bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1992) — Winter 1992 // Hiver 1992, p. 3
PAFSO’s annual cycle of re-election and renewal occurs every year in early October at our Annual General Meeting (AGM). It is always a sign of our members’ confidence in PAFSO when there are more nominees than vacancies on the Executive. PAFSO only began selecting its Executive in 1986.
One notable result this year was the election of the first FS1(D) to the Executive. The Executive is always sensitive to maintaining a balance between streams — but we also need to maintain a balance in our representation by rank as well. PAFSO needs to reach out more than we have to the FS1(D) and FS1 groups in the Department. Our junior officers have, comparatively, more time and energy for the after-hours work that PAFSO requires (although they may be surprised to hear this). They also bring a stronger sense of outside employment standards and a more concrete perception of where the Department falls short of the mark, than do the longer-term “inmates” of this institution. This is clear, for example, in the area of spousal employment. Six years ago almost half of the Executive’s members were FS1s. Today, it is comprised of 14 FS2s and 1 FS1(D). Next year, I hope we can add a number of FSIs to the Board.
This year’s AGM passed three significant motions with large majorities. The first motion approved the implementation of a percentage dues system for PAFSO. Starting on 1 April 1992, members’ dues will be assessed at 0.8% of their salary — rather than at a fixed dollar amount as in the past. This arrangement has a number of advantages. It puts our dues on a more equitable basis, since the FS 1(D)s and the junior FS1s were in effect subsidizing FS2s under our previous arrangement. It results in automatic annual increases in PAFSO revenues which are tied to the economic increases PAFSO is able to negotiate for our members.
The second motion instructed the Executive to examine the feasibility of establishing a strike fund. The example of the PSAC strike, which was ended by Parliament on the day of our meeting, lent force to the AGM debate on this issue. The case was made that PAFSO’s bargaining leverage is diminished if the lack of such a fund always obliges us to opt for binding arbitration. No one expects that it will be quick or cheap to establish such a fund. The Executive has begun investigating various financial scenarios involved, and plans to report back to the membership in the first half of 1992.
The third motion approved a $5,000 donation by PAFSO to the Strike Fund of the External Affairs PSAC local. This contribution by PAFSO has been very well received by PSAC — and it builds upon the substantive support that individual PAFSO members had given to PSAC throughout the strike. Many members were moved by the fact that our less well-paid colleagues gave up ten days’ pay to stand on the line outside the Pearson Building, striking in defence of principles of collective bargaining that benefit us all. During the strike, individual PAFSO members wore buttons of support, walked in solidarity with PSAC members on the line and gave personal financial donations to the Strike Fund. This experience did more than anything else in recent years in the Pearson Building to bring together the membership of our two bargaining agents. As the public sector moves into a period of increasingly uncertain times, solidarity among the different public sector unions will become more important for the survival of our bargaining rights.
The final issue, of course, that dominated the AGM was the FS contract which had been negotiated twelve minutes before the legislative deadline expired (two nights before the AGM). The fact that we had reached an agreement at all came as a surprise to members who attended the meeting — and it was not universally received as a pleasant surprise. Some members indicated strongly that PAFSO should have refused to reach any settlement at all at the table, given the imposed constraints on our collective bargaining. After a lengthy and spirited debate, a motion directing the Executive to recommend rejection of the newly negotiated contract was defeated.
As events turned out, PAESO members overwhelmingly approved the negotiated contract when we sent it out for ratification — by a margin of 88 percent. Faced with the alternative — an extension of our existing contract for another two years the majority opted for the improvements in the negotiated package. It is significant to note that there has been no adverse reaction to date from other bargaining agents, including PSAC, to our decision to reach agreement. On the one hand, PAFSO was not in a legal position to strike; on the other hand, negotiations had reached a point where a settlement was within reach when the back-to-work legislation was tabled in the House. Both sides took advantage of this brief window of opportunity to conclude a deal.
As President of PAFSO, I took no satisfaction in having to bargain under the constraints that we faced on this occasion. The elimination of our right to go to binding arbitration particularly weakened our hand. Nevertheless, I am pleased that we were able to obtain some modest monetary improvements in the contract, and that we made very significant gains in many non-monetary clauses (such as the clauses on discrimination and on Department/PAFSO consultation).
In the aftermath of this round of bargaining, it is clear that PAFSO has its work cut out to ensure that our contract is perceived by all as the basis of professional employer/ employee relations for the FS group — rather than as a hindrance to a “professional” working environment. Part of our job will be to use the much more substantial formal consultation clause in this contract to increase the Department’s communications with PAFSO and to hold it more publicly accountable for the way it manages our contract. PAFSO has recently tabled a formal proposal for a consultation framework with the Department, which is designed to achieve these goals. The other part of our job will be to educate members to use the contract more effectively. It is all a matter of professional labour/management relations.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1992) — Winter 1992 // Hiver 1992, p. 3. Read the rest of this issue →
