bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1985) — Fall 1985 // Automne 1985, p. 38
After 13 rounds of bargaining PAFSO was unable to negotiate a contract with Treasury Board. For the first time in its history PAFSO turned to an Arbitral Tribunal for a new collective agreement.
Negotiations were not a total failure. Indeed they yielded agreement on maternity leave, which allows up to 18 weeks at 93 per cent of salary, an interpretation of the words ’he and she’ ?, check-offs on bargaining unit dues and other such issues. However they failed to generate any agreement on the key issues of salary increase, pertormance pay, acting pay and a lump sum bonus for those officers at the ceiling of their grade. For its part, Treasury Board sought to eliminate severance pay, roll back overtime on Sundays to time and a half from double time and limit our pay increase for the next two years to 1.5 per cent annually. This latter offer was only made at the final round of bargaining. Initially, Treasury Board was unprepared to offer any salary increase, saying in effect that the Foreign Service group is overpaid
Written submissions were filed with the Arbitral Tribunal and PAFSO was surprised to find that Treasury Board challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Board to award a performance pay clause. Rather they suggested that performance pay should not form a part of the agreement. Treasury Board also challenged the Tribunal’s authority to award acting pay or lump sum bonus, saying that any action with regard to the former would interfere with employers right to classify positions as well as to deal with appraisals, promotions, and assignments. When PAFSO sought to amend its submission to deal with these issues, Treasury Board said that PAFSO did not have the right to change its submission. Treasury Board finally dropped its objection just before the Board held its first day of hearings. As well, Treasury Board withdrew its objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rule on performance pay or lump sum bonus, but not on acting pay.
Acting Pay
The first day of hearings (August 26) pent on the lurisdictional question a regards acting pay. While most other groups have acting pay provisions. Treasury Board argued that acting pay for the Foreign Service would interfere with the right of the employer to classify positions. Treasury Board maintained that the current system for classification of positions in the department does not involve consideration of “duties”. The “Classification Standards” are applicable to Heads of Posts and first level managers abroad only: and for these positions jobs are classified on the basis of the range of responsibilities performed by the post as a whole, rather than duties performed by the individual. For lower level positions abroad and all positions at headquarters, Treasury Board evidence suggested that no standards are applicable. In fact, Gerry Reid, the department’s Deputy Director for Classification and Organization, went so far as to suggest that he classified positions “on whim”, and that job descriptions that are prepared for personnel have very little bearing on the final classification of a position! As for titles, Treasury Board witnesses said that, below the ADM level, offfice-holders could “call themselves anything they wanted”
PAFSO argued that it was ridiculous to speak of jobs not having duties. It drew attention to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which says levels of pay must have a relation to the work actually performed. PAFSO emphasized that Foreign Service officers, regardless of the classification system, do perform duties, and that, whether in an underfill or temporary duty situation, may be called upon to perform duties normally associated with a higher classification level. PAFSO suggested that payment for such increased duties bears no relationship to departmental prerogatives involving classification of positions.
Much of the rest of the hearing was spent on hearing evidence on the merits of acting pay. Once again, Treasury Board used departmental witnesses to argue that it would wreck the assignment system and destroy rotationality. PAFSO countered with witnesses from the Public Service Commission who pointed out that it is open to the department to seek an exclusion order from appeals on posting assignments or temporary duty. PAFSO proclaimed its willingness to cooperate with management to find a solution to the appeals problem. In response to Treasury Board’s argument that the Foreign Service is an attractive and renumerative career, PAFSO noted that job satisfaction derived from everything but the financial aspects of employment. A wealth of data and statistics were used to illustrate that against every other group in the foreign service and administrative category, PAFSO had lost ground over the last several years. Treasury Board maintained that comparison was not really possible because the Foreign Service group was unique.
The Award
On September 24 the Tribunal made its award: Overtime was left at time and a half on the first day of rest and double time on the second. A win for PAFSO;
Severance Pay: The vesting period was extended from ten to 15 years. Symbolic victory for Treasury Board
Duration of the Agreement: Two years. Sawoff.
Performance Pay: was made effective for April 1, 1985, and (in future years). A win for PAFSO.
Rate of Pay: 3.75 per cent for each of the next two years. A win for PAFSO, it represents an element of catch-up.
Acting Pay
The Tribunal accepted, in principle, PAFSO’s submission that acting pay shall be awarded for the temporary performance of duties normally associated with a higher level, but, in the light of the complexities of the department’s classification, assignment and promotion system, declined to draft a specific clause. Rather, the Tribunal directed the parties to negotiate a clause implementing this principle, with either party having the right to return to the Tribunal after six weeks from the date of the award. Negotiations are continuing.
Provisions of the Arbitral Award, with the exception of acting pay, are effective from the date of the award. Provisions of the agreement voluntarily agreed, such as maternity leave, will be effective only once the agreement is signed. PAFSO is currently exploring the possibility of signing a collective agreement with all negotiated and arbitral clauses included, except acting pay, so as to ensure quick implementation of these provisions. Acting pay, once agreed, would become an addendum to the collective agreement effective from the date agreed.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1985) — Fall 1985 // Automne 1985, p. 38. Read the rest of this issue →
