- Recruitment and retention
- External comparability
- Bargaining Agent proposals
- Employer proposals
- Damages related to the Phoenix pay system
The Government of Canada is committed to good faith negotiations and has a history of negotiations that are productive and respectful of its dedicated workforce. Its approach to collective bargaining is to negotiate agreements that are reasonable for public service employees, bargaining agents, and the Canadian taxpayers.
Through good faith bargaining, the Government of Canada has reached 34 agreements during the current round of negotiations, covering more than 65,000 employees in the federal public service. This includes 17 agreements with 11 bargaining agents representing employees working in the CPA, as well as 17 agreements with four (4) bargaining agents representing employees working in separate agencies, including the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Film Board (NFB).
All 34 agreements cover a four-year period, and include pattern economic increases of 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5% and 1.5%.
The settlements also include targeted improvements valued at approximately 1% over the term of the agreements. For most of the 34 groups, these improvements take the form of wage adjustments staggered over two years: 0.8% in year one and 0.2% in year two. This includes the Economics and Social Services (EC) group represented by the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE), the Financial Management (FI) group represented by the Association of Canadian Financial Officers (ACFO), and the Architecture, Engineering and land Survey (NR) groups represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). For some other groups, including the Audit, Commerce and Purchasing (AV), the Health Services (SH) groups represented by PIPSC, and the Foreign Service (FS) group represented by the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO), the parties jointly agreed to distribute the 1% differently based on the specific circumstances of each group; however, the total value of those targeted adjustments does not exceed 1%.
For all the agreements settled to date, the overall average annual increase is 2.0% per year over four years, before calculating the compounding effect. This takes into account the pattern economic increases of 2%, 2%, 1.5% and 1.5%, and the targeted increases valued at 1% over the term of the agreements.
Moreover, the settlements include a number of government-wide improvements that increase the overall value of the changes to the collective agreements. These include the introduction of new leave provisions for domestic violence and caregiving, improvements to the maternity and parental leave and allowance provisions, as well as an expansion to the definition of family that broadens the scope of certain leave provisions.
In addition, all the 34 agreements include the identical Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the implementation of collective agreements. The MOU outlines the new methodology for calculating retroactive payments and provides for longer timelines for implementing the agreements. The MOU also includes accountability measures and reasonable compensation for employees in recognition of the extended timelines.
Given the pay and HR systems in place and the ongoing challenges with pay administration, the Government of Canada has no flexibility to implement agreements on a different basis than what is included in the negotiated MOU. Agreeing to a different implementation process and timelines would represent bad faith bargaining on behalf of the government, as it would be agreeing to something that it cannot fulfill.
The evidence and analysis included in this presentation, which include information on recruitment and retention, external comparability, and the total compensation package provided to employees in the SV group, does not support providing economic increases and other non-monetary improvements to the SV group that deviate from the established pattern with the 34 groups in the federal public service. The information demonstrates that these employees benefit from competitive terms and conditions of employment and that the Employer’s offer is reasonable and fair in the current economic environment.
Recruitment and retention
Section 175 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) (Exhibit #2) states that a public interest commission must take into account recruitment and retention considerations in the conduct of its proceedings and in making its report:
a) the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians;
The evidence on recruitment and retention strongly suggests that compensation levels for the SV group are appropriate to attract and retain a sufficient number of employees. There is no indication that increases above the pattern established to date for the federal public service with represented employees are needed to recruit and retain employees in the SV group.
The hiring departments of SV employees, which include Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Correctional Service Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Civilian Staff), have not identified widespread recruitment and retention issues for the SV group. External separations, especially as they pertain to voluntary separations for reasons other than retirement, are very low – only 0.7% of employees in the SV bargaining unit. In addition, departments run successful recruitment processes for the SV group.
The Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results indicate a very high level of job satisfaction in the SV group as a whole, with approximately 88% of employees in the group reporting to liking their job. This further supports the notion that the SV group is healthy from a recruitment and retention standpoint.
External comparability
Section 175 of the FPSLRA also states that a public interest commission must take into account external comparability in the conduct of its proceedings and in making its report:
b) the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions of employment in the public service that are comparable to those of employees in similar occupations in the private and public sectors, including any geographic, industrial or other variations that the public interest commission considers relevant;
As noted in the 2019 pay study conducted by Mercer Canada LLC, an independent HR firm with significant expertise in conducing wage comparability studies, evaluated the 2017 salaries paid to employees in 18 benchmark positions in the SV group. The results of the study show that SV wages are either competitive with or leading with the 2018 salaries paid in the external the market for comparable jobs for all but one position.
Moreover, the wage growth for the majority of the SV subgroups (40.5% to 93.9%) has significantly outpaced cumulative increases as represented by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation (36.8%) between 2000 and 2017.
It should also be noted that Mercer performed a joint wage study with the PSAC to determine market relativity for the Ships’ Crews (SC) group positions within the SV Group. Primary research was completed based on the benchmark roles for the SC group. The results showed that the SC group currently have wages that are comparable with the market.
Bargaining Agent proposals
The Bargaining Agent has submitted an extensive list of proposals in this round of bargaining.
The PSAC has tabled 19 proposals that are common to all PSAC groups, including above pattern economic increases, two additional designated paid holidays per year, and increased vacation leave entitlements.
The PSAC has also tabled 55 changes that are specific to the SV table, within 22 articles and 6 appendices. These changes include increases to leave provisions, new allowances, and other monetary and non-monetary elements that currently do not exist in the SV agreement and/or in other collective agreements in the CPA.
As noted in the table below and detailed in Part II, Table 4, the PSAC monetary proposals are significant and represent a total ongoing cost of over $268 million or 37.87% of the SV group wage base. Footnote 1
| Bargaining Agent monetary proposals | Ongoing cost | % of wage base |
|---|---|---|
| Common proposals | $9,771,593 | 1.38% |
| SV-specific proposals | ||
| Economic increase of 3.25% over three years | $73,114,585 | 10.33% |
| Wage adjustments | $84,470,416 | 11.93% |
| Wage restructures | $14,645,436 | 2.07% |
| Other monetary improvements | $86,103,481 | 12.16% |
| Total | $268,105,510 | 37.87% |
The Employer’s position is that the Bargaining Agent’s proposals violate the replication principle, where the results of a third-party process should replicate as closely as possible what would have been achieved had the parties negotiated a settlement on their own. The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposals do not reflect what the parties would have bargained.
Additionally, the PSAC’s proposals are unsubstantiated based on available data and associated metrics related to recruitment and retention and internal and external comparability.
Employer proposals
The Employer is of the view that the SV agreement is a mature agreement that does not require major changes. As such, the Employer is submitting a reduced package of proposals that includes modest economic increases and changes to leave provisions that are aligned with what has been agreed to with 34 other groups in the current round of bargaining.
The Employer’s monetary proposals, with the associated costs, are included below.
| Employer monetary proposals | Ongoing cost | % of wage base |
|---|---|---|
| Common proposals | ||
| 10 days of paid leave for domestic violence | $94,671 | 0.01% |
| Expanded provisions for definition of family (various articles) | $411,612 | 0.06% |
| Parental leave without pay (standard/extended period) | Cost neutral | 0.00% |
| Caregiving leave without pay related to critical illness | $520,278 | 0.07% |
| SV-specific proposals | ||
| Pattern economic increases over four years: 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5%, and 1.5% | $50,880,482 | 7.18% |
| An additional 1% for group-specific adjustments | $7,496,919 | 1.06% |
| Total | $59,403,962 | 8.39% |
The Employer’s proposal also includes the MOU on the implementation of the collective agreement negotiated with the 34 other groups in the federal public service (Exhibit #3). Given the pay and HR systems in place and the associated challenges, the Government of Canada has no flexibility to implement agreements on a different basis. Agreeing to a different implementation process and timelines would represent bad faith bargaining on behalf of the government, as it would be agreeing to something that it cannot fulfill.
Given the high volume of outstanding proposals submitted by the Bargaining Agent, the Employer requests that the PSAC target a limited number of proposals that take into account the current collective bargaining landscape and recent negotiation outcomes with other federal public service bargaining agents. The large number of proposals make it challenging for the parties to identify and focus their work on key priorities; a more limited number of proposals is expected to meaningfully improve the likelihood of settlement. The Employer respectfully suggests that the Commission issue a direction in that regard and direct the parties to return to negotiations with a reduced number of proposals, prior to the issuance of the Commission’s report.
Damages related to the Phoenix pay system
In 2017, the PSAC and other CPA Bargaining Agents chose to create and mandate a joint senior-level Employer-Union Phoenix subcommittee to resolve the issue of damages incurred by employees related to the Phoenix pay system. Between 2017 and 2019, this committee worked independently from the collective bargaining tables.
On June 12, 2019, an agreement was reached between the Employer and 15 Bargaining Agents on Phoenix damages (Exhibit #4). The PSAC did not agree to the terms of the agreement, which includes up to five days of paid leave, and compensation for monetary and non-monetary losses.
This agreement settled the damages portion of the pending recourse by these Bargaining Agents and their members following the filing of unfair labour complaints, as well as policy and individual grievances.
The Employer is open to continuing discussions with the PSAC to conclude an agreement on Phoenix damages, recognizing that PSAC employees should be compensated for the damages incurred related to the Phoenix pay system. However, the Employer respectfully submits that Phoenix-related damages should not influence this Committee’s deliberations. This issue is pending resolution at a different forum, and in the event that the parties fail to reach an agreement, the FPSLREB is the appropriate forum for third-party resolution.
Part I: status of negotiations
- In this section
- 1.1 Negotiations in the federal public service
- 1.2 Common items negotiated for the core public administration and separate agencies
- 1.3 Negotiations with the Operational Services (SV) Group
- 1.4 Bargaining Agent proposals
- 1.5 Employer proposals
- 1.6 Common proposals
- 1.7 Damages related to the Phoenix pay system
1.1 Negotiations in the federal public service
The Government of Canada is committed to bargaining in good faith with all federal public sector Bargaining Agents. The government’s approach is to negotiate agreements that are reasonable for employees, Bargaining Agents and Canadian taxpayers.
Through meaningful and good faith negotiations, the Government of Canada has reached 34 agreements during this round of bargaining, covering more than 65,000 employees in the federal public service. This includes settlements with 15 different Bargaining Agents representing 17 bargaining units in the CPA and 17 employee groups in separate agencies.
Core public administration
Since the spring of 2018, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) has been engaged in negotiations on behalf of the Treasury Board, the Employer of the CPA, with more than 11 Bargaining Agents for the renewal of collective agreements representing more than 175,000 employees. Footnote 2 Footnote 3
TBS successfully concluded collective agreements for 17 CPA groups with 11 Bargaining Agents. These 17 collective agreements cover employees represented by some of the largest Bargaining Agents, including the PIPSC, CAPE and ACFO.
Table 1 below lists the bargaining units with new collective agreements, their union affiliation and population as of March 2018.
Table 1: Bargaining units with new collective agreements, CPA
CPA bargaining unit Bargaining Agent Population EC: Economics and Social Science Services CAPE 14,777 SP: Applied Science and Patent Examination PIPSC 7,647 AV: Audit, Commerce and Purchasing PIPSC 5,783 FI: Financial Management ACFO 4,776 NR: Architecture, Engineering and Land Survey PIPSC 3,541 SH: Health Services PIPSC 3,100 LP: Law Practitioner AJC 2,832 RE: Research PIPSC 2,630 FS: Foreign Service PAFSO 1,512 EL: Electronics IBEW 1,059 TR: Translation CAPE 811 SR(W): Ship Repair West FGDTLCW 642 SR(E): Ship Repair East FGDTLCE 590 RO: Radio Operations UNIFOR 272 UT: University Teaching CMCFA 180 SR(C): Ship Repair Chargehands FGDCA 52 AI: Air Traffic Control UNIFOR 9 Total population 50,195 Separate agencies
The 27 active separate agencies listed in Schedule V of the Financial Administration Act conduct their own negotiations for unionized employees. They are distinct from the CPA; they have different job duties and specific wage levels according to their business purpose. The largest separate agencies include the CRA, Parks Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The CPA and separate agencies share many of the same bargaining agents, including the PSAC and PIPSC.
As part of the federal public administration, separate agencies follow the same broad government objectives; they are committed to negotiating agreements in good faith that are fair and reasonable for employees, bargaining agents and Canadian taxpayers.
During the current round of negotiations, six separate agencies have concluded 17 collective agreements with four bargaining agents representing 17,000 employees. Table 2 below lists the separate agencies, and bargaining units with new collective agreements, their union affiliation and population.
Table 2: Bargaining units with new collective agreements, Separate Agencies
Separate agency Bargaining Agent Bargaining unit Population Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) PIPSC Audit, Financial and Scientific (AFS) 11,447 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) PIPSC Nuclear Regulatory Group (NUREG) 730 Canada Energy Regulator (formerly the National Energy Board (NEB)) PIPSC All Unionized Employees 377 National Film Board (NFB) PIPSC Administrative and Foreign Services Group 174 Scientific and Professional Group SGCT/CUPE Technical Group 103 CUPE Administrative Support Group 88 Operation Group National Research Council Canada (NRC) RCEA Administrative Services Group (AS) 244 Administrative Support Group (AD) 268 Computer Systems Administration (CS) 214 Operational Group (OP) 62 Purchasing and Supply Group (PG) 22 Technical Group (TO) 999 PIPSC Information Services (IS) 64 Library Services (LS) 43 Research Officer / Research Council Officer (RO/RCO) 1,596 Translator Group (TR) 8 Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) PIPSC Professional Employees Group (PEG) 551 Total population 16,990 1.2 Common items negotiated for the core public administration and separate agencies
The 34 agreements reached in the CPA and separate agencies include some common items, including basic economic increases and other monetary and non-monetary elements.
Annual economic increases over four years
- Year one: 2%
- Year two: 2%
- Year three: 1.5%
- Year four: 1.5%
Group-specific wage adjustments of approximately 1% over the four years of the agreements
For most of the groups, such as the NR and the SP groups represented by PIPSC, these improvements take the form of wage adjustments staggered over two years: 0.8% in year one and 0.2% in year two.
Some other groups, such as the FS group represented by PAFSO, received different targeted measures to address their specific needs, but the overall value of these group-specific improvements was approximately 1% over the four years of their agreements.
An MOU on the implementation of collective agreements
At the outset of this round of negotiations, the government made it clear to all Bargaining Agents that retroactivity and the implementation of the agreements were key issues given the ongoing challenges surrounding the Phoenix pay system and the implementation of the agreements concluded during the previous round of bargaining.
In the spring of 2019, the government developed a new methodology for the calculation of retroactive payments to facilitate its implementation. The government also negotiated extended implementation timelines, reasonable compensation for employees in recognition of the extended timelines and accountability measures. All of these measures are outlined in the MOU that is included in all 34 federal public service agreements. The new methodology has proven to date that the timelines agreed to through the MOU are being respected (Exhibit #5).
The key elements of the MOU include the following:
- Changes to existing or new compensation elements that do not require manual intervention from compensation advisors will be implemented within 180 days after the signature of the agreements.
- Changes to existing or new compensation elements that require manual intervention from compensation advisors will be implemented within 560 days after the signature of the agreements.
- All employees in the group covered by a new agreement will receive a $400 lump-sum payment upfront in recognition of extended implementation timelines.
- Employees for whom the implementation takes longer than 180 days will receive a $50 payment for each 90-day delay beyond the initial implementation period of 180 days, to a maximum of $450 per employee.
- Employees for whom the implementation takes longer than 180 days will be notified within 180 days after the signature of the agreement.
Given the pay and HR systems in place and the ongoing challenges, the government of Canada has no flexibility to implement agreements on a different basis that what is included in the negotiated MOU. Agreeing to a different implementation process and timelines would represent bad faith bargaining on behalf of the government, as it would be agreeing to something that it cannot fulfill.
Extended/new leave provisions
Several improvements were negotiated with the other bargaining units that provide for new and improved leave entitlements for employees:
- Up to 10 days of paid leave per year for situations of domestic violence.
- Extension of the parental leave without pay provision to allow employees to choose an extended leave period, with the top-up allowance paid by the Employer spread over the longer period, and extension of the maximum payable top-up period to cover paternity leave (Quebec) and shared parental leave (rest of Canada).
- Caregiving leave without pay of up to 35 weeks to allow employees to benefit from critical illness and compassionate care benefits available under the Employment Insurance program.
- Improvements to the definition of family – specifically the introduction of a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee, whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee. This improves access to bereavement leave with pay, leave with pay for family-related responsibilities, and leave without pay for the care of family.
The Employer proposes a settlement for the SV group that contains improvements that are similar to those negotiated in the rest of the federal public service. The Employer recommends that the Commission provide recommendations that are aligned with the recently established pattern.
As per the Replication Principle, the Employer suggests that the Commission’s report replicate the result, as closely as possible, to that which would have been achieved had the parties negotiated a settlement on their own. The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposed economic increases do not reflect what the parties would have bargained.
The Employer is of the view that there is no evidence to justify providing wage increases for the SV group that exceed the cumulative increases that employees in the 17 CPA groups and the 17 federal separate agency groups will receive over a four-year agreement. There is no rationale supporting the significantly higher economic increases sought by the PSAC, in addition to market adjustments between 9% and 39%.
1.3 Negotiations with the Operational Services (SV) Group
In this round of bargaining, PSAC and TBS officials were engaged in six (6) negotiation sessions for the SV group between May 2018 and May 2019. The parties were also engaged in three (3) negotiations sessions at a separate bargaining table mandated to negotiate proposals that are common across the four (4) bargaining units represented by the PSAC: Program and Administrative Services (PA), Technical Services (TC), Education and Library Science (EB), Operational Services (SV), between June 2018 and December 2018.
As noted in Table 3 below, the parties “agreed in principle” to the following items during negotiations, which are all administrative, or housekeeping in nature.
“Public Service Labour Relations Act“ with “Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act”; and
“Federal Public Service Labour Relations Board” with “Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.”
Clauses 2.01, 37.11, 37.12, 67.09, 68.01
Appendix A (6.01),
Appendix B: Annex E (3.4), (4.4), (6), (8)
Appendix B: Annex H (1),
Appendix B: Annex J (5),
Appendix C (2.05),
Appendix D (3.06),
Appendix F (3.02), (5.10)
Appendix G (1.01), (2.03), (3.04), (14), (16),
Appendix G: Annex B (7),
Appendix G: Annex C (6.04),
Appendix G: Annex D (7.01),
Appendix G: Annex E (1), (4), (6), (10),
Appendix G: Annex J
Appendix I (English version only)Delete references to “cash” and replace with “payment.”
“Part II of Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act” with “Schedule V of the Financial Administration Act.”
The PSAC declared impasse and filed for the establishment of a PIC on December 11, 2018. The Chairperson of the FPSLREB advised the parties on
January 29, 2019, that she was not recommending the establishment of the PIC and encouraged the parties to resume negotiations. In her decision, the Chairperson indicated that she was not satisfied that the parties had bargained sufficiently and seriously, nor was she convinced that impasse had been reached.After additional negotiations meetings in the winter and spring of 2019, the PSAC submitted a request to the Board on May 7, 2019, for the reactivation of their request, which was granted by the Chairperson.
1.4 Bargaining Agent proposals
The Bargaining Agent has submitted an extensive list of proposals during this round of bargaining. The union proposals include above pattern economic increases, as well as increases to leave provisions, new allowances, and other monetary and non-monetary elements that currently do not exist in the SV agreement and/or in other collective agreements in the CPA.
The PSAC has tabled 23 proposals that are common to all PSAC groups, including two additional designated paid holidays per year, and increased vacation leave entitlements.
The PSAC also tabled 55 changes that are specific to the SV group. These proposals deal with 22 collective agreement articles and six (6) appendices, in addition to new articles and memoranda and/or allowances.
As noted in Table 4 below, the PSAC monetary proposals, which include annual economic increases of 3.25% over three years totalling 10.33%, are equivalent to an overall increase of 37.87%, compared to the 2018 SV wage base. This overall increase does not include certain proposals that could not be costed by the Employer due to data availability issues.
Appendix B, GL: amend the calculation for Height pay allowance from:
“25% of the employee’s basic hourly rate of pay on a pro rata basis for actual time worked” to “an additional one half (1/2) their straight-time rate of pay for every fifteen (15) minute period, or part thereof worked”
- 4 weeks’ vacation upon appointment (instead of current 3 weeks)
- 4 weeks and 2.8 days at 8 years (instead of current 4 weeks at 8 years)
- 4 weeks and 4.2 days at 16 years (instead of current 4 weeks and 2.8 days at 16 years)
- 5 weeks at 17 years (instead of current 4 weeks and 4.2 days at 17 years)
- 5 weeks and 2.8 days at 18 years (instead of current 5 weeks at 18 years)
- 6 weeks at 27 years (instead of current 5 weeks and 2.8 days at 27 years)
- 7 weeks at 28 years (instead of current 6 weeks at 28 years)
- Full-time station
- In 1 and 2 man person stations: from $2,237 to $2,800
- In 4 man person stations: from $1,917 to $2,400
Article 27: Shift and Weekend Premiums
- increase the shift premium from $2.00 to $3.00 per hours for all hours worked, including overtime hours, between 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm
- increase the weekend premium from $2.00 to $3.00 for all hours worked on Saturday or Sunday, including overtime hours
- all school or daycare closures,
- attending appointments with legal or financial professionals and
- to allow for visits with a terminally ill family member
Note: Due to data availability, some proposals were not costed and were not included in this table, including:
- 9% wage adjustment for the GL-AMW and GL-GHW subgroups
- 21% wage adjustment for the SC-EQO subgroup
- Restructures to the LI-01 and LI-02 rates
- Amendments to the Dirty Work allowance in Appendix B, Appendix D and Appendix G
- Expansion of shift premium eligibility in Appendix D
- New overtime provisions in Appendix G – Annex E
- New parking cost provisions in Appendix G – Annex G
1.5 Employer proposals
The Employer proposes to negotiate improvements for the SV group that are similar to those negotiated to date with 34 groups in the federal public service.
The Employer’s detailed position on each outstanding items can be found in Parts III and IV of the Employer’s brief.
The Employer’s monetary proposals, with the associated costs, are included in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Employer’s monetary proposals
Employer monetary proposals Ongoing cost % of wage base Common proposals 10 days of paid leave for domestic violence $94,671 0.01% Expanded provisions for definition of family (various articles) $411,612 0.06% Parental leave without pay (standard/extended period) Cost neutral 0.00% Caregiving leave without pay related to critical illness $520,278 0.07% SV-Specific proposals Pattern economic increases over four years: 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5%, and 1.5% $50,880,482 7.18% An additional 1% for group-specific adjustments $7,496,919 1.06% Total $59,403,962 8.39% The Employer’s proposal also include the MOU on the implementation of the collective agreement negotiated with all the groups in the CPA and separate agencies.
Given the high volume of outstanding proposals submitted by the Bargaining Agent, the Employer requests that the PSAC target a limited number of proposals that take into account the current collective bargaining landscape and recent negotiation outcomes with other federal public service Bargaining Agents. The large number of proposals make it challenging for the parties to identify and focus their work on key priorities; a more limited number of proposals is expected to meaningfully improve the likelihood of settlement. The Employer respectfully suggests that the Commission issue a direction in that regard and direct the parties to return to negotiations with a reduced number of proposals, prior to the issuance of the Commission’s report.
1.6 Common proposals
Twenty-three provisions, listed below, have been identified jointly by the parties as common proposals that apply to all four tables (PA, SV, TC and EB) currently in the PIC process.
On November 25, 2019, the Employer and the Bargaining Agent agreed that it was appropriate to make representations on these provisions only once and to do so during the PIC process for the PA group. This avoids unnecessary duplication in the respective submissions for the four groups, and limits the risk of having different recommendations on the same topics.
- Article 10: information
- Article 11: check-Off
- Article 12: use of Employer facilities
- Article 13: Employee representatives
- Article 14: leave with or without pay for Alliance business: cost recovery
- Article 17: discipline
- Article 20: sexual harassment
- Article 24: technological change
- Article 30: designated paid holiday
- Article 34: vacation leave with pay
- Article 35: sick leave with pay
- Article 40: parental leave without pay
- Article 42: compassionate care and caregiving leave
- Article 57: employee performance review and employee files
- Article 65: pay administration
- New article: domestic violence leave
- New article: protections against contracting out
- Appendix D: workforce adjustment
- Appendix F: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Treasury Board of Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada with Respect to Implementation of the Collective Agreement
- Appendix M: Memorandum of Understanding between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to Mental Health in the Workplace
- Appendix N: Memorandum of Understanding between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to Child Care
- Appendix O: Memorandum of Agreement on Supporting Employee Wellness
- New Appendix: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Treasury Board of Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (RCMP)
1.7 Damages related to the Phoenix pay system
In May 2017, the PSAC and other CPA Bargaining Agents chose to create and mandate a joint senior-level Employer-Union Phoenix subcommittee to resolve the issue of damages incurred by employees related to the Phoenix pay system. Between May 2017 and June 2019, this committee worked independently from the collective bargaining tables.
On June 12, 2019, an agreement was reached between the Employer and 15 Bargaining Agents on Phoenix damages. The PSAC did not agree to the terms of the agreement, which includes up to five days of paid leave, and compensation for monetary and non-monetary losses. This agreement settled the damages portion of the pending recourses by these Bargaining Agents and their members following the filing of unfair labour complaints, as well as policy and individual grievances.
The Employer is open to continuing discussions with the PSAC to conclude an agreement on Phoenix damages, recognizing that PSAC employees should be compensated for the damages incurred related to the Phoenix pay system. However, the Employer respectfully submits that Phoenix-related damages should not influence this Committee’s deliberations. This issue is pending resolution at a different forum, and in the event that the parties fail to reach an agreement, the FPSLREB is the appropriate forum for third-party resolution.
Part II: considerations
- In this section
- 2.1 Recruitment and retention
- 2.2 External comparability
- 2.3 Internal relativity
- 2.4 The state of the economy and the government’s fiscal situation
- 2.5 Replication principle
- 2.6 Total compensation
In its approach to collective bargaining and the renewal of collective agreements, the Employer’s goal is to ensure fair compensation for employees and, at the same time, to deliver on its overall fiscal responsibility and commitments to the priorities of the government and Canadians.
Section 175 of the FPSLRA outlines four principles for consideration by public interest commissions:
- Recruitment and retention
- a. the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians;
- b. the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions of employment in the public service that are comparable to those of employees in similar occupations in the private and public sectors, including any geographic, industrial or other variations that the public interest commission considers relevant;
- c. the need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to compensation and other terms and conditions of employment as between different classification levels within an occupation and as between occupations in the public service;
- d. the need to establish compensation and other terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the services rendered; and
- e. the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada’s fiscal circumstances
In addition, the Employer appeals to replication as a guiding principle to set compensation and suggest that the Commission consider all elements of total compensation when making its recommendations for the SV group.
2.1 Recruitment and retention
TBS sets compensation levels that enable it to recruit and attract qualified and motivated employees. Recruitment and retention indicators show that the SV group is relatively healthy and provides no evidence that increases above the established pattern is needed to recruit and retain employees.
The public service went through a restraint period from 2011–12 to 2015–16. The data presented in this section reflect the Government of Canada’s restraint measures that affected employment. During this period, the Government of Canada undertook the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, strategic and operating reviews, and implemented an operating budget freeze through to 2015–16. Footnote 4 These measures had direct effects on hiring and employment levels across the Government of Canada. The data tables below present information for the SV occupational groups in comparison to the average for the core public administration.
Table 6 shows the SV group population over the last five (5) fiscal years. Over the reference period, the FR, GS and SC groups have all shown strong growth, while the populations for the GL and HP have stabilized over the same period. These are the types of changes in population that one would expect coming out of a period of restraint. It is also important to note that while the HS group experienced a significant decrease in population over the reference period, this was due to the transfer of Ste-Anne’s hospital employees to the Government of Quebec in 2016, and not due to any recruitment or retention problems.
Source: Incumbent file
- Figures include employees working in departments and organizations of the core public administration (FAA Schedule I and IV).
- Figures include all active employees and employees on leave without pay (by substantive classification) who were full- or part-time indeterminate and full- or part-time seasonal.
Table 7 shows that the hirings were very healthy for the SV groups since 2013–14. Hires for the GS and HP groups were very strong over the reference period, while the GL group hires have increased by almost 3 times since 2013–14. The SC group has demonstrated even stronger hires being more than enough to compensate for separations shown in Table 8. While the hiring rate for the FR group was lower than the CPA average, it is important to keep in mind that separations have been extremely low for this group and departments have not needed to hire at the same rate as other groups. Finally, the volatile hiring rate for the HS group can once again be explained by the departure of employees to the Government of Quebec.
Source: PSC Appointments file
- Figures include employees working in departments and organizations of the core public administration (FAA Schedule I and IV).
- Figures include all active employees and employees on leave without pay (by substantive classification) who were full- or part-time indeterminate and full- or part-time seasonal.
- External hiring includes hires from outside the CPA. It also includes employees whose employment tenure changed from casual, term or student to indeterminate or seasonal.
- Internal hiring includes hires to the group from other groups within the CPA.
- Total hiring rates are calculated by dividing the number of external and internal hires in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees.
Table 8 shows separation rates for the SV bargaining unit from 2013–14 to 2017–18. The FR group has demonstrated extremely low separation rates that are consistently below that of the CPA average. In terms of the remaining groups, the GL, GS and HP have had separation rates that are comparable to that of the CPA average while the SC group has had separations slightly above. As mentioned earlier, the higher separation rates for the HS group were due to the transfer of some employees to the Government of Quebec.
As noted in Table 8, the SV group has experienced very few employees leaving the public service due to non-retirement, with the majority of groups experiencing a decline for this statistic. This further demonstrates that the federal government continues to offer attractive terms and conditions, stable employment and very competitive wages which makes it a highly sought-after establishment for employment.
Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Internal separations Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified Voluntary non-retirements Voluntary retirements Involuntary Unspecified- Figures include employees working in departments and organizations of the core public administration (FAA Schedule I and IV).
- Figures include all active employees and employees on leave without pay (by substantive classification) who were full- or part-time indeterminate and full- or part-time seasonal.
- External separations are separations to outside the CPA. Voluntary non-retirement separations include resignation from the CPA for: outside employment, return to school, personal reasons, abandonment of position; it also includes separation to a Separate Agency. Voluntary retirement separations include all retirements due to illness, age, or elective. Involuntary separations include resignation under Workforce Adjustment, discharge for misconduct, release for incompetence or incapacity, cessation of employment (failure to appoint), dismissed by Governor-in-Council, layoff, rejected during probation, and death.
- Internal separations are separations from the group to other groups within the CPA.
- Total separations rates are calculated by dividing the number of external and internal separations in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees.
Table 9 presents job advertisement figures for the SV groups. The analysis shows that the total number of screened-in candidates per job advertisement has been consistent high over the 5-year period, providing departments with a large pool of qualified applicants.
It is important to note that highly specialized groups, such as the SV group, have a more limited pool to draw from, compared to groups requiring less specialized skills, such as the PA group. This explains the results shown below.
- Figures include applications to external job advertisements from departments and organizations of the core public administration (FAA Schedule I and IV).
- Data are for closed advertisement. Cancelled advertisements are excluded.
- Screened-In applications are those that meet the essential criteria of the advertisement.
Public Service Employee Survey results for the SV bargaining unit
The Public Service Employee Survey results include certain indicators for measuring retention and overall job satisfaction.
Table 10 shows that the majority of employees in the SV group like their job. The federal government continues to offer attractive terms and conditions, stable employment and very competitive wages, which makes it a highly sought-after establishment for employment.
This further demonstrates that the Employer’s wage offer, replicating the pattern negotiated with 34 other groups in the federal public service, is very reasonable.
Table 10: Overall job satisfaction
Q14. Overall, I like my job. Positive (%) 2018 SV FR 82 GL 80 GS 81 HP 82 HS 91 LI 82 PR 93 SC 88 Public service average 80 Table 11 shows that employees in the SV group are less likely to leave their position over the next two years, as compared to the public service average. This once again points to evidence that SV employees have an overall high sense of job satisfaction and that they are not actively looking to leave their current position.
Table 11: Intention to leave current position
Q46. Do you intend to leave your current position in the next two years? 2018 PSES survey Yes (%) No (%) Not Sure (%) SV FR 12 60 28 GL 16 52 32 GS 21 45 34 HP 14 57 29 HS 11 48 41 LI 25 62 14 PR 8 85 7 SC 21 50 29 Public service average 27 39 35 2.2 External comparability
This section compares SV group pay rates to those offered in the external market. The Government of Canada’s stated objective is to provide compensation that is competitive with, but not leading, compensation provided for similar work in relevant external labour markets. TBS reviews labour market trends nationally and it commissions third-party human resources experts to conduct research at the occupational group level. National trends guide compensation decisions.
This section will demonstrate that SV wages are competitive with the external labour market.
Summary of external wage studies
In 2019, Mercer Canada LLC completed a study to evaluate the competitiveness of its base salary levels for 18 positions in the SV group relative to the external market (a copy of the final report can be found in Exhibit #6). For the selected positions, secondary research salary surveys from the HR firms Mercer, Towers Watson, and Morneau Shepell were used to conduct the market analysis. Matches for these 18 benchmark positions were determined based on job content and professional judgment, as survey capsule descriptions are typically brief relative to organizational descriptions. As a rule of thumb, positions are considered a “good match” if at least 80% of the role is represented in the survey position capsule description.
There were five (5) positions where Mercer was unable to provide market data due to insufficient data from the salary surveys or no appropriate job match (Firefighter, Fire Inspector, Pipefitter, Automobile/Heavy Duty Mechanic, and Construction/Maintenance Supervisor).
TBS’s incumbent data was compared to the 50th percentile of the market using the maximum salary range for its annualized base salary. The maximum level of a salary range is a good indicator of the expected salary of federal government employees. Generally, federal public sector base pay practices are calibrated such that employees will achieve the maximum base salary rate of pay (job rate) of their salary band based on a combination of tenure and performance. External to the public sector at any given level, the 50th percentile of a defined labour market, typically represents the expected salary for “fully competent” job performance. Progression beyond the 50th percentile midpoint is generally reserved for a high relative performance and advanced competency growth. The choice of the 50th percentile as an acceptable benchmark is consistent with TBS’s key guiding compensation principle that TBS wants compensation in the public service to be competitive with, but not lead, relevant external labour markets that provide similar work.
Compensation within plus or minus 10% of TBS’s target market positioning are generally considered to be within competitive norms and market-aligned. By assuming a single competitive rate, one would impose too high a level of precision on an analysis that requires subjective decisions in defining and comparing work across organizations.
Overall, Table 12 indicates that SV wages are either competitive with or leading the market for all but one position. However, the one position that lagged the market, Driver, Heavy vehicle (GL-MDO-05), when comparing TBS 2017 rates to 2018 markets rates; applying the Employer’s first year proposal would shift the GL-MDO-05 within the competitive range. In addition, adjusting the wages by the Employer’s proposal for the first year would shift the Construction Labourer (GL-ELE-03), Building Systems Maintenance Technician (GL-MAM-08) and Cook (GS-FOS-06) ahead of the market, while improving the competitiveness for the remainder of the positions.
Table 12: SV wage study results
Compensation data in $000s
Actual base salary Stream TBS position Classification level TBS maximum salary P50 ($) TBS maximum vs. market P50 Firefighters Firefighter FR-01 $77,60 n/a n/a Fire Inspector FR-02 $81,70 n/a n/a Compensation data in $ hourly
Actual hourly rate Stream TBS position Classification level TBS maximum rate P50 ($) TBS maximum vs. market P50 General Labour and Trades Construction Labourer GL-ELE-03 $22,30 $20,51 9% Driver, Heavy Vehicle GL-MDO-5 $24,63 $27,84 -12% Building Systems Maintenance Technician GL-MAM-08 $29,13 $26,66 9% Painter / Sign Painter GL-PCF-07 $30,32 $32,11 -6% Carpenter GL-WOW-09 $30,68 $32,82 -7% HVAC / Mechanical Technician GL-MAM-10 $35,30 $34,48 2% Pipefitter GL-PIP-09 $32,27 n/a n/a Automobile / Heavy Duty Mechanic GL-VHE-10 $33,47 n/a n/a Construction/Maintenance Supervisor GL-COI-11/C3 $39,02 n/a n/a Electrician GL-EIM-11 $35,46 $37,19 -5% Sheet Metal Worker GL-SMW-10 $35,62 $35,77 0% General Services Building Cleaner GS-BUS-02 $20,26 $21,30 -5% Food Service Helper GS-FOS-02 $20,26 $19,58 3% Storeperson GS-STS-04 $24,90 $26,69 -7% Cook GS-FOS-06 $28,65 $26,46 8% Heating, Power and Stationary Plant Operations Shift Engineer (non-supervisory) HP-04 $35,19 $29,59 19% As shown in Table 13, Mercer also performed a joint wage study with the PSAC to determine market relativity for the SC positions within the SV group (a copy of the final report can be found in Exhibit #7). Primary research was completed based on the TBS benchmark roles for the SC group. The results showed that the SC group currently have wages that are comparable with the market.
Table 13: SC wage study results
Compensation data in $Actual base salary Stream TBS position Classification level TBS Maximum salary P50 ($) TBS maximum vs. market P50 Ships Crews Deckhand SC-02 $54,072 $54,140 0% Boatswain SC-05 $59,496 $56,420 5% Engine Room Assistant SC-03 $55,824 $55,968 0% Steward STD-01 $52,896 $50,450 5% The results of the Mercer studies further support the Employer’s position that exceeding 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5% and 1.5% over four years and deviating from the current pattern established with the core public administration’s represented population is unwarranted.
Analysis of SV pay study results from 2015 and 2019
This section explains how the 2014 collective bargaining settlement provided sufficient funding to fully address the market gaps identified in the joint 2015 study. The 2019 study shows that SV group occupations are broadly competitive with their market comparators, examined as a whole. Consequently, the 1% available for group-specific measures is sufficient to address any outstanding gaps, if it is the PSAC’s decision to do so.
The section reviews methodological issues related to the use of pay studies in determining wage increases.
The 2015 joint Hay study
In February 2015, a joint compensation review with the PSAC was completed by the Hay group. The study surveyed 21 SV positions agreed upon by both parties.
The survey consisted of primary research inviting 360 organizations to participate. The invitees were either large private sector corporations or public sector organizations.
The Hay group developed a custom survey with data elements for each of the benchmark positions, which were sent to the potential participants. Participating organizations completed the surveys and returned the information directly to the contractor. In total, 47 organizations provided responses for 23,517 incumbent positions and 17 occupations. The Hay group then vetted the data, as well as the job matching information, and followed up where necessary based on their professional judgment. The data was then aggregated and market wage estimates were determined.
As indicated in Table 14, the 2015 Joint Hay Study results showed that wages for some SV subgroups were behind their external comparators, with many being within a plus or minus 10% range. The results also indicated that some SV subgroups were ahead of their external comparators.
* Note the GL-MAM refrigeration HVAC technicians received an $8,000 HVAC Allowance
A critical issue between the parties, in determining the nature of the market gap, was whether the results were incumbent-weighted or organization-weighted. As noted in Table 14, the difference in results between incumbent-based and organization-based weighting in the 2015 Joint Hay Study were mixed. For 8 of the 17 occupations, the incumbent-weighted results showed higher external salaries than the organization-weighted data. However, for two occupations, salaries of external comparators were almost 70% higher on an incumbent-weighted basis than an organization-weighted basis (HVAC Technician and Stationary Engineer).
Details on the two methodologies are provided below:
- Under incumbent-weighting, each job response was counted equally in calculating average wages for external comparators. The difficulty with this approach is that organizations that provided multiple responses for a particular occupation were over-represented in calculating average wages, as compared to other organizations, even though their relative importance was the same. In other words, two similar organizations could be provided significantly different weight in determining results, as a result of the manner in which they completed the survey.
- Under organization-weighting, the wage rates for each occupation within an organization were given equal weight in determining average external wages, irrespective of the number of individual responses an organization provided for the occupation.
The Employer based its analysis on the organizational-weighted results, on the basis that these results were more representative of the external labour market, this approach reduced the impact of outlying data and it avoided individual organizations having an undue influence on the results. Moreover, organization-weighted results are the generally accepted industry standard.
2014 round of negotiations
To address the results of the 2015 Joint Hay study, the Employer allocated an amount for wage adjustments in the 2014 round of bargaining based on a weighted average of the wage gap across subgroups, taking into consideration occupations that were both above and below market comparators. Footnote 5 Taking account of the annual economic increases as part of the pattern settlement, the allocated mandate was sufficient to allow wages for all subgroups covered by the study to be aligned to their external comparators.
A tentative settlement was reached by the parties on February 4, 2017, with pattern economic increases for the SV group of 1.25% per year over four years, which was consistent with the rest of the core public administration, and wage increases to address the gaps identified by the Employer’s analysis of the study.
Market adjustments of 15% were provided to the FR and the HP groups, which were the highest increases in the 2014 round of bargaining. The GL-VHE group received a 9% market adjustment, the GL-EIM group received a market adjustment of 6% and the GL-MAM group received a market adjustment of 2.5%, plus an annual HVAC allowance of $8,000. Groups that had results with rates higher than the market also received a wage adjustment in year three of the agreement. A complete listing of the market and wage adjustments provided in the 2014–2018 round can be found in Exhibit #8.
It should also be noted that the union negotiated a 5% wage adjustment for the SC group even though they were not included in the 2015 Joint Hay Study results. The effect of this was to divert a significant amount of funds that could have been otherwise used to fully close the market gap identified by the study for other subgroups. In effect, the union chose to prioritize internal relativity considerations over external comparability.
The 2014 negotiations were intended to provide a final resolution to the external comparator market gaps identified in the 2015 Joint Hay Study. The parties acknowledged this in the settlement report in noting that wage adjustments were “to resolve issues identified in the March 30, 2015, TBS/PSAC 2014 compensation survey result” (Exhibit #8).
The 2019 Mercer study
In 2019, the Employer engaged Mercer Canada for a wage study using the same positions included in the 2015 Joint Hay Study (minus the SC groups). Similar to the latest PA and TC wage studies, this study was done using secondary research and compared SV wages with the external market.
Secondary research such as this is common practice in determining compensation in the market and has often been used by the Employer in collective bargaining, arbitration and conciliation. Recently, secondary research was used in a joint wage study with the Electronics (EL) Group (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)) and led to a deal in this current round of bargaining.
The research used in the 2019 Mercer study contains 2018 market data from the Mercer Benchmark Database, Willis Towers Watson Survey, and the Morneau Shepell Survey. Mercer matched benchmark positions based on job content and professional judgment. The results of this survey are outlined in Table 15.
Table 15: 2019 SV wage study results
Compensation data in $000s
Actual base salary Stream TBS position Classification level TBS maximum salary P50 ($) Converted annual TBS maximum vs. market P50 Firefighters Firefighter FR-01 $77,60 n/a n/a n/a Fire Inspector FR-02 $81,70 n/a n/a n/a Compensation data in $ hourly
Actual hourly rate Stream TBS position Classification level TBS maximum rate P50 ($) Converted annual TBS maximum vs. market P50 General Labour and Trades Construction Labourer GL-ELE-03 $22.30 $20.51 $42,805 9% Driver, Heavy Vehicle GL-MDO 5 $24.63 $27.84 $58,103 -12% Building Systems Maintenance Technician GL-MAM-08 $29.13 $26.66 $55,640 9% Painter/Sign Painter GL-PCF-07 $30.32 $32.11 $67,015 -6% Carpenter GL-WOW-09 $30.68 $32.82 $68,497 -7% HVAC / Mechanical Technician GL-MAM-10 $35.30 $34.48 $71,961 2% Pipefitter GL-PIP-09 $32.27 n/a n/a n/a Automobile/Heavy Duty Mechanic GL-VHE-10 $33.47 n/a n/a n/a Construction/Maintenance Supervisor GL-COI-11/C3 $39.02 n/a n/a n/a Electrician GL-EIM-11 $35.46 $37.19 $77,617 -5% Sheet Metal Worker GL-SMW-10 $35.62 $35.77 $74,653 0% General Services Building Cleaner GS-BUS-02 $20.26 $21.30 $44,454 -5% Food Service Helper GS-FOS-02 $20.26 $19.58 $40,864 3% Storeperson GS-STS-04 $24.90 $26.69 $55,703 -7% Cook GS-FOS-06 $28.65 $26.46 $55,223 8% Heating, Power and Stationary Plant Operations Shift Engineer (non-supervisory) HP-04 $35.19 $29.59 $61,756 19% The results in Table 15 show that the HP-04 position is currently leading the market while the remaining positions other than the GL-MDO-05 were deemed to be comparable. It is important to note that the study shows that TBS wages are highly competitive with the market even though the study compares 2017 TBS wages to market data from 2018. Adjusting for this would move the GL-MDO-05 into the comparable range.
There were five (5) positions where Mercer was unable to provide results due to insufficient data.
Comparing the 2015 Joint Hay study and the 2019 Mercer study
Table 16 shows a comparison between the 2015 Joint Hay and the 2019 Mercer studies (using an organization-weighted approach). The results of the 2019 Mercer study are consistent with those of the 2015 Hay study. External wages in the 2019 Mercer study are about 11% higher than the 2015 Hay study, which is modestly higher than average wage growth over the 2015 to 2019 period. Nevertheless, there are significant differences in individual occupational results, which can be expected in small sample studies.
The key conclusion is that the Mercer study is not biased downward relative to the 2015 joint study. If anything, it is, on average, more favourable to the union than the 2015 study.
Table 16: Comparison of 2015 and 2019 wage studies
Study position Job group level Hay 2015 study Mercer 2019 study 2015 Hay vs. 2019 Mercer CPA salary Annual salary: organization-weighted / P50 2018 annual salary
organization-weighted / P50% difference 2017 annual salary 1. Fire Fighter FR01 $81,500 n/a n/a n/a 2. Fire Lieutenant / Chief FR02 $102,200 n/a n/a n/a 3. Construction / Maintenance Supervisor GLCOI11 $80,800 n/a n/a n/a 4. Electrician GLEIM11 $66,500 $77,617 16.7% $74,006 5. General Labourer / Trades Helper GLELE03 $47,100 $42,805 -9.1% $46,541 6. Building Systems Maintenance Technician GLMAM08 $64,100 $55,640 -13.2% $60,795 7. Driver, Heavy Vehicle GLMDO05 $45,900 $58,103 26.6% $51,404 8. Painter / Sign Painter: Construction GLPCF07 $57,800 $67,015 15.9% $63,279 9. Plumber / Pipefitter GLPIP09 $63,600 n/a n/a n/a 10. Sheet Metal Worker GLSMW10 $57,400 $74,653 30.1% $74,340 11. Automotive / Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic GLVHE10 $65,800 n/a n/a n/a 12. Carpenter GLWOW09 $62,800 $68,497 9.1% $64,030 13. Cleaner / Janitor GSBUS02 $40,700 $44,454 9.2% $42,283 14. Food Service Helper GSFOS02 $35,400 $40,864 15.4% $42,283 15. Cook GSFOS06 $42,500 $55,223 29.9% $59,794 16. Storesperson GSSTS04 $47,900 $55,703 16.3% $51,967 17. Stationary Engineer (2nd Class) HP04 $69,600 $61,756 -11.3% $73,443 2019 Ships’ Crew study
Missing from the 2015 Joint Hay Study results was the Ships’ Crews (SC) group as there was not enough participation to allow for meaningful results. Nonetheless, this group settled with a 5% wage adjustment along with the pattern established for economic increases. In addition, an MOU was included in the agreement to establish a joint committee with the union and the Employer to examine their compensation (Annex L).
In order to fulfill Annex L of the collective agreement, the PSAC and the Employer proceeded with a joint wage study for the SC group. This primary research study was completed by Mercer Canada in March of 2019 and was vetted by both the union and the Employer. The wage study consisted of four different SC jobs and the results showed that the SC positions surveyed all had wages which were comparable with the market (Table 17).
Table 17: SC wage study results
Compensation data in $Actual base salary Stream TBS position Classification level TBS maximum salary P50 ($) TBS maximum vs. market P50 Ships Crews Deckhand SC-02 $54,072 $54,140 0% Boatswain SC-05 $59,496 $56,420 5% Engine Room Assistant SC-03 $55,824 $55,968 0% Steward STD-01 $52,896 $50,450 5% Comments on the use of wage studies
Survey-based wage studies are one of many tools the Employer uses to determine fair salaries for their employees. They provide useful information in benchmarking occupation-specific salaries to external comparators. Nevertheless, their methodological limitations need to be taken into account; accordingly, they also need to be used in conjunction with other indicators of market comparability, such as recruitment and retention data and broader data on wage trends and economic conditions.
As is indicated by the comparison of the 2019 Mercer study and the 2015 Hay study, there can be significant variability in the results for individual occupational subgroups, due to the small sample sizes used in the studies, and other methodological limitations (e.g., inexact job matching). Accordingly, only results where there is a market gap greater than plus or minus 10% should be regarded as evidence of a misalignment with external comparators. Doing so otherwise imposes too high a level of precision on an imprecise tool, and risks adjusting wages for statistical artifacts rather than underlying wage trends. The use of plus or minus 10% is a generally accepted industry threshold among firms undertaking a wage comparison study.
In general, salary adjustments should only be provided where there is clear evidence of a sustained misalignment of salaries with comparators. There is no practical means of adjusting salaries downward in the future, if subsequent studies determine that federal government salaries for a particular occupation are significantly ahead of their comparators.
Group-specific wage adjustments also need to take account of internal relativity considerations. The government needs to ensure equal pay for equal value work, in order to respect its human rights obligations and to ensure a consistent approach in managing a diverse workforce. The government’s objective is to ensure overall alignment of wage rates with external comparators. However, it may not be possible to align wages with external comparators for some specific subgroups, where pay rates are not supported by internal relativity comparisons of value of work.
Finally, the studies completed also use the 50th percentile (P50) of the market as the relevant comparator to the TBS maximum salary range. The maximum level of a salary range is a good indicator of the expected salary of federal government employees. Generally, federal public sector base pay practices are calibrated such that employees will achieve the maximum base salary rate of pay (job rate) of their salary band based on a combination of tenure and performance. Currently approximately 70% of employees in the CPA are situated at the maximum salary in their pay range. External to the public sector at any given level, the 50th percentile of a defined labour market, typically represents the expected salary for “fully competent” job performance.
Progression beyond the 50th percentile midpoint is generally reserved for a high relative performance and advanced competency growth. The choice of the 50th percentile as an acceptable benchmark is consistent with TBS’s key guiding compensation principle; TBS wants compensation in the public service to be competitive with, but not lead, relevant external labour markets that provide similar work. Mercer also prefers P50 as it represents the middle of the market as the average could be skewed due to outliers.
Total compensation comparability study
In 2014, Mercer was commissioned to develop a methodology to provide a value for pensions and benefits model for the federal government employees and external labour markets. This information can be combined with a base wage comparability study to estimate pensions and benefits and thereby total compensation. The Mercer report was updated in August 2019 to reflect changes in both the federal public service and the external market.
Mercer has a proprietary database containing detailed information on provisions, costs and eligibility for pensions and supplementary benefits, on an industry-by-industry basis. Using the Mercer study, Statistics Canada data and data from TBS incumbent system, TBS is able to compare pensions and benefits available for a specific public service position to that of an external market comparator, based on the industry in which the comparator works.
Included in Table 18 below are the results of this analysis. The results for the Construction Labourer (GL-ELE-03), Building Systems Maintenance Technician (GL-MAM-08), Food Service Helper (GS-FOS-02), Cook (GS-FOS-06), Shift Engineer (Non-supervisory) (HP-04) and Steward (SC-SCT-01) were found to be leading the market, while all of the remaining positions were deemed to be comparable with the market, with no position lagging.
It should also be noted that the results in the study compares TBS 2017 rates vs. 2018 markets rates, and that applying the Employer’s first year proposal would further improve its relativity with the market results.
Table 18: Total compensation study results
Summary table – by stream
Compensation data in $
This table below provide competitive positioning for TBS’ base salary compensation levels relative to the market median (P50) for all benchmark positions by stream.Stream Job TBS position Classification level TBS total compensation Base salary TBS vs. market total compensation variance 3 TBS maximum salary 1 Estimated pensions and benefits 4 Total compensation Average market P50 salary 2 Estimated pensions and benefits 4 Total compensation ($) (%) - Reflects the maximum base salary range effective as of June 21, 2017, provided by TBS.
- Reflects the average of all benchmark jobs in the classification. Market data presented for all survey sources is on an organization-weighted basis.
- Represents the market variance between TBS's total compensation to the external market total compensation calculated using the following formula: (TBS total compensation – Market total compensation) / Market total compensation.
- Estimates based on a calculator developed by Mercer designed to estimate the value of pensions and benefits for TBS and the market results for a given job. The following elements are included in the pensions and benefits estimate: pensions, medical, dental, HCSA, STD, LTD, life insurance, retiree medical, retiree dental, retiree HCSA, and retiree life insurance. Other than STD and LTD, estimates provided do not control for other forms of paid leave. Due to data limitations, maternity and parental top-ups, personal leave, family-related leave, and Retirement Compensation Arrangement for senior levels are not included in these estimates.
Legend:
- > Above Comparator Market (Greater than +10%)
- ± Within Comparator Market (± 10%)
- < Below Comparator Market (Less than -10%)
Comparison of external wage growth
As is shown in Table 19, the wage growth for the majority of the SV groups (40.5% to 93.9%) has significantly outpaced increases in the public sector (43.3%, as measured by HRSDC Footnote 6 ), private sector (43.6%, as measured by HRSDC Footnote 6 ), and cumulative increases as represented by the change in CPI inflation (36.8%) since 2000. This is despite the negative impact of the Expenditure Restraint Act in 2010-2011 and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan from 2011–12 to 2015–16.
Table 19: SV wage growth vs. other sectors between 2000 and 2017
External cumulative increase comparison (2000 –2017)
HRSDC public sector HRSDC private sector CPI SV group FR GL GS HP HS LI SC PR(S) Cumulative increase 43.3% 43.6% 36.8% 81.8% 66.7% 59.4% 93.9% 56.1% 55.0% 54.0% 40.5% Notes: SV rates calculated by TBS from settlement rates (weighted average). 2.3 Internal relativity
As stated in the FPSLRA, there is a need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to compensation between classifications and levels. Moreover, as noted in the Policy Framework on the Management of Compensation, compensation should reflect the relative value to the Employer of the work performed, so ranking of occupational groups relative to one another is a useful indicator of whether their relative value and relative compensation align. Exhibit #9 shows a ranking of average salaries for occupational groups in the CPA as of March 31, 2018, and how the PSAC’s proposed increases for the FR and HP groups would disrupt internal relativity between classifications.
Table 20 shows the cumulative increases for the SV subgroups and the overall CPA average. As shown in the table, the cumulative increases received by the majority of the SV employees are significantly above the CPA average, more than double in the case of the HP group.
Table 20: SV wage growth vs. CPA Footnote 7
Internal cumulative increase comparison (2000–2017)CPA average SV group FR GL GS HP HS LI SC PR(S) Cumulative increase 45.5% 81.8% 66.7% 59.4% 93.9% 56.1% 55.0% 54.0% 40.5% Notes: SV and CPA rates calculated by TBS from settlement rates (weighted average). 2.4 The state of the economy and the government’s fiscal situation
The state of the economy and the government’s fiscal circumstances are critical considerations for the federal government in its role as Employer.
The new collective agreement for the SV group will cover a time frame of low to moderate economic growth. Moreover, there are negative risks associated with the economic outlook, which could lead to weaker labour markets and lower wage growth than what is now broadly expected. With interest rates at near-record lows in major advanced economies and signs of a deteriorating global outlook, a focus on keeping federal government compensation affordable relative to the country’s economic performance will allow the government to pursue its budgetary commitments and better respond to future economic uncertainty.
The following sections outline Canadian economy and its outlook, labour market conditions for the public service relative to the private sector, and the government’s fiscal circumstances. This includes an overview of gross domestic product (GDP) growth, consumer price inflation, employment growth, risks to the economic outlook, and how the public service compares against the typical Canadian worker, which is the ultimate payer of public services.
Real GDP growth
Real GDP growth, which is the standard measure of economic growth in Canada, provides an indication of the overall demand for goods, services, and labour. Lower real GDP growth reduces demand for employment, which increases unemployment and curbs wage increases.
Real GDP growth recently peaked in 2017 at 3.2% before slowing markedly to 2.0% in 2018 (Table 21). The outlook for real GDP projects growth further deteriorating to 1.7% in 2019 and in 2020. Over the 2014 to 2017 period, real economic growth averaged 2.1%, higher than the average outlook for growth of 1.8% over the 2019 to 2021 period. The slowing growth profile of GDP comes despite the economy’s continued reliance on historically low interest rates.
Table 21: Real gross domestic production, year-over-year growth
Real GDP growth (year to year) 2016 2017 2018 2019 (forecast) 2020 (forecast) 2021 (forecast) Statistics Canada 1.1% 3.2% 2.0% n/a n/a n/a Consensus Forecasts n/a n/a n/a 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% Bank of Canada n/a n/a n/a 1.5% 1.7% n/a Source: Statistics Canada, Consensus Forecasts, December 2019, Bank of Canada, Monetary Policy Report October 2019.
While forecasters are basing their modest expectations for growth on the assumption that economic conditions will not further deteriorate, the Canadian economy faces a number of risks that could further compromise growth prospects, weakening the labour market and the government’s fiscal balance.
The Consumer Price Index
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) tracks the price of a typical basket of consumer goods. Measuring price increases against wage growth demonstrates relative purchasing power over time.
Recent inflation has been persistently low, below the 2.0%mid-point of the Bank of Canada’s 1.0 to 3.0% target rate since 2011. Inflation exceeded 2.0% for the first time in seven years in 2018, at 2.3%. However, inflation above 2.0% is forecast to be short-lived. According to Consensus Forecasts, inflation is expected to decline to 2.0% in 2019 and further decline to 1.9% in 2020 and 2021 (Table 22). The Bank of Canada’s October inflation forecast has a similarly low profile, with inflation at or below 2.0% until the end of 2021.
Table 22: Canada’s major economic indicators, year-over-year growth
Indicator Footnote 8 2016 2017 2018 2019 (forecast) 2020 (forecast) 2021 (forecast) CPI (year to year) Consensus 1.4% 1.6% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% CPI (year to year) Bank of Canada 1.4% 1.6% 2.3% 2.0% 1.8% 2.0% Unemployment 7.0% 6.3% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% n/a Source: Statistics Canada, Consensus Forecasts (April 2021 long-term forecast and December 2019 for 2019, 2020, 2021 forecast), BoC MPR October 2019. Canadian employment growth
Canadian labour market conditions have improved with the unemployment rate declining from a high of 6.8% in January 2017 to a 40-year low of 5.4% in May 2019 Footnote 9 before recently jumping to 5.9% in November 2019. Footnote 10 A falling unemployment rate is unsurprising given that the net employment growth rate, which had lingered below 1.0% from November 2013 to March 2015, exceeded 2.0% in the summer and fall of 2017, and again in the summer of 2019 (Chart 1). Footnote 11
However, this labour market strength recently faded. “Canada’s labour market in November recorded its worst month for job losses in more than a decade,” Footnote 12 with employment declining almost 71,000, and the unemployment rate jumping 0.4 percentage points from 5.5% to 5.9% in the December 2019 release of Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey.
The unemployment rate had been forecasted to remain flat at 5.7% for 2019 and 2020 Footnote 13 (Table 22), but it should be noted that these forecasts were made before the most recent release of the large and unexpected 71,000 in job losses, and it will take some time for forecasters to update their expectations.
Up until November’s job losses and the sharp jump in the unemployment rate, it was surprising to many analysts that wage growth has fallen well short of expectations for a labour market with little unemployment and strong employment growth.
In Great Britain, weaker than expected wage growth in a strong labour market has been attributed to the new and quickly expanding informal or “gig” economy. According to the Bank of England’s chief economist, Footnote 14 “the rise of insecure work in the gig economy has fuelled a ‘lost decade’ in wage growth in Britain.”
A recent analytical paper examining the informal “gig” economy in Canada Footnote 15 uncovered similar evidence. The analysis found that just under one-third of Canadian survey respondents participate in gig work, especially younger workers, and that participation was often consistent with labour market slack.
Over a third of survey respondents who take part in informal work do so as a result of weak economic conditions, and over half would switch their hours worked for hours in formal employment with no increase in pay.
The “employment” Footnote 16 conditions of gig workers, with temporary and irregular hours, no job security or opportunity for advancement, with little or no paid sick leave and other benefits, contrasts sharply with the stable and secure employment with generous pensions and benefits in the federal public service.
These advantageous working conditions, examined further in the following section, have continued to attract large pools of qualified applicants for every job opportunity.
Working conditions in the public sector versus the private and other sectors
The public sector enjoys many privileges over what the average private sector worker experiences, with significant advantages in pension and benefit plan coverage and quality, better job tenure and stability, more paid time off and an earlier average age of retirement.
Before examining the preferential working conditions in the federal public sector relative to the private sector, a quick reminder that wages are already higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Using 2015 data from the 2016 Census, the most comprehensive data set available, full-time, full-year wages and salaries for federal government workers were 17% higher than those in the private sector ($77,543 versus $66,065). Footnote 17
Public sector workers are almost four times more likely to be covered by a registered pension plan than private sector ones (87.1% versus 22.7%). Footnote 18 This advantage grows even larger when comparing defined benefit (DB) pension plan coverage, where pension benefits are guaranteed by the Employer, with public sector workers more than eight times more likely to be covered (79.1% versus 9.2%).
Defined Benefit pensions are quickly disappearing in the private sector, with DB plan coverage shrinking from 21.9% in 1997 to the most recent 9.2% figure in 2017. In fact, many existing DB plans in the private sector are already closed to new employees, indicating that DB pension plan coverage in the private sector will continue to decline. Footnote 19
The advantage for public sector workers is not only limited to the much higher coverage rate for pension plans, but also in the value that those pensions provide. According to a study by the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, every dollar contributed to a pension plan returns $5.32 in retirement income compared to only a $1.70 in for private savers (Exhibit #10 and #11). This is because a pension plan has the scale, risk pooling and internal fiduciary management that an individual can’t match with high-fee mutual funds in an RRSP.
The benefit of a more secure retirement is further compounded with an earlier average age of retirement in the public sector. Public sector workers’ average retirement age is 2.4 years younger than private sector workers. Footnote 20
Public sector workers also have more job security than their private sector counterparts. When examining job losses as a percentage of total employment, a proxy for job security, public sector workers were five times less likely to experience job loss than those in the private sector (0.5% versus 2.5%). Footnote 21 This analysis excludes job losses as result of an end of temporary, casual, and seasonal jobs, which if included, would further widen the difference between the sectors.
The advantages for federal public service employees in pension and benefit coverage availability is further extended to a quality advantage. A recent comprehensive study prepared for TBS by Mercer, Footnote 22 which directly compared Employer costs of pensions and benefits, determined that the public service’s plans were 24% more expensive than those in the General Canadian Marketplace. At a base salary of $73,000, close to the public service average salary, this represents a premium of over $2,800 or 3.9% of base pay higher than those outside the public service. The study noted that the source of this federal public service premium:
is reflective of high value provisions that are not typically available to Employers of all sizes, such as Defined Benefit pensions, retiree benefits, cost-of-living adjustments on long-term disability, and a higher than average portion of the cost being paid by the Employer for the Public Service active employee benefits.
Public sector workers are increasingly isolated from the labour market realities experienced in the private sector, enjoying higher wages, better pensions, better benefits, and much greater job security. Federal public service workers, SV members included, are the “privileged among the privileged,” with superior working conditions to many other public sector workers.
The wage pattern already established with other federal public service bargaining agents is higher than settlements for other provincial public sector employees and recommending above-pattern increases would only further entrench the advantages that the federal public service enjoys over private sector and other public sector workers.
Hourly wages for the SV group relative to the private sector
Results for the Labour Force Survey show how SV hourly rates of pay compare to that of the private sector. As shown in the chart below, the median wage for SV workers exceeds the 70th percentile in the private sector. Even though the private sector is not a direct comparator for the SV group, the government needs to consider federal public service wages relative to the wages of the many Canadians whose taxes pay for government services, through income taxes and/or the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Source: Labor Force Survey (LFS) data for June 2015 and December 2015. Operational Services data based on the March 2014 incumbent wage base, excluding allowances and other premiums.
Wage data reported in this table accounts for usual hours worked and usual wages earned by respondents during a typical week. These are normal paid or contract hours not including overtime and overtime compensation. Similarly, the SV average hourly wages exclude overtime.
Fiscal outlook
The Government of Canada has adopted the position that reasonable deficit spending that targets Canada’s middle-class can boost economic growth, provided that appropriate trade-offs are made to avoid accumulating excessive debt loads. Higher debt levels lead to higher borrowing costs, and as a result, fewer resources for spending priorities. The government is currently in a deficit situation. The deficit was $14 billion Footnote 23 for fiscal year 2018–19 and Budget 2019 forecasted continued deficits throughout the forecast horizon to fiscal year 2023–24.
The government’s fiscal plan is to continue to invest to grow Canada’s economy for the long term, in a fiscally responsible way that preserves Canada’s low-debt advantage. To stay on its fiscal track, the government has the responsibility to manage its budget in a manner that serves the public interest.
Fiscal room to maneuver is especially important because very low interest rates restrict monetary policy from responding to an economic downturn with further rate cuts. The current overnight rate of 1.75% set by the Bank of Canada is more than two and half times lower than the pre-recession peak of 4.5% in August 2007. According to TD Economics, central banks have limited room to provide stimulus in the event of a recession. Footnote 24
Personnel costs of $57.7 billion in 2018–19 were the single largest component of direct program expenses, representing 38% of these costs. Footnote 25 Personnel costs have increased by $9.2 billion since 2014–15. To put this amount in better context, $9.2 billion would cover almost 50% of the entire cost of the Employment Insurance program for all of Canada for 2018–19. Footnote 26
A portion of the increase in personnel costs is attributable to higher “legacy” costs for the government’s generous pensions and benefits promises due to low and falling interest rates.
These pension and benefit legacy costs are forecasted to increase significantly, costing an additional $4.9 billion in 2019–20, $7.6 billion in 2020–21, $6.3 billion in 2021–22, $4.8 billion in 2022–23 and $4.2 billion in 2023–24 for a total of $27.8 billion. Footnote 27 The impact on the fiscal outlook of this increase in legacy costs was so large that the Department of Finance separately identified its impact in their Economic and Fiscal Update 2019 Footnote 28 and devoted an entire page Footnote 29 to explain the impact.
From the Employer’s perspective, employees’ total compensation costs have increased and are forecast to further increase significantly beyond just what has been provided in wage increases.
The government must manage total compensation costs prudently on behalf of the taxpayer, and increasing costs from pensions and benefits would necessitate that wage growth slow to help mitigate the overall total compensation increase. While pensions and benefits are not bargained directly with the SV table, their representatives and members should be cognizant that their existing pensions and benefits are getting more expensive, which in the private sector would mean cuts and higher co-pays for employees or lower wage increases to maintain manageable total compensation cost growth.
In that context and given that compensation accounts for such a sizeable share of the government’s expenses, responsible fiscal management dictates that the costs of wage settlements afford the Government of Canada the fiscal room necessary to react when the economy falters and to spur economic growth and job creation over the long term. Recommending wage increases above the already-established pattern reduces the fiscal room to maneuver, especially when it is awarded to the single-largest collective bargaining agent in the federal public service.
Risks to the outlook
According to the Bank of Canada, Footnote 30 the greatest risk to the economic outlook for the Canadian economy is “global trade policies and related uncertainty.” The indecision and potential timing around the United Kingdom’s leaving the European Union and other geopolitical risks stemming from Argentina, Chile, Iran and Hong Kong could further darken the economic outlook. Trade disputes, like that of US-China and more recently Canada-China have a dampening effect on trade by depressing commodity prices, disrupting supply chains and slowing economic growth.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in their recently issued Interim Economic Outlook in September 2019 stated that “The global economy has become increasingly fragile and uncertain, with growth slowing and downside risks continuing to mount.” Footnote 31 The OECD warned that escalating trade conflicts are hurting confidence and investment, and aggravating risks in financial markets and endangering already weak growth prospects worldwide. In fact, the OECD’s autumn 2019 outlook projection for the global economy for 2019 and 2020 shows the weakest annual growth rates since the financial crisis, with downside risks continuing to mount.
According to OECD Chief Economist Laurence Boone, “The uncertainty provoked by the continuing trade tensions has been long-lasting, reducing activity worldwide and jeopardising our economic future.” To illustrate the impact on Canada of a more pronounced slowdown in economic activity, an increasingly distinct possibility, the Bank of Canada unexpectedly provided an alternative economic scenario Footnote 32 of the effects on Canada if global GDP growth was only 2.25% lower by 2021 than in their base-case projections. This scenario essentially assumes what the impact on Canada would be if global GDP were to slow a little more than 1% per year for the next two years.
While the passage of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) in the United States House of representatives in December 2019 has reduced some trade anxiety, other geopolitical risks, such as increasing tensions in the Middle East have ratcheted tension up. Footnote 33
This decline in global growth would weaken domestic and foreign demand and cause commodity prices, an important Canadian export category, to decline 20 to 25%. This would lead to lower employment, inflation, wages and household income. Lower household income would also contribute to lower housing prices. As a result, real Canadian GDP would be 4.5% lower than what is currently projected by the end of 2021.
Households in Canada are already especially vulnerable to an economic slowdown because of near-record household debt levels, where Canadians owed roughly $1.74 in credit market debt for every dollar of household disposable income. Footnote 34 In fact, the household debt service ratio, measured as total obligated payments of principal and interest on credit market debt as a proportion of household disposable income, edged up to a record 14.93% of household disposable income.
Given these risks, a prudent approach to compensation would help contribute to preserve fiscal capacity to respond to an economic slowdown or recession.
2.5 Replication principle
The Bargaining Agent’s economic proposals for the SV group far exceed the pattern established in the federal public service. They are also well in excess of broader public sector trends across Canada.
Settlements to date in the federal public service
To date, 34 collective agreements have been reached in the federal public service. All agreements contain base economic increases of 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5% and 1.5% over a four-year period, plus targeted wage measures of approximately 1% over the term of the agreement. A tentative agreement between the PSAC and the Royal Canadian Mint was reached on July 12, 2019, with base economic increases of 2.0%, 2.0%, 1.5% and 1.5% over a four-year period (Exhibit #12).
In addition to any group specific improvements, various government-wide measures were included in the settlements. These improvements included 10 days of paid leave for domestic violence, expanded provisions for caregiving leave, extended parental leave and allowance provisions, as well as an expanded definition of family that allows for more flexible use of paid family-related leave provisions.
The Employer proposes to replicate the same or equivalent improvements to members of the SV bargaining unit, which would provide for a fair and reasonable collective agreement. The evidence provided in this brief does not suggest or support that the SV group receive more than the pattern that has been set in the 34 agreements settled during this round of bargaining.
Provincial and territorial government compensation
Wage increases in provincial and territorial governments have been modest during the period of negotiations due to the higher fiscal burden on governments from elevated debt levels and an uncertain economic outlook.
For example, the Government of Ontario has tabled legislation which imposes a 1% maximum on annual compensation increases provided through collective agreements for a three-year period. The province of Alberta has introduced wage restraint regulations limiting the increases in base salary of executives from April 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. The Alberta finance minister has also announced that it will also seek 2 to 5% wage rollbacks in arbitration with the vast majority of public sector employees. Manitoba introduced sustainability legislation which came into effect in March 2017 and limits wage increases at 0% for the first two years, 0.75% for the third year, and 1% in the fourth year. Finally, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador implemented four years of salary freezes from 2016–17 to 2019–20 and the Government of Nova Scotia legislated 0.75% annual wage increases from 2015–16 until 2018–19.
Covering similar periods, the Government of Canada has negotiated economic wage increases of 1.75% annually, plus targeted wage measures of approximately 1% over the term of the agreement, with 34 groups in the federal public service.
Examining wage increases negotiated in other Canadian governments supports that the Employer’s wage offer for the SV group, which is aligned to the established pattern, is reasonable and sufficient.
2.6 Total compensation
All terms and conditions of employment need to be taken into account in evaluating external comparability, even if they are not subject to negotiation. In addition to wages, total compensation is composed of paid and unpaid non-wage benefits, such as Employer contributions to pensions, other employee benefit programs (i.e., health and dental) and additional allowances.
Chart 2 provides a detailed breakdown of total compensation of a typical SV employee. As illustrated, employees in the SV group enjoy a substantial total compensation package:
- Base pay represents 61.9% of total compensation for employees in the SV Bargaining Unit.
- Pension and benefits, including life and disability insurance, health and dental plans, represents 16.4% of total compensation for groups in the SV Bargaining Unit.
- Allowances and premiums account for 2.2% of total compensation in the SV Bargaining Unit.
Chart 2: total compensation components, Operational Services (SV) Bargaining Unit
Part III: employer’s submission for rates of pay and response to PSAC’s proposals
Table 23 below compares the wage proposals from the Employer and the Bargaining Agent.
On August 5, 2018, increase rates of pay by 2.0%.
On August 5, 2019, increase rates of pay by 2.0%.
On August 5, 2020, increase rates of pay by 1.50%.
On August 5, 2021, increase rates of pay by 1.50%.
On August 5, 2018, increase rates of pay by 3.25%.
On August 5, 2019, increase rates of pay by 3.25%.
On August 5, 2020, increase rates of pay by 3.25%.
Wage adjustments or restructures
Aligned with the established pattern, additional monetary measures totalling 1% of the SV wage base.
As part of the 1%, the Employer is prepared to consider the following measures (more details are found at Part IV of this brief):
- Increase Long Service Pay for the Firefighter (FR) group (Appendix A);
- Expand the HVAC allowance for the GL-MAM group (Appendix B);
- Increase the Supplementary Allowance for the Lightkeepers (LI) group (Appendix F);
- Increase Rescue Specialist, Diving Duty and Armed Boarding allowances for the Ships’ Crews (SC) group;
- Allocate the balance of the 1% for wage adjustments to the entire SV group.
Firefighter (FR) Group
- Prior to applying the economic increase, a wage adjustment of 19.5% for all FR rates
- Deletion of the Recruitment Rate
- Addition of one step to the FR-01 pay grid
- Removal of the first step and addition of one step with a 5% increment to the FR-02 pay grid
- A 10% increase to the FR-03, FR-04, FR-05 and FR-06 pay grids
General Labour and Trades (GL) Group
- Prior to applying the economic increase, a wage adjustment of 9% at all steps for the following subgroups: GL-AIM, GL-AMW, GL-COI, GL-EIM, GL-ELE, GL-GHW, GL-INM, GL-MAM, GL-MDO, GL-MOC, GL-MST, GL-PCF, GL-PIP, GL-PRW, GL-SMW, GL-VHE and GL-WOW
Heating, Power and Stationary Plant (HP) Group
- Prior to applying the economic increase, a wage adjustment of 39% for all HP rates
- Deletion of the first two steps of the HP-06, HP-07, HP-08 and HP-09 pay grids
Lightkeepers (LI) Group
- Prior to applying the economic increase, a wage adjustment of 21% for all LI
- Deletion of the first two steps of the LI-01 and LI-02 pay grids
- Deletion of the first step of the LI-03, LI-04, LI-05, LI-06, LI-07, LI-08 and LI-09 pay grids
Ships’ Crews (SC) Group
- Prior to applying the economic increase, addition of two steps with 5% increments to all SC subgroup pay grids
- A wage adjustment of 21% at all steps of the SC-DED, SC-ERD, SC-STD, SC-EQO and SC-SPT subgroups
Printing Operations (Supervisory) PR(S) Group
- Deletion of the first four steps of the PR(S) pay grids
$59,403,962
8.39%$268,105,510
37.87%The Bargaining Agent’s wage proposals are significant. The PSAC proposes a cumulative wage increase of 10.33% over three years. In contrast, the pattern established in the federal public service is 8.39% over a four-year period.
The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposals are not supported by any rigorous analysis, as demonstrated in detail at Part II. They are also out of touch with the established pattern with other CPA and separate agencies groups in the current round of negotiations.
In turn, the Employer’s offer is sufficient, reasonable, and aligned with the aforementioned pattern. The Employer proposes that its economic offer be recommended by the Commission. The Employer’s wage proposals before this Public Interest Commission is in keeping with the analysis included in this document and is consistent with the overall proposals made to Bargaining Agents in negotiations.
As indicated above, the Employer is prepared to consider the above-noted economic group-specific measures as part of the 1% envelope. The Employer respectfully requests that the Commission focus on the areas that are most amenable to improvement. Part IV of the Employer’s brief provides detailed remarks on these measures.
Part IV: Employer’s submission on other outstanding SV group-specific issues
- In this section
- Article 25 – Hours of work
- Article 27 – Shift and weekend premiums
- Article 29 – Overtime
- Article 30 – Call-back pay
- Article 31 – Sandby
- Article 34 – Travelling time
- Article 37 – Vacation leave with pay
- Article 44 – Leave without pay for the care of family
- Article 47 – Leave with pay for family-related responsibilities
- Article 50 – bereavement leave with pay
- Article 58 – Statement of duties
- Article 61 – Correctional service specific duty allowance
- Article 68 – Compensatory leave
- Article 70 – Duration
- New – pre-retirement leave
- New – duty to accommodate
- New - letter of understanding between the treasury board and the public service alliance of canada
- Appendix A – firefighter (FR) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix B – general labour and trades (GL) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix C – general services (GS) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix D – heating, power and stationary plant (HP) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix E – hospital services (HS) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix F – lightkeepers (LI) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix G – ships’ crews (SC) group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Inmate Training Differential: Appendices B (GL), C (GS) and D (HP)
- Supervisory Differential: Appendices B (GL), C (GS) and E (HS)
This section includes the Employer’s recommendations for all outstanding proposals that are specific to the SV group.
Please note that the French version of the Employer’s proposals will be solely in the French version of the Employer’s brief, which will be provided to the parties on January 22, 2020.
As agreed by the parties on November 25, 2019, the Employer’s recommendations for outstanding proposals that are common for all PSAC groups are being dealt with in the context of the PA group PIC proceedings.
- Article 25: hours of work
- Article 27: shift and weekend premiums
- Article 29: overtime
- Article 30: call-back pay
- Article 31: standby
- Article 34: travelling time
- Article 37: vacation leave with pay
- Article 44: leave without pay for the care of family
- Article 47: leave with pay for family-related responsibilities
- Article 50: bereavement leave with pay
- Article 58: statement of duties
- Article 61: Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance
- Article 68: compensatory leave
- Article 70: duration
- New article: pre-retirement leave
- New article: duty to accommodate
- New : Letter of Understanding between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada
- Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General – Hours of work and overtime
- Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General – Overtime compensation
- Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General – Reporting pay
- Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General – Long service pay
- Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “B”: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada With Respect to Firefighters and the Provincial Workers of Compensation Acts
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Hours of work and overtime
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Dirty work allowance
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Height pay
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “E”: special conditions applicable to Lockmasters, Bridgemasters and Canalmen
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “E”: Standby and call call-back
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “E”: New article (shift change-over communications)
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “M”: Apprenticeship program
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades (GL) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “N”: GL-MAM, Refrigeration HVAC Technicians
- Appendix C: General Services (GS) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General
- Appendix C: General Services (GS) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “F”: Apprenticeship program
- Appendix D: Heating, Power and Stationary Plant (HP) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General
- Appendix D: Heating, Power and Stationary Plant (HP) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Shift premium
- Appendix D: Heating, Power and Stationary Plant (HP) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Dirty work allowance
- Appendix E: Hospital Services (HS) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay
- Appendix F: Lightkeepers (LI) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Vacation leave
- Appendix F: Lightkeepers (LI) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “B”: Supplementary allowance
- Appendix F: Lightkeepers (LI) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “C”: Accommodation and services
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General administration – Hours of work and overtime
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – General administration – Meals and quarters
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “E”: Lay-day work system
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “F”: Dirty work allowance
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “G”: Special allowances
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – New article – Parking
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – New article – Internet access
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crew (SC) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay – Annex “L”: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Treasury Board ofCanada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada With Respect to Ships’ Crews (SC) Group
- Inmate Training Differential: Appendices B (GL), C (GS) and D (HP)
- Supervisory Differential: Appendices B (GL), C (GS) and E (HS)
Article 25: hours of work
Union proposal
The weekly hours of work shall be 37.5 hours, without any reduction in the yearly salary, leave credits or benefits.
Consequential amendments throughout the agreement must be made pursuant to this concept being agreed upon.
Remarks
The SV agreement covers a diverse group of job types, covered in detail in the eight group-specific appendices:
- Appendix A: Firefighters Group;
- Appendix B: General Labour and Trades Group;
- Appendix C: General Services Group;
- Appendix D: Heating, Power and Stationary Plant Group;
- Appendix E: Hospital Services Group;
- Appendix F: Lightkeepers; and
- Appendix G: Ships’ Crews and
- Appendix H: Printing Operations (Supervisory) Group.
Employees in these eight groups and their subgroups (where applicable) work a variety of standard and variable weekly schedules that range from 37.5 hours a week up to 46.6 hours a week. Moreover, work schedules vary in complexity with distinct provisions, such as lieu days, lay-day work systems and shift schedules of varying durations.
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to reduce the weekly hours of work for all employees covered by the SV agreement to 37.5 hours, without any reduction to entitlements related to salary, leave and/or other benefits.
The Employer submits that agreeing to such a change would have a significant financial impact and an unreasonable cost on departments. The change proposed by the Bargaining Agent would result in a significant cost to the Employer, representing an increase of approximately $55 million per year for the SV group, or close to 7.8% of the SV wage base.
This change would exceed the provisions contained in other CPA collective agreements without justification, since there is no evidence that the current hours of work and weekly work schedules included in the SV agreement are not functioning.
In addition, this change would have major pay system implications. The Bargaining Agent’s proposed language would create an unnecessary administrative burden. A change of this magnitude would require a reprogramming of the various HR systems used in departments (there are 33 HR systems in total used in the CPA) and have a significant impact on the Phoenix pay system.
An impact assessment on the MyGCHR system (1 of the 33 systems) finds that several aspects of the program would be affected – this includes data conversion/restructure in several modules to reflect new work schedules, changes to allowances and hourly rates of pay. This change would require the development of new scripts for the system and manual input of changes. Configuration of the Phoenix pay system would hold similar considerations to the change requirements for HR systems.
No sufficient justification supporting this proposal was provided by the Bargaining Agent. For these reasons, the Employer requests that the Commission not include this proposal in its report.
Article 27: shift and weekend premiums
Union proposal
Exclusions
This article does not apply to the FR, LI and SC Groups.
Clause 27.01, Shift premium, does not apply to employees working hours of work not defined as a shift, covered by clause 25.02, Article 28 or clauses 2.02 and 2.03 of Appendix B; clauses 2.01 and 2.02 of Appendix C, clauses 2.03 and 2.04 of Appendix D, clauses 2.01 and 2.02 of Appendix E, and clause 1.01 of Appendix H.
27.01 Shift premium
An employee working on shifts will receive a shift premium of two dollars ($2.00) three dollars ($3.00) per hour for all hours worked, including overtime hours, between 4:00 pm and 8:00 am. The shift premium will not be paid for hours worked between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm.
An employee working on shifts will receive a shift premium of five dollars ($5.00) per hour for all hours worked, including overtime hours, between 00:00 and 08:00.
27.02 Weekend premium
- An employee working during the weekend will receive an additional premium of two dollars ($2.00) three dollars ($3.00) per hour, including overtime hours, for all hours worked on Saturday or Sunday.
- Paragraph (a) shall not apply to employees whose regular hours of work are scheduled from Monday to Friday.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to amend the shift and weekend provisions of the Agreement as follows:
Increase to the shift premium
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to increase the shift and weekend premiums from two ($2.00) dollars to three dollars ($3.00) for evenings and weekends. The cost of this increase is over $2.3 million per annum, or 0.34% of the SV wage base.
The Employer submits that the SV group is not behind the market in terms of this benefit, which is consistent with what is provided in other collective agreements.
Exclusion of FR, LI and SC groups
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to remove the exclusion of this article for the Firefighter (FR), Lightkeepers (LI) and Ships’ Crews (SC) groups.
The Employer submits that these groups are already compensated through the provisions in their respective appendices. Removing the exclusion would result in an unnecessary duplication of compensation for items already reflected in the overall pay and benefits for these groups:
- For the FR group (Appendix A), given the particular nature of their work (employees are regularly and normally required to work for periods of 24 consecutive hours), this is reflected in the wage rate. They also are entitled to Long Service pay.
- Employees in the LI group who are on duty for a period of 24 consecutive hours or more are entitled to a rotational day off in respect of each 24-hour period. As well, each employee in the LI group receives a Supplementary Allowance (Appendix F, Annex B).
- Employees in the SC group who work in the 42 Hour Averaging Work System, work 7 days a week, 12 hours per day and earn a day of rest for each 12-hour day that is worked. Employees in the SC group who are on the Lay-Day Work System (on a vessel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) earn lay-day credits (days off with pay) to recognize the continuous nature of marine operations.
In the Employer’s view, there is no justification to make the proposed change.
The Employer requests that the Commission not include these proposals in its report.
Article 29: overtime
Union proposal
29.02 Where overtime work is authorized in advance by the Employer, an employee is entitled to overtime compensation at double time for each completed fifteen (15) minute period of overtime worked by the employee.
Consequential amendments throughout the agreement must be made pursuant to this concept being agreed upon.
29.06 Overtime compensation
Subject to clause 29.02, an employee is entitled to time and one-half (1 1/2) compensation for each hour of overtime worked by the employee.
29.07 Notwithstanding clause 29.06, an employee is entitled to double (2) time for each hour of overtime worked by the employee,
- on a scheduled day of work or a first (1st) day of rest, after a period of overtime equal to the normal daily hours of work specified in the Group Specific Appendix;
- on a second (2nd) or subsequent day of rest, provided the days of rest are consecutive, except that they may be separated by a designated paid holiday;
where an employee is entitled to double (2) time in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) above and has worked a period of overtime equal to the normal daily hours of work specified in the Group Specific Appendix, the employee shall continue to be compensated at double (2) time for all hours worked until he or she is given a period of rest of at least eight (8) consecutive hours.
29.09 Overtime meal allowance
- An employee who works three (3) or more hours of overtime,
- immediately before the employee’s scheduled hours of work and who has not been notified of the requirement prior to the end of the employee’s last scheduled work period, or
- immediately following the employee’s scheduled hours of work. shall be reimbursed for one (1) meal in the amount of ten twelve dollars ($ 10 12), except where a free meal is provided or when the employee is being compensated on some other basis. Reasonable time with pay, to be determined by management, shall be allowed the employee in order that the employee may take a meal break either at or adjacent to the employee’s place of work.
Employer proposal
29.09 Overtime meal allowance
New
- Meal allowances under this clause shall not apply to an employee who has approval to work overtime from a location other than his or her designated workplace.
Employer movement
29.09 Overtime meal allowance
- An employee who works three (3) or more hours of overtime,
- immediately before the employee’s scheduled hours of work and who has not been notified of the requirement prior to the end of the employee’s last scheduled work period, or
- immediately following the employee’s scheduled hours of work.
shall be reimbursed for one (1) meal in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ), except where a free meal is provided or when the employee is being compensated on some other basis. Reasonable time with pay, to be determined by management, shall be allowed the employee in order that the employee may take a meal break either at or adjacent to the employee’s place of work.
The parties agree that this change will not result in any retroactive payment or adjustment. It will form part of the implementation, on a prospective basis, of the new collective agreement once signed, in accordance with the MOU between the Treasury Board of Canada and Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to the Implementation of the Collective Agreement.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to amend the overtime provisions of the Agreement as follows:
Double time
The Bargaining Agent is proposing that all overtime shall be compensated at double time.
The Employer submits that agreeing to such a change would have a significant financial impact – over $15 million for the SV group – and would exceed the provisions contained in other CPA collective agreements, without justification.
Overtime meal allowance
The Bargaining Agent’s proposal to increase the overtime meal allowance from ten ($10.00) dollars to twelve ($12.00) dollars is consistent with the current established negotiated settlement pattern in the federal public service.
In this context and in line with the agreements recently agreed upon/signed, increasing the overtime meal allowance as proposed here, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the Implementation of the Collective Agreement, would be appropriate for the SV group as part of a comprehensive settlement.
The Employer is also proposing to limit an employee’s entitlement to the meal allowance when performing overtime from a location other than the employee's designated workplace.
The Employer submits that employees are provided with a meal allowance when they are expected to stay beyond their normal hours of work to perform overtime work. This ensures that they are not out of pocket for the extra expense of purchasing a meal. When an employee is working from their place of residence, there should not be an added expense for a meal.
To resolve all outstanding proposals at Article 29, and as part of a comprehensive settlement, the Employer requests that the Commission include the Employer’s proposal at clause 29.09 (d) and the Employer’s counter-proposal provided above in the Employer movement section at clause 29.09(a) and (b) (meals) in its report. The Employer further requests that the Commission not include the other Bargaining Agent proposals in its report.
Article 30: call-back pay
Employer proposal
30.01
New
- An employee who receives a call to duty or responds to a telephone or data line call while on standby or at any other time outside his or her scheduled hours of work, may at the discretion of the Employer work at the employee’s residence or at another place to which the Employer agrees. In such instances, the employee shall be paid the greater of:
- compensation at the applicable overtime rate for any time worked,or
- compensation equivalent to one (1) hour’s pay at the straight-time rate, which shall apply only the first time an employee performs work during an eight (8) hour period, starting when the employee first commences the work.
Remarks
The Employer’s proposal at Article 30 limits compensation for call-backs when responding to a telephone or data line calls (i.e., email or text) in situations of numerous call backs during an 8-hour period. This reflects the new reality of work being performed from a remote location through the use of technology.
The Employer proposes that employees who work remotely outside their scheduled hours of work be paid the greater of either:
- the compensation at the applicable overtime rate for any time worked; or
- the compensation equivalent to 1 hour’s pay at the straight-time rate.
This proposal is a duplication of provisions contained in the Program and Administration Services (PA) Group agreement – Article 28.07: Call-back worked from a remote location.
Based on the aforementioned, the Employer requests that the Commission include this proposal in its report.
Article 31: standby
Union proposal
Exclusions
This article does not apply to the FR, LI or SC Group s .
31.01 Where the Employer requires an employee to be available on standby during off-duty hours, such employee shall be compensated at the rate of one-half (1/2) one (1) hour for each four (4)-hour period or part thereof for which the employee has been designated as being on standby duty.
Remarks
Increase to standby pay
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to increase the standby compensation from one half (1/2) hour to one (1) hour for each four (4) hour period the employee has been designated as being on standby duty.
This proposal would also represent a considerable expense for the Employer – over $6 million per year for the SV group, or 0.9% of the SV wage base.
The Employer submits that the SV group is not behind the market in terms of this benefit, which is consistent with what is provided in other collective agreements.
Removal of exclusion for the LI and SC groups
The PSAC is also proposing to remove the exclusion of this article for the Lightkeepers (LI) and Ships’ Crews (SC) groups. As a result, employees working in these groups would be eligible for this standby pay provision.
In the Employer’s view, there is no justification to make the proposed change. Both the LI and SC groups have specific provisions in the collective agreement to compensate for standby duty:
- Employees in the LI group receive a Supplementary Allowance under Appendix F, Annex B: adjustment in rates of pay. This allowance accounts for the fact that these employees work a 24-hour rotational shift and are not entitled to standby or call-back pay.
- Employees in the SC group have their own provisions for Standby, which can be found in Appendix G of the SV agreement under section 14: Standby, in Annex D: 46.6‑hour averaging work system under section 7 Hours of work and overtime, and in Annex E: lay-day work system under section 11(a) Non‑watchkeeping vessels.
No sufficient justification supporting this proposal was provided by the Bargaining Agent.
The Employer requests that the Commission not include these proposals in its report.
Article 34: travelling time
Union proposal
34.04 When an employee is required to travel outside his or her headquarters area on government business, as these expressions are defined by the Employer, the time of departure and the means of such travel shall be determined by the Employer and the employee will be compensated for travel time in accordance with clauses 34.05 and 34.06. Travelling time shall include time necessarily spent at each stop-over enroute provided such stop-over is not longer than three (3) five (5) hours.
34.06 If an employee is required to travel as set forth in clauses 34.04 and 34.05:
- on a normal working day on which the employee travels but does not work, the employee shall receive his or her regular pay for the day;
- on a normal working day on which the employee travels and works, the employee shall be paid:
- his regular pay for the day for a combined period of travel and work not exceeding his or her regular scheduled working hours, and
- at the applicable overtime rate for additional travel time in excess of his or her regularly scheduled hours of work and travel, with a maximum payment for such additional travel time not to exceed twelve (12) fifteen (15) hours’ pay at the straight-time rate of pay;
Employer movement
34.04 When an employee is required to travel outside his or her headquarters area on government business, as these expressions are defined by the Employer, the time of departure and the means of such travel shall be determined by the Employer and the employee will be compensated for travel time in accordance with clauses 34.05 and 34.06. Travelling time shall include time necessarily spent at each stop-over enroute provided such stop-over is not longer than three (3) five (5) hours.
34.06 If an employee is required to travel as set forth in clauses 34.04 and 34.05:
- on a normal working day on which the employee travels but does not work, the employee shall receive his or her regular pay for the day;
- on a normal working day on which the employee travels and works, the employee shall be paid:
- his regular pay for the day for a combined period of travel and work not exceeding his or her regular scheduled working hours, and
- at the applicable overtime rate for additional travel time in excess of his or her regularly scheduled hours of work and travel, with a maximum payment for such additional travel time not to exceed twelve (12) fifteen (15) hours’ pay at the straight-time rate of pay;
Remarks
The Employer does not object to the new language proposed by the Bargaining Agent at 34.04 and 34.06(b)(ii) and (c), as they now form part of the pattern established with other Bargaining Agents. The Employer could accept this as part of an overall negotiated settlement.
Article 37: vacation leave with pay
Union proposal
37.05
- Employees are expected to take all their vacation leave during the vacation year in which it is earned.
- The Employer reserves the right to schedule an employee’s vacation leave. In granting vacation leave with pay to an employee, the Employer shall make every reasonable effort to:
- grant an employee’s vacation leave in an amount and at such time as the employee may request;
- not recall an employee to duty after the employee has proceeded on vacation leave;
- not cancel nor alter a period of vacation leave which has been previously approved in writing;
- ensure that, at the request of employee, vacation leave in periods of two (2) weeks or more are started following a scheduled period of rest days.
37.11 Carry-over and/or liquidation of vacation leave
- Where, in any vacation year, an employee has not used been granted all of the vacation leave credited to him or her, the unused portion of his or her vacation leave up to a maximum of two hundred and sixty-two decimal five (262.5) hours credits shall be carried over into the following vacation year. All vacation leave credits in excess of two hundred and sixty-two decimal five (262.5) hours shall be automatically paid in cash at his or her rate of pay as calculated from the classification prescribed in his or her certificate of appointment of his or her substantive position on the last day of the vacation year.
Employer proposal
37.04 An employee is entitled to vacation leave with pay to the extent of the employee’s earned credits but an employee who has completed six (6) months of continuous service employment is entitled to receive an advance of credits equivalent to the anticipated credits for the current vacation year.
Remarks
37.05 Scheduling an employee’s vacation leave
In the SV agreement, like all other CPA agreements, the Employer can schedule an employee’s vacation to meet its operational demands and ensure that employees use their allocated vacation leave credits, consistent with 37.05(a).
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to delete language at paragraph 37.05(b).
The Employer does not support the Bargaining Agent’s proposals. This provision recognizes the Employer’s right to schedule employee’s vacation leave and organize its business to determine through operational requirements if vacation can be granted as requested.
37.04 Continuous “service” vs. “employment”
At clause 37.04, the Employer is proposing to replace continuous employment with continuous service.
Continuous employment is defined as follows, per the Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment: one or more periods of service in the public service, as defined in the Public Service Superannuation Act, with allowable breaks only as provided for in the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the person.
Per the same directive, continuous service is defined as an unbroken period of employment in the public service, as defined in the Public Service Superannuation Act, in the context of determining the rate of pay on appointment. Continuous service is broken when employment ceases between two periods of public service employment for at least one compensation day.
The effect of the Employer’s proposal would be limited. It only applies to the determination of the moment at which employees begin to be entitled to an advance of their annual vacation leave credits. It does not alter vacation leave credit accumulation entitlements. As continuous employment includes breaks in employment and continuous service does not, the proposal would allow departments to forgo the process of having to look at the previous employment history of a newly hired employee (most likely on a term basis) to confirm whether there were any breaks in service of more than one day in order to determine the date at which annual leave credits can be advanced (6 months after hiring). This would simplify the process.
For these reasons, the Employer requests that the Commission not include the bargaining agent’s proposals at Article 37 in its report but include the Employer’s proposals at clauses 37.04.
Article 44: leave without pay for the care of family
Union proposal
44.02 For the purpose of this article, “family” is defined per Article 2 and in addition:
- a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee.
Employer movement
44.02 For the purpose of this article, “family” is defined per Article 2 and in addition:
- a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee.
Remarks
The Employer does not object to the new language proposed by the Bargaining Agent at 44.02(a), as it now forms part of the pattern established with other Bargaining Agents. The Employer could accept this as part of an overall negotiated settlement.
Article 47: leave with pay for family-related responsibilities
Union proposal
47.01 For the purpose of this article, family is defined as:
- spouse (or common law partner resident with the employee);
- children (including foster children, step-children, children of spouse or common law partner), children for whom the employee is the legal guardian, or grandchild;
- parents (including step-parents or foster parents);
- father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother, sister, step-brother, step-sister, grandparents of the employee;
- any relative permanently residing in the employee’s household or with whom the employee permanently resides;
or - any relative for whom the employee has a duty of care, irrespective of whether they reside with the employee . ;
or - a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee.
47.02 The total leave with pay which may be granted under this article shall not exceed:
- 37.5 75 hours in a fiscal year where the standard work week is thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours;
- 40 hours in a fiscal year where the standard work week is forty (40) hours;
- 42 hours in a fiscal year where the standard work week is forty-two (42) hours;
- 46.6 hours in a fiscal year where the standard work week is forty-six point six (46.6) hours.
47.03 Subject to clause 47.02, the Employer shall grant leave with pay under the following circumstances:
- to take a family member for medical or dental appointments, or for appointments with school authorities or adoption agencies, if the supervisor was notified of the appointment as far in advance as possible;
- to provide for the immediate and temporary care of a sick member of the employee’s family and to provide an employee with time to make alternate care arrangements where the illness is of a longer duration;
- to provide for the immediate and temporary care of a elderly member of the employee’s family;
- for needs directly related to the birth or to the adoption of the employee’s child.
- to attend school functions, if the supervisor was notified of the function as far in advance as possible;
- to provide for the employee’s child in the case of an unforeseeable closure of the school or daycare facility;
- twenty per cent (20%) of the applicable hours stipulated in clause 47.02 above may be used to attend an appointment with a legal or paralegal representative for non-employment related matters, or with a financial or other professional representative, if the supervisor was notified of the appointment as far in advance as possible.
- to visit with a terminally ill family member
Employer movement
47.01 For the purpose of this article, family is defined as:
- spouse (or common law partner resident with the employee);
- children (including foster children, step-children, children of spouse or common law partner), children for whom the employee is the legal guardian, or grandchild;
- parents (including step-parents or foster parents);
- father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother, sister, step-brother, step-sister, grandparents of the employee;
- any relative permanently residing in the employee’s household or with whom the employee permanently resides;
or - any relative for whom the employee has a duty of care, irrespective of whether they reside with the employee.;
or - a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to amend Article 47 as follows:
Expansion of the definition of “family”
The Bargaining Agent’s proposal to expand the definition of family at paragraph 47.01(g), for the purpose of leave with pay for family-related responsibilities is consistent with the current established negotiated settlement pattern in the federal public service.
In this context and in line with the agreements recently agreed upon/signed, expanding the definition of family as proposed here would be appropriate for the SV group as part of a comprehensive settlement.
Increasing the quantum of leave
The Bargaining Agent is requesting an increase to the quantum of leave with pay for family-related responsibilities from thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours to seventy-five (75) hours.
This request is significantly beyond what is included in other CPA agreements; they all provide a maximum of thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours for this purpose. The union’s proposal seeks to double the number of hours of leave with pay.
The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposal to double the quantum is costly – over $1.3 million per year ongoing for the SV group only, or 0.18% of the SV wage base and the Employer is opposed to such an increase. This puts pressure on the parameters of what the departments’ budgets will allow and would impact the limits of their economic capabilities.
The proposal would also have significant impact on departmental operations.
The Bargaining Agent is also proposing to eliminate the cap on the leave to attend appointments with a legal, paralegal or with a financial or other professional representative. The Employer maintains that this cap should remain. The Bargaining Agent’s proposal to add new language at 47.03(h), is already adequately addressed under 47.03(b) and (c). The leave under Article 47 is for family-related reasons.
Expanding the circumstances for which leave can be granted
The Bargaining Agent is proposing at 47.03(c) that the leave should be granted to provide care of any member of the employee’s family as opposed to just “elderly” members. The Employer submits that such a change would unreasonably broaden the scope of the article, remove the purpose and meaning of paragraph 47.03(c).
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to add “to visit a terminally ill family member” to the list of circumstances for which the leave shall be granted. The Employer submits that there is no justification why the provisions for this article should be expanded. The leave entitlements currently provided for in the collective agreement could find application for this specific circumstance. The Bargaining Agent’s proposal is not found in any CPA collective agreement.
The Employer therefore requests that the Commission not include these changes in its report, other than the proposed addition to the definition at paragraph 47.01 (g).
Article 50: bereavement leave with pay
Union proposal
50.01 For the purpose of this article, “family” is defined per Article 2 and in addition:
- a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee. An employee shall be entitled to bereavement leave with pay under 50.01(a) only once during the employee’s total period of employment in the public service.
Employer movement
50.01 For the purpose of this article, “family” is defined per Article 2 and in addition:
- a person who stands in the place of a relative for the employee whether or not there is any degree of consanguinity between such person and the employee. An employee shall be entitled to bereavement leave with pay under 50.01(a) only once during the employee’s total period of employment in the public service.
Remarks
The Employer does not object to the new language proposed by the Bargaining Agent at 50.01(a), as it now forms part of the pattern established with other Bargaining Agents. The Employer could accept this as part of an overall negotiated settlement.
Article 58: Statement of Duties
Employer proposal
58.01 Upon written request, an employee shall be provided with a complete and current an official statement of the duties and responsibilities of his or her position, including the classification level and, where applicable, the point rating allotted by factor to his or her position, and an organization chart depicting the position's place in the organization.
Remarks
The Treasury Board Directive on Classification (Exhibit #13) ensures that job descriptions “reflect the work assigned and performed by employees within the organizational structure, that they are updated when the work changes significantly, that they have reasonable and evidence based effective dates, and that job descriptions and organizational charts are approved and dated prior to the job evaluation.” (Section 6.2 of the directive)
In addition, managers are required as per the directive, to sign and date a job description prior to submission for any job evaluation, confirming that it reflects the work assigned and to be performed.
The Employer’s proposed language provides a more accurate reflection of this.
The Employer requests that the Commission include the Employer’s proposal in its report.
Article 61: Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance
Union proposal
The following allowance Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance replaces the former Penological Factor Allowance (PFA) and the Offender Supervision Allowance (OSA). The parties agree that only incumbents of positions deemed eligible and/or receiving PFA as of signing of this collective agreement, all CSC employees who are in contact with inmates or offenders shall receive the Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance (CSSDA), subject to the criteria outlined below.
61.01 The CSSDA shall be payable to incumbents of specific positions in the bargaining unit within Correctional Service of Canada. The Allowance provides additional compensation in recognition of the risk management function required of a position at to an incumbent of a position who performs certain duties or responsibilities specific to Correctional Service of Canada (that is, custody of inmates, the regular supervision of offenders, or the support of programs related to the conditional release of those offenders) within penitentiaries as defined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and/or CSC Commissioner Directives
Employer proposal
**Specific clauses to be amended are noted as follows**
The following allowance replaces the former Penological Factor Allowance (PFA). The parties agree that only incumbents of positions deemed eligible and/or receiving PFA as of signing of this collective agreement, shall receive the Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance (CSSDA), subject to the criteria outlined below.
61.01 The Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance (CSSDA) shall be payable to incumbents of specific positions in the bargaining unit within Correctional Service of Canada. The Allowance provides additional compensation to an incumbent of a position who performs certain duties or responsibilities specific to Correctional Service of Canada (that is, custody of inmates, the regular supervision of offenders, or the support of programs related to the conditional release of those offenders) within penitentiaries as defined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and/or CSC Commissioner Directives. The CSSDA is not payable to incumbents of positions located within Correctional Learning and Development Centres, Regional Headquarters, National Headquarters, and CORCAN establishments that do not meet the definition of penitentiary as defined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and/or CSC Commissioner Directives.
61.02 The value of the CSSDA shall be two thousand dollars ($2,000) annually. and paid on a bi-weekly basis in any pay period for which the employee is expected to perform said duties of the specific position in a month. Except as prescribed in clause 61.03 below, this allowance shall be paid on a biweekly basis for any month in which an employee performs the duties for a minimum period of ten (10) days in a position to which the CSSDA applies.
Remarks
The Penological Factor Allowance (PFA) was replaced by the Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance (CSSDA) during the 2014 round of bargaining. The intention of this change was to simplify the application of the allowance while keeping the same eligibility criteria.
The Bargaining Agent is proposing an expansion to the CSSDA beyond its intended scope, which would seek to include all Correction Service Canada employees who are in contact with inmates or offenders.
The Employer’s proposal in Article 61 seeks to update transitional language while maintaining the intent of the article as negotiated by providing clarification and alignment of the eligibility criteria for the allowance.
The Employer submits that the CSSDA was always intended for employees working in penitentiaries. The Employer’s proposal at clause 61.01 clarifies the eligibility criteria for the allowance and confirms the intention of paying the allowance to employees who do not work at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and perform duties in penitentiaries, as defined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and/or CSC Commissioner Directives.
The Employer’s proposal in clause 61.02 is meant to address an oversight that occurred while transitioning from the PFA to the CSSDA. Since at least 2001, the requirement to perform the duties for a minimum period of ten days in a position to be eligible has been a central part of the allowance and an integral part of the SV collective agreement.
During the current round of bargaining (2018–2022), the Employer’s proposal to add the requirement to perform the duties for a minimum period of ten days to be eligible to the allowance has been incorporated in other collective agreements such as, but not limited to, the Financial Management (FI), Audit, Commerce and Purchasing (AV), Health Services (SH), and Electronic (EL) groups, which are represented by three different bargaining agents.
Considering the preceding information, adopting the Employer’s proposal would ensure consistency with other collective agreements subject to the CSSDA, and would provide for an update to the legacy language.
Based on the aforementioned, the Employer requests that the Commission include these changes its report, and not include any of the Bargaining Agent’s proposals.
Article 68: compensatory leave
Union proposal
Exception: this article does not apply to the SC group.
68.01
- All the overtime, travelling time compensated at overtime rates, standby pay, reporting pay, call-back pay, and time worked on a designated paid holiday, shall be compensated in cash except where, upon request of an employee and with the approval of the Employer, compensation shall be in equivalent leave with pay.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, designated paid holidays for FR employees will be compensated in accordance with clause 6.01 of Appendix A. - Compensatory leave may be granted subject to operational requirements and adequate advance notice being provided.
- At the request of the employee, and with the approval of the employer, accumulated compensatory leave may be paid out, in whole or in part, once per fiscal year, at the rate in effect at the time of the request.
- Compensatory leave earned in a fiscal year, and outstanding as of September 30 of the next following fiscal year will be paid at the employee’s rate of pay on September 30.
Remarks
Employee preference
Under the current provision, an employee with accumulated overtime makes a request to be compensated in cash or leave and submits it for the Employer’s approval.
The Bargaining Agent is proposing that the employee should be able to decide, unilaterally, whether accumulated overtime should be compensated in cash or in leave with pay.
The Employer submits that the current provision is reasonable, as it allows the Employer to consider operational and organizational requirements. This provision is also consistent with other collective agreements. In the Employer’s view, there is no justification to make the proposed change.
The Employer requests that the Commission not include the Bargaining Agent’s proposals in its report.
Article 70: duration
Union proposal
The Union proposes that the new collective agreement expire on August 4, 2021 .
Employer proposal
70.01 The provisions of this agreement will expire on August 4, 20 18 22 .
Remarks
The parties have different proposals for the term of the revised agreement. The Employer is proposing a four-year term while the PSAC is advocating for a three‑year agreement.
The Employer proposes a four-year agreement to allow for greater stability and predictability. This would replicate the duration of the last collective agreement concluded between the parties, which covered the period from August 2014 to August 2018. In 2017, the parties finalized a collective agreement dating back to 2014 and expiring one year later (in August 2018). This did not allow sufficient time for the parties to experience the changes that were negotiated before notice to bargain was served by the PSAC for the current round of bargaining.
A four-year agreement would provide the parties with the opportunity to more fully implement changes negotiated in this round. It would also provide a better opportunity to stabilise the pay system before the implementation of the following collective agreement.
The Employer is also of the view that its monetary/economic offer over four years is competitive with the marketplace and is in keeping with the economic indicators.
Moreover, the Employer’s proposal replicates the other agreements concluded in the CPA, and in Separate Agencies. Every agreement reached with the 11 bargaining agents for 17 bargaining units in the CPA during the current round provides for a four‑year term. The same goes for Separate Agencies. The Employer believes that it would be appropriate to include the same duration for the SV group. This is the right term for this agreement at this time given the known factors.
The Employer therefore requests that the Commission include the Employer’s proposal for a four‑year collective agreement in its report, with the pattern economic increases of 2%, 2%, 1.5% and 1.5%, plus 1% in group-specific economic measures.
New : Pre-retirement leave
Union proposal
XX.XX The Employer will provide thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours of paid leave per year, up to a maximum of one-hundred and eighty seven decimal five (187.5) hours, to employees who have the combination of age and years of service to qualify for an immediate annuity without penalty under the Public service Superannuation Act.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent has not provided justification for this proposal of 37.5 hours of paid pre-retirement leave per year, and it has not provided demonstrated quantitative information supporting its impact on retention.
Employees who have a higher number of years of service already enjoy richer vacation leave credits entitlements.
This proposal would also represent a considerable expense for the Employer – close to $2.3 million per year for the SV group, or 0.33% of the SV wage base. Considering the Employer’s fiscal and budgetary responsibility towards Canadians, the Employer is of the view that this proposal is not warranted.
Finally, Appendix C of the Treasury Board Directive on Leave and Special Working Arrangements (Exhibit #14) already provides for a reduction of the workweek up to 40% (two days) for a period of up to two years to employees within two years of retirement (i.e., age 53 with 28 years of pensionable service or age 58 with two years of pensionable service). This provides an option to employees who wish to enjoy more time off towards the end of their career in the CPA.
For those reasons, the Employer requests that the Commission not include this proposal in its report.
New : duty to accommodate
Union proposal
As amended and tabled with the Employer on March 20 2019
The duty to accommodate is the obligation to meaningfully incorporate diversity into the workplace. The duty to accommodate involves elimination or changing rules, policies, practices and behaviours that discriminate against persons based on a group characteristic, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, marital status, family status and disability.
XX.01 With respect to pay and benefits, an employee who stays in the same position shall continue to receive the same pay and benefits, no matter the nature or the duration of the accommodation. If it is not possible to accommodate the employee in their own position or in a comparable position and the new position is of a group and/or level with a lower attainable rate of pay, the employee shall be salary protected, as defined in XX.02
XX.02 Salary protection under this article shall mean the rate of pay, benefits and all subsequent economic increases applicable to the employee’s former classification level.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent is proposing to introduce a new article that would provide salary protection for employees who are no longer capable of performing the full scope of the duties associated with their position for reasons related to the duty to accommodate.
The Bargaining Agent further submits that employees should continue to be paid the same pay and benefits if they remain in the same position or move to another position with possibly a lower attainable rate of pay.
This proposal would fundamentally alter the Employer’s authority to manage its operations while honouring its duty to accommodate obligations.
Jurisdictional concerns
The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposal should not be subject to collective bargaining and should not be addressed by the Commission in its report, pursuant to sections 113 and 177 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Act (FPSLRA) (Exhibit #15).
The proposal deals with the requirements to be deemed qualified for a position, and the processes and procedures for employees to be appointed and/or deployed to different positions. These are terms or conditions of employment established under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA):
- Collective agreement not to require legislative implementation113 A collective agreement that applies to a bargaining unit — other than a bargaining unit determined under section 238.14 — must not, directly or indirectly, alter or eliminate any existing term or condition of employment or establish any new term or condition of employment if
- (b) the term or condition is one that has been or may be established under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Government Employees Compensation Act;
- Report not to require legislative implementation 177 (1) The report may not, directly or indirectly, recommend the alteration or elimination of any existing term or condition of employment, or the establishment of any new term or condition of employment, if
- (b) the term or condition is one that has been or may be established under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Government Employees Compensation Act;
- (c) the term or condition relates to standards, procedures or processes governing the appointment, appraisal, promotion, deployment, rejection on probation or lay-off of employees; or
In light of the above, the Employer respectfully submits that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to address this proposal in its report and it should be set aside.
Duty to accommodate
The Employer recognizes its duty to accommodate and such duty is well established by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. It is supported by various tools, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Guide entitled “Accommodation Works!” and the Treasury Board Policy on the Duty to Accommodate Persons with Disabilities in the Federal Public Service (Exhibit #16) and Guide for managers entitled “Duty to Accommodate: A General Process For Managers” (Exhibit #17).
Accommodation measures are provided to employees in order to assist them in performing the duties associated with their position.
However, as supported by courts of law, the Employer is under no obligation to provide remuneration to employees for work not performed when the Employer has fulfilled its duty to accommodate and the employee is deemed to not be able to resume their duties in a foreseeable future:
- Hydro Québec 2008 SCC 43 (Exhibit #18)
- [15] The purpose of the duty to accommodate is not to completely alter the essence of the contract of employment, that is, the employee’s duty to perform work in exchange for remuneration.
- [17] If the Employer shows that, despite measures taken to accommodate the employee, the employee will be unable to resume his or her work in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Employer will have discharged its burden of proof and established undue hardship.
- [62] Benefits have the same character as salaries; namely, they are compensation for work performed. […] It is important to distinguish between on one hand accommodating the specific needs of workers affected by physical disabilities to help them participate in the workplace and on the other hand compensating them.
- [63] The benefits provided in a collective agreement, like wages, are a form of compensation for work performed. The duty to accommodate does not require the Employer to offer more favourable benefits and wages to an employee dealing with a physical or mental disability than to an employee without a disability who works the same number of hours. In my opinion, the Employer fully met its duty to accommodate the grievor by among other things allowing her to work 18.75 hours per week and by compensating her in the same way as other employees who work the same number of hours.
- [64] As suggested in Canada Safeway Ltd., my opinion is that distinguishing between employees based on whether work was performed and, if so, to what extent, does not violate the principles of equality provided for under the CHRA.
- [65] However, if I endorse the argument that she should be granted all the benefits that she would have received were it not for her disability, then she would have had to have been paid her regular wages for the period during which she was unable to work due to that disability. Consequently, she would be fully compensated for work that she never performed.
In essence, when an employee is deemed no longer capable of performing the duties of their substantive position for the unforeseeable future, despite accommodation measures provided, other options have to be considered.
These options may include changing the employee’s status of employment from full-time to part-time, considering an appointment or a deployment to an equivalent position or to a lower-level position.
The Employer submits that the Bargaining Agent’s proposal would result in employees being paid for work they have not performed. The duty to accommodate does not prescribe such payment.
The Employer submits that the Acts and associated policies and tools in place are sufficient to support management in fulfilling its duty to accommodate. Agreeing to such a change would have significant financial and administrative impacts for the SV group and would also exceed the provisions contained in other CPA agreements, without justification.
For these reasons, the Employer requests that the Commission not include this proposal in its report.
New : Letter of Understanding between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada
Union proposal
This letter is to give effect to the understanding reached between the Employer and the Public Service Alliance of Canada in negotiations for the renewal of the Operational Services Collective Agreement.
Accordingly, the parties agree, during the life of the Agreement, to conduct a compensation comparability study on all SV group classifications.
The parties further agree to meet within ninety (90) days of the signing date of this Agreement to establish the scope and the terms of reference of the study.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent is proposing that the parties agree to a new joint compensation study for the SV group.
In the 2011 round of bargaining, the parties agreed to conduct a wage study during the life of the 2011 agreement that would inform the subsequent round of negotiations (2014–2018).
The joint study was completed in March 2015. During negotiations, the parties had a very different understanding of the study’s findings and results. This study did not provide the common base of information originally envisioned. The parties nevertheless reached a tentative settlement on February 4, 2017 , (Exhibit #8) which resulted in a collective agreement being signed on June 14, 2017 . The settlement signed by both parties clearly indicated that the wage adjustments agreed to during the course of negotiations “resolved the issues identified” in the joint study.
As referenced at the beginning of this brief, the Employer has conducted its own wage study for the SV group. The results of this study show that compensation levels for the SV group are sufficient, as evidenced by competitive salary levels and the Employer’s ability to attract and retain a sufficient number of employees. Accordingly, the Employer does not see the advantage of agreeing to another joint study.
The Employer submits that each party is free to conduct their own wage study to support their position in collective bargaining.
For these reasons, the Employer requests that the Commission not include this proposal in its report.
Appendix A: Firefighter (FR) Group, specific provisions and rates of pay
General: hours of work and overtime
Employer proposal
Hours of work and overtime
2.05 Hours of work
- The Employer shall post a duty roster in each Fire Hall eight (8) days in advance. If, as a result of a change in a duty roster, an employee is transferred to another platoon on less than forty-eight (48) ninety-six (96) hours’ notice in advance of the starting time of the first (1st) shift of the employee’s new platoon, the employee shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1 1/2) for the first (1st) shift worked in the schedule of the employee’s new platoon. Subsequent shifts worked on the schedule of the employee’s new platoon shall be paid for at the employee’s hourly rate of pay.
Remarks
The Employer is proposing to reduce the notification period for changing shifts. The current ninety-six (96) hours’ advance notice is operationally too long and it affects management’s flexibility to manage its staff.
The proposed shorter notice period has an added benefit for employees, as it will provide greater flexibility to accommodate short notice requests, such as leave requests.
The Employer therefore requests that the Commission include the Employer’s proposal in its report.
General: overtime compensation
Union proposal
Overtime compensation
2.11 Except when a free meal can be provided:
- An employee who has not received at least twelve (12) hours advanced notice of an overtime requirement and who works three (3) or more consecutive hours of overtime immediately following the employee’s scheduled hours of work shall be paid a meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ). When continuous overtime extends beyond seven (7) hours, a second (2nd) meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ) shall be provided. Only two (2) meals shall be provided in one overtime shift, except when an overtime period in excess of three (3) hours immediately precedes an employee’s scheduled hours of work, a meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ) shall be paid. Consecutive overtime shifts shall be construed as following scheduled hours of work.
- Reasonable time to be determined by the Employer shall be allowed the employee in order that the employee may take a meal break.
Employer movement
Overtime compensation
2.11 Except when a free meal can be provided:
- An employee who has not received at least twelve (12) hours advanced notice of an overtime requirement and who works three (3) or more consecutive hours of overtime immediately following the employee’s scheduled hours of work shall be paid a meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ). When continuous overtime extends beyond seven (7) hours, a second (2nd) meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ) shall be provided. Only two (2) meals shall be provided in one overtime shift, except when an overtime period in excess of three (3) hours immediately precedes an employee’s scheduled hours of work, a meal allowance in the amount of twelve ten dollars ($12 10 ) shall be paid. Consecutive overtime shifts shall be construed as following scheduled hours of work.
- Reasonable time to be determined by the Employer shall be allowed the employee in order that the employee may take a meal break.
The parties agree that this change will not result in any retroactive payment or adjustment. It will form part of the implementation, on a prospective basis, of the new collective agreement once signed, in accordance with the MOU between the Treasury Board of Canada and Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to the Implementation of the Collective Agreement.
Remarks
The Bargaining Agent’s proposal to increase the overtime meal allowance from ten ($10.00) dollars to twelve ($12.00) dollars is consistent with the current established negotiated settlement pattern in the federal public service.
In this context and in line with the agreements recently agreed upon/signed, increasing the overtime meal allowance as proposed here and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the Implementation of the Collective Agreement would be appropriate for the Firefighter (FR) group as part of a comprehensive settlement.
General: reporting pay
Employer proposal
Reporting pay
4.01
- When an employee is required to report and reports to work on a day of rest the employee is entitled to a minimum of three (3) hours’ pay at the applicable overtime rate.
- The minimum payment referred to in 4.01(a) above, does not apply to part-time employees. Part-time employees will receive a minimum payment in accordance with Article 65.05.
4.02 When an employee is required to report and reports to work after the employee has completed the employee’s work for the day and has left the place of work the employee is entitled to a minimum of two (2) hours’ pay at the hourly rate of pay.
New
4.03 Where an employee is entitled to the reimbursement of transportation expenses pursuant to Article 35, the employee shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred from their residence up to a maximum distance of seventy-five (75) kilometers.
Remarks
The Employer proposes to introduce a 75-kilometre cap for reimbursement of transportation expenses for the Firefighter (FR) Group.
Employees in the FR group who work 42 hours a week report to work twice a week on a 24-hour schedule. In some cases, this schedule has led some employees to make the personal choice of moving to a secondary residence that is, in some cases 5 or 6 times the distance from their work location / fire hall and primary residence.
Under certain circumstances noted below, the department (Department of National Defence) is obligated to reimburse the kilometric allowance at a very significant expense when an FR employee is required to report to work from their secondary residence:
Article 35: transportation expenses
35.01 If an employee is called back or is required to report to work pursuant to Articles 29, 30, 31, 32, or the reporting pay clauses of the appropriate appendix,
- on a designated paid holiday which is not the employee’s scheduled day of work,
or - on the employee’s day of rest,
or - after the employee has completed his or her work for the day and has left his or her place of work,
or - for overtime worked which is not contiguous to the employee’s scheduled hours of work, and reports for work, the employee shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred as follows:
- kilometric allowance at the rate normally paid to an employee when authorized by the Employer to use his or her automobile and the employee travels by means of his or her own automobile,
or - out-of-pocket expenses for other means of commercial transportation.
Introducing a cap on the kilometric allowance to address this FR group specific issue would allow the Department of National Defence to better manage expenses and bring equity to the group in these cases.
The Employer requests that the Commission include the Employer’s proposal in its report.
General: long service pay
Union proposal
Long service pay
5.01 An employee who receives pay for at least eighty-four (84) hours for each of twelve (12) consecutive calendar months for which the employee is eligible to receive long service pay, beginning October 1 of each year, is entitled to be paid, in a lump sum, an amount related to the employee’s period of service in the public service set out in the following table:
- kilometric allowance at the rate normally paid to an employee when authorized by the Employer to use his or her automobile and the employee travels by means of his or her own automobile,