The PIC Recommendations (pdf) (click to view).
 
Brief History of Negotiations
PAFSO served notice to bargain over two years ago on March 6, 2007. Collective bargaining got off to a slow start with the TBS changing negotiators three times in the first six months. The parties met on 14 different occasions before the TBS abruptly ended the process by simultaneously presenting a final offer to all of the bargaining agents still in the negotiations process. It was presented as a take it or leave it offer and as in our case was presented before we had an opportunity to present our economic proposals.

One of PAFSO’s major proposals this round was to correct the wage anomalies that had resulted from the conversion exercise from the last round of bargaining, most notably at the FS-1 max, the FS-2 max and the FS-4 max. We assumed that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and the departments would be as eager to correct these oversights as we were. However, that proved not to be the case and we found ourselves in a position where we were faced with accepting the last offer, waiting for legislation or following the existing legislation as it was in November 2008 and apply for a Public Interest Commission, which was the step we had chosen in the event of an impasse in collective bargaining. We could have also filed a complaint with the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) alleging that the TBS had breached its statutory duty to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to reach a collective agreement and there is little doubt that we would have been successful but with legislation pending that in our view would be a waste of time. It may have embarrassed the government but it would not get us closer to a settlement.

We applied for the PIC in December 2008 and it took almost a full nine months before we were given an opportunity to present our case before the members of the PIC.

There were other issues that we had referred to the PIC for their recommendations and you will see when you read the PIC recommendations some were favorable to us. However, the most important issue and the major reason for our going to a PIC was the pay anomaly issues. At one point, PAFSO had proposed to accept a lower economic increase for all FS levels  to pay the approximately $800,000 cost for the adjustments we were proposing to the FS-1, FS-2 and FS-4 maxima. At the PIC we amended this proposal so the pay adjustments would occur on the last day of the collective agreement eliminating the implementation cost. The TBS rejected these proposals.

The PIC reviewed the legislation and concluded that the wage restraint legislation the Expenditure Restraint Act,  in particular Section 23, does not allow for restructuring for the FS group, whether it was cost neutral or paid for out of the legislated increases. Section 23 as the chair put it says “no restructuring”. The PIC’s recommendation on rates of pay was to apply the maximum economic increase allowed by the legislation.

Given the PIC recommendation, the TBS position on wages and the Expenditure Restraint Act which sets the economic increases, we seem to have run out of road to fix what we see as broken.

Our intention is to return to the bargaining table and attempt one last time to see if the TBS will voluntarily fix the anomalies created at the time of conversion. Our goal will be, as a minimum, to negotiate a tentative agreement based on the PIC recommendations which will be presented to you for ratification. Hopefully this can be accomplished within days.

If you accept the tentative agreement we will be in a position to sign a new FS collective agreement. If it is rejected we will take the next step which is to conduct a strike vote among the members.

We will keep you posted.