bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1985) — Fall 1985 // Automne 1985, p. 39
In contract negotiations with Treasury Board, PAFSO is somewhat in the position of a small company trying to renegotiate a service contract with a giant monopolist. Although Treasury Board negotiators and lawyers are skilled professionals, amicable and polite, they leave no doubt that their mandate is not so much to bargain, as to impose a certain level of settlement.
During the past negotiating round, PAFSO approached the talks with complete flexibility to fully consider any combination of measures to address our members’ basic concerns: fair salary increases to bring FS salaries into line with those of comparable other groups; recognition or incentive for those at the top of their salary band, not redress the anomaly of Foreign Service as one of the very few groups in the Public Service without provision for acting pay.
Treasury Board’s unwillingness to seriously take into consideration these concerns and PAFSO’s confidence in the strength of its case, led PAFSO to gamble that even if the decisions of a binding arbitration were not all one would wish, at least PAFSO’s proposals would be fairly heard.
To a large extent, this was borne out. PAFSO’s negotiators welcomed the sharp inquiries and interest of the Arbitration Board in issues of such concern to PAFSO members.
The decision of the Arbitration Board to recognize the right of the FS Group to acting pay is a significant step forward.
The further decision that performance pay be ettective April I of each year addresses the past injustice that performance pay for the previous year could be delayed for long periods during contract negotiations, placing pressure on PAFSO negotiators to settle early, even at undue cost to our members.
Nevertheless, the Arbitral award is disappointing in several important respects. PAFSO had gathered very strong documentation fully supporting the proposal for an increase in rates of pay of at least 5.25 per cent. This documentation included not only comparative data on pay and pay-related benefits for other groups within both government and the private sector, but also a comprehensive analysis of the Foreign Service Group.
Those data were assembled at great effort. Indeed, due to the reluctance of Treasury Board and the department of External Affairs to make available specific details on the composition, recruitment, years in grade and retention of members of the Foreign Service Group, PAFSO was forced to file under the Access to Information Act and to seek the assistance of the Public Service Staff Relations Board to obtain some of these data. Unfortunately, the Arbitration Board did not, in our view, give adequate weight to the data brought together by PAFSO, in its decision for an annual increase of only 3.75 per cent.
In past decisions, Arbitration Boards have leaned heavily on comparative studies conducted by the Pay Research Bureau of the PSSRB. However, due to the bargaining history of the FS Group, which unlike other groups such as the Commerce Officers or Econmists, had never previously had to resort to arbitration, and due to the broad scope of the work of FS members, rendering more difficult any direct comparisons, the PRB has not yet completed such a comparative study for our group.
While the decision of the Board in this regard is regrettable, it is now up to PAFSO to persuade the PRB of the need for such a study to commence without delay. The results would then be available to both parties during the next round of negotiations in early 1987. Since Treasury Board has maintained during the past round, that economic trends and comparative salaries could not justify an FS settlement of more than 1.5 per cent and then only with selected rollbacks, and if they persist in this belief despite all the material presented by PAFSO, they should be as eager as we for an independent study.
Further, PAFSO must continue efforts to gain recognition of the need to address the problem of growing numbers of officers stuck for increasingly long periods of time at the top of their salary bands. This includes re-examination of the concept of lump-sum bonus (in lieu of performance pay), consideration to the raising of salary bands and further exploration of the option of deferred salary leave (sabbaticals).
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1985) — Fall 1985 // Automne 1985, p. 39. Read the rest of this issue →
