02 November 2012
In March 2012, PAFSO applied to the Chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) to appoint a Public Interest Commission (PIC) to help mediate the issues on which PAFSO and the Treasury Board Secretariat had reached a negotiating impasse in January. The role of the PIC would be to make non-binding recommendations which might lead to a settlement. Following the submission of written briefs on September 25 and oral arguments on October 4, the PIC Chair’s report was released by the PSLRB on October 23, 2012. The report in its entirety can be viewed here. What follows is PAFSO’s analysis of the recommendations and the current state of negotiations.
BACKGROUND
In our last bargaining update of October 19, we identified the two principal issues that led to the negotiating impasse in January and PAFSO’s request in March to establish a PIC: (1) rates of pay, and (2) the elimination of pay provisions for voluntary severance.
On rates of pay, PAFSO’s top priority has been the anomaly which persists at the FS-02 and FS-04 levels (versus CO-02 and EX-01 rates of pay respectively) since the introduction of the new FS classification standard in 2005. Of note, an arbitral award to the EC group announced on July 12 will exacerbate this anomaly, mainly at DFAIT, resulting in every FS level trailing their EC counterpart by at least one salary increment ($3,000 or higher) starting in 2013. The employer continues to insist that the FS group is suitably placed in comparison to other groups and that there is no need to adjust salary levels beyond the pattern economic increases.
On severance pay, the employer seeks to eliminate the accumulation of credits which can be used in the event of retirement or resignation. (Severance pay on termination, layoff, or death would be maintained.) This measure would effectively reduce our pay by 2% per year, and yet the employer is offering a mere one-time salary increase of 0.75% in compensation.
ANALYSIS OF PIC RECOMMENDATIONS
PAFSO is greatly disappointed with the PIC Chair’s recommendation on the two key issues in dispute and frustrated with the rationale cited. Speaking to economic increases and severance pay:
“[22] The PIC recommends that the employer’s proposals on rates of pay and the elimination of severance pay be adopted in the new collective agreement. Current settlements and arbitral awards make it impossible to recommend otherwise.”
In making this recommendation, the chair of the PIC ignored an earlier observation in his report:
“[13] The PIC believes that all of the factors listed in section 175 of the Act must be considered in making its recommendations and that none of the factors has more importance than the other. Each factor must be looked at and applied to the circumstances of any given case by a PIC on the basis of the briefs, evidence and submissions presented to it.”
Pattern settlements, especially when considered in isolation, are not a criterion enumerated in Section 175 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The PAFSO brief, meanwhile, referred inter alia to HRSDC’s Major Settlement Index for the Private Sector (the same index used to calculate MP salary increases) in making its case on economic increases. That index clearly shows that wage increases from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 averaged over 2%. The Chair apparently chose to ignore any contravening evidence in deciding it was impossible to recommend anything other than the pattern settlement.
With respect to the pay anomalies PAFSO identified in comparison to other occupational groups at DFAIT that are assigned work similar to FS officers, the PIC Chair recommended as follows:
“[23] Given our belief that the evidence presented shows some lagging behind internal comparators at the FS-01 and the FS-02 levels, the PIC recommends that one additional step be added to each of the FS-01 and FS-02 pay grids at the start of year one of the collective agreement, and prior to the application of the economic increases referred to in paragraph 22 of this report.”
While PAFSO appreciates the Chair’s recognition that FS work is comparable to both EC and CO work – a comparison which TBS, supported by DFAIT, has consistently denied despite all the evidence to the contrary – PAFSO’s submission showed that the gap at the FS-02 level was closer to three increments and stressed that we had been prevented from addressing the issue in the last round of bargaining because of wage-restraint legislation. Accepting the PIC’s recommendation would leave FS-02 employees even further behind their EC-06 and CO-02 counterparts than they were at the start of the current round. (See accompanying chart.)
The FS-01 recommendation, meanwhile, shows a worrying lack of understanding of the pay anomaly evidence in our brief and undermines the credibility of the entire report. Suggesting the addition of a fourth pay step to a three-year development program is puzzling in the extreme. If implemented, this would be a meaningless and cost-free gesture.
With respect to the FS-03 and the FS-04 levels,
“The PIC recommends no restructuring at the FS-03 and FS-04 levels. There was no evidence of lagging behind internal comparators at the FS-03 level while the evidence presented with respect to the FS-04 level was very limited and inconclusive.”
PAFSO brought to the PIC’s attention the EC arbitral award – presided by the same individual who chaired our PIC. We demonstrated that the work being performed by members of the EC group at DFAIT headquarters was essentially the same work assigned to FS officers at DFAIT headquarters (a position reinforced by DFAIT’s own website) and noted that the awarding of an additional step and dropping of a step at each level would result in the EC group earning a full increment more than comparable FS officers. Ultimately, the Chair chose to ignore his own earlier award.
With specific reference to the FS-04 level, PAFSO recalled the employer’s insistence in 2005, when the new FS classification plan was being developed, that this level would serve as a career alternative to the EX-01 level. Indeed it was understood by all involved that FS-04 level employees would report to EX-02 managers. Since the conversion, the FS-04 maximum has lagged behind the EX-01 maximum to the point that the FS-04 rate now needs to be adjusted beyond a single economic increase. The TBS negotiator asserted that the FS-04 level is not an equivalent level to EX-01 without providing any evidence to support this contention except to point spuriously at the salary levels. Again, the Chair appears to have simply accepted the TBS negotiator’s position at face value.
Finally, with respect to recruitment and retention, the PIC observed that:
“…there does not appear to be significant recruitment and retention problems for employees in the FS group,…”
While we do not dispute the Chair’s conclusion on recruitment, the evidence we submitted clearly showed a consistent retention problem materializing at the 14-year mark of service, at which point only half of the original cohort of recruits usually remains in the FS group. The TBS acknowledged the accuracy of our numbers but suggested this didn’t demonstrate a retention issue.
CHART: FS VERSUS COMPARATOR GROUPS
The following chart demonstrates how far the FS group will have fallen behind other internal comparator groups at DFAIT headquarters by 2014 if the recommendations of this PIC report were to be adopted in their entirety.
CONCLUSIONS
PAFSO rejects the key recommendations of the PIC report on the following grounds:
- The Chair failed to apply robustly the five principal criteria established under Section 175 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act in assessing the evidence presented to him. Most egregiously, he pointed to a highly controversial pattern settlement accepted by other bargaining agents as constituting sui generis the most important factor for consideration without assessing its underlying merits.
- The Chair failed to account in his report for detailed evidence presented by PAFSO on internal comparator groups, economic increases in the broader Canadian workforce, and the prevalence of severance pay elsewhere in the public and private sectors – evidence which Treasury Board made little or no effort to contradict in its own submissions.
- The Chair’s addition of a fourth pay step to a three-year development program calls into question the PIC’s basic understanding of the issues in play and whether due attention was paid to all evidence submitted by PAFSO.
PAFSO would also note its deep disappointment with many of the non-factual positions advanced by the TBS negotiator during the PIC, and the failure of DFAIT and CIC executives in the room (including several career Foreign Service Officers) to intervene to correct the record:
- The notion that work performed by FS at DFAIT headquarters is not comparable with work performed at headquarters by either the CO group or the EC group at any level is patently false. Not only does the department treat FS, CO, and EC assignments as fully interchangeable, but DFAIT’s own careers internet portal and internal job descriptions show massive functional overlap between these groups.
- The notion that FS officers who work in the Legal Branch are not required to give legal opinions or advice – that this is “just another assignment” within the FS group – is demeaning to these highly-trained legal professionals who are expressly recruited for this function and whose bar fees are paid for by the department while assigned to this branch. TBS’ position also clearly contradicts Section 10 of the DFAIT Act which gives departmental lawyers formal jurisdiction over international legal matters and negotiations.
- The insulting notion that FS Immigration Officers at CIC perform work comparable to PM-02 and PM-04 level positions and are “already overpaid” is so divorced from reality and long-established salary equivalencies that it is unworthy of further comment.
The bottom line, in PAFSO’s view, is that:
- The Treasury Board – either by ignorance or design – grossly undervalues the professional services provided to the Government by FS officers; and
- DFAIT and CIC – either by willful collusion or a lack of effort – have consistently failed to ensure an accurate portrayal of FS work in the bargaining process.
Should this tack be allowed to succeed, incentives for FS work will be seriously damaged and the long-term sustainability of the FS group – particularly mid-career retention beyond the 14-year mark – will be severely threatened as members explore opportunities in internal or external comparator groups.
NEXT STEPS
PAFSO’s Bargaining Sub-Committee is assessing the impact of the PIC report on our negotiating position ahead of a formal resumption of talks with Treasury Board in the weeks ahead to determine whether a settlement can be reached at the table.
In the meantime, PAFSO will be conducting information sessions with members at DFAIT and CIC headquarters to answer questions on the PIC recommendations and discuss where our bargaining strategy should go from here. For those at missions abroad, we will keep you informed by electronic means (including occasional tele- or video-conferences where possible) as well as meetings with Executive Committee members when they travel to posts on other business. Members are also welcome to contact the national office with questions, observations, or concerns.
While we have not yet determined whether preparations need to be launched for a strike vote, PAFSO has prepared a fact sheet on steps and timelines related to job action to address questions from members. Please visit the PAFSO web site to see the legislative requirements as well as the implications of job action for FSDs and other conditions of service.