptions be done now or, if a match is not possible, then new job descriptions be written and classified now. This would be so that the duties and correlation to provincial salary grids are clear before the letters of offer;
• That the job qualifications which members have from existing federal jobs be deemed as equivalent to comparable jobs on the provincial side so there will be no barriers to career advancement
• That some method be devised to “bridge” staffing between the two employers so that workers could apply on internal job postings and have a right of return to federal job;
• That job offers be to the worker’s current geographic location with a three year “no relocation” guarantee;
• That members on the list who have accommodation needs be reviewed. If the province will not or cannot guarantee they will meet those accommodation needs fully on February 2, 2009, then remove those members from the list now and the federal employer should undertake to reassign or retrain those members for work in other business lines or remaining pan-Canadian jobs;
• That sick leave credits be carried over to the province in full or the federal employer pay that out or, alternatively, that a bank of federal sick leave credits be carried over to “top up” the provincial sick leave regime for a specified period;
• That annual leave credits, including anyone’s unused 5 days of special annual leave, be carried over in full or, alternatively, at least the equivalent to the annual provincial carryover for BCGEU members be allowed as a carryover (10 days) with the federal government paying out any remainder;
• That there be clear language on seniority for all purposes which establishes both service seniority and classification seniority to the maximum amount;
• That the longer federal work year of 1956 hours be the final calculation standard wherever applicable;
• That there be no probation period for transferring employees or federal probation time taken into account for any remaining probationary period for someone transferring;
• That existing flexible or alternate work arrangements be honoured or, alternatively, be re-established as per the provincial collective agreement processes prior to or just immediately after transfer;
• That all federal service be used to calculate leave entitlements;
• That benefits plans be a seamless transition;
• That workers on various types of long-term leave have that taken into account and their transfer date adjusted accordingly;
• That any award or entitlement resulting from an ongoing case, such as the pension litigation, be protected even after the transfer;
• That the members’ consents to release of information to the province be need-to-know only for pay & benefits purposes so their new “personnel file” with the province will be a clean record.

Once the final version of the ETA is released we will see if the employers were really listening or not. We will do our best to help you make sense of it all and continue to work within the WFA Committee on the implementation issues. As always we continue to invite your questions or comments and we greatly appreciate the support the union’s committee members have been getting from the membership.

The union’s contact person for the WFA Committee is Julie Paul, National Union Representative, CEIU at paulj@ceiu-seic.ca.