bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1985) — March 1985 // Mars 1985, p. 34
The purpose of the special general meeting held February 11, 1985, was to report to PAFSO members the the results of a comprehensive questionnaire on the FS contract sent by PAFSO to all our colleagues, both in Canada and abroad, to inform of our negotiating position with Treasury Board (a position based on the response of PAFSO members to that survey), and to advise of where we go from here in bargaining with Treasury Board.
During the one and one half hour meeting, the results of the recent questionnaire were reviewed. There was a very high rate of response to the questionnaire (professionals consider 33 per cent high; 40 per cent is considered excellent; we achieved a response rate of more than 50 per cent). The Negotiating Committee was gratified by the fact the response was broadly based (over half those responding are now abroad; all levels were well represented). The results gave a strong mandate to the bargaining team on the subject of pay increases, date of contract signing and length of contract (more than 50 per cent of the respondents urged that PAFSO go for best possible contract package, rather than being forced to accept less in order not to exceed the contract expiry date)
We reviewed at some length the contract proposals recently presented by PAFSO to Treasury Board. Copies of the complete proposals were distributed at the February 11 meeting. The main proposal put forward dealt with the issue of salary increases. This issue, and the question of performance pay, constituted the major topic discussion at the meeting.
The Negotiating Committee noted that despite the fact almost half those responding to the PAFSO questionnaire are at, or nearing the top, of their salary band (and so do not now benefit from performance pay), over three quarters strongly supported performance pay. Over half felt PAFSO should be consulted on performance pay. There appears, however, to be some doubt about criteria used in evaluating appraisals for performance pay, since a significant portion of respondents did not feel performance pay accurately reflects their evaluation appraisal. PAFSO has, therefore, proposed increased consultation with management in this area.
New proposals to Treasury Board on the FS contract also include acting pay, and compensation for financial losses resulting from work-related cancellation of vacation leave. Clear direction had been given by the membership in these and other areas, including having leave provisions clearly spelled out in the contract, in maternity leave benefits, in a review of the FS pay structure (comparative worth), in improving the grievance procedure, and in reviewing the present classification structure with a view to expanding to more levels. Strong interest and support was also shown for a deferred salary or unpaid sabbatical leave plan, as well as for a dental plan.
The Negotiating Committee further reported on consultation held with other bargaining groups in both the private and public sectors.
The Committee also advised that they had retained counselling services of both an experienced labour lawyer, Catherine Maclean, as well as a professional negotiator having long experience in bargaining with Treasury Board, J. Livingston. Professional advice from these two experts will, therefore, be available to PAFSO’s bargaining team during negotiations with Treasury Board.
Also announced were the members of PAFSO’s bargaining team, Margaret Huber (spokesperson), Jean-Paul Delisle and Len Mader, supported by Christine Manseau, Executive Director of PAFSO. They will be assisted as required during deliberations by other members of the Negotiating Committee. When issues arise which involve particular areas of interest which these members have been investigating they will assist during bargaining sessions. These members include Lillian Thomsen Voore, Wayne Lord, Jon Fried, Michael Small, Paul Henry. Alex McNiven, and Hark Kroll.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1985) — March 1985 // Mars 1985, p. 34. Read the rest of this issue →
