The material contained in this circular is geared toward informing the membership of some of the issues and considerations that should be taken into account as ACFO enters negotiations with Treasury Board in the fall of 2004.
This is the second in a series of documents that ACFO would like to share with the membership. The first was released on May 17, and can be found at our website, at www.apsfa-agffp.com.
On June 2, ACFO will be carrying out an information session in Ottawa to engage in dialogue with members about the negotiation process and major issues. We strongly encourage you to participate. Attached is a formal an invitation to this session.
Please review the information contained in this memo, and do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information or if you have questions about the information or the negotiation process.
Our perspective on the 2002 TBS Arbitration Brief
As part of the binding arbitration process, the Association and the Employer both prepare an arbitration brief that is the basis of their case regarding wages and benefits. Outlined below is what the Employer has said about its Financial Officers in their last arbitration brief.
The Treasury Board's submission is available on the Association website for you to read, but following are a few brief examples of the employer's perception and arguments they put forth to the arbitrators:
- The employer has admitted that the AU group is the best comparisongroup for the FIs, yet they failed to rectify the internal relativity issue between the 2 groups. They chose to ignore the fact that the AU 6 level actually exists, choosing instead to match the top of the FI group with the AU 5 level.
- The submission suggested that "the FI Group is well paid relative to other groups in the Public Service. Part of the explanation for the relatively high salaries of the FI Group can be attributed to an additional salary increase of 3.45% that was received by all FI employees in April 1999." It should be noted this salary increase was for increasing the work week from 36.25 to 37.5 hours. The FI group is actually the only group that had to work extra hours for extra pay. For example, the CS and FS groups have received additional increments over the past 2 collective agreements.
- It went on to claim two key points regarding compensation compared to the private sector:
"There is no evidence that the Financial Management group as a whole is underpaid relative to the private sector", however the Association provided a then current independent study providing contrary evidence; and
"Salary levels for the FI 1 and FI 2 levels on average are considerably above market." ?"the FI Group on average is reasonably paid in comparison with its outside counterparts."
- "the FI Group is appropriately paid relative to other Public ServiceGroup. Aside from internal and external relativity gaps, the Association presented evidence that the FI group suffers from a recruitment and retention issue that is directly related to compensation. However, the Employer successfully convinced the arbitrator that recruitment and retention were not serious challenges as they contended that most movement by members of the FI group is to other groups within the Public Service or between departments. According to them, this does not constitute a retention issue (for example, an FI taking an AS position for a higher salary).
- "The employing departments do report, however, that there is increased mobility among the financial community, with employees moving more freely and between departments than in the past. While this creates some increased staffing activity, this does not constitute a retention problem."
- "In terms of retention, only a small percentage of employees in this Group leave the Public Service for alternate employment."
- "We have already seen that recruitment and retention in the FI Group is not a major issue."
It is evident by the overall thrust of this brief that the Employer wishes to position the ACFO negotiation as little more than a formality, because in their view there are no significant issues to redress in the realm of compensation for financial officers.
Conciliation / Strike or Binding Arbitration
PROS AND CONS
This brief provides a review of the PROS and CONS of the two broad approaches that ACFO could take in negotiations with Treasury Board, Conciliation/Strike or Binding Arbitration.
CONCILIATION / STRIKE - PRO
- Historically, groups willing to take job action have reached better settlements than those that have pursued arbitration, such as CS & FS groups.
- By limiting our services through job action Management can see the value that we in fact do provide, as many of the jobs we are expected to perform will not get done.
- Depending on how action is carried out, members can withdraw services without significant loss of pay.
- It will raise the profile of the Association and the perception of the group, thus reducing the chances of the group getting less favorable settlements than other groups.
- It shows Treasury Board that we will not sit back and take just any offer that they put forward to the membership.
CONCILIATION / STRIKE - CON
- Management will designate some of our members as essential thus reducing the potential impact of job action.
- Some members may not honor a picket line thus would assist the Employer in a divide and conquer attempt. Without support from a substantial portion of the FI group, job action would be ineffective.
- The Government may decide to legislate us back to work and impose an agreement thus sidestepping true collective bargaining.
- If the strike option were ultimately taken, withdrawing of services could, cause members to lose income in the short run.
BINDING ARBITRATION - PRO
- It is less confrontational and disruptive to the Employer and with other members. Most Financial Officers feel more comfortable with this approach.
- This is a convenient approach as it does not require active participation of the FI group.
- Members do not lose income in the short run and there is less risk with this approach.
- The outcome is based on the arbitration briefs submitted by both sides so the process is usually less costly for the bargaining agent.
BINDING ARBITRATION - CON
- A third party not overly familiar with the issues decides the outcome of negotiations.
- The members do not vote on the arbitral award and therefore have no control over the award.
- The Employer has argued that groups going to arbitration should not necessarily get the same settlements as what others have negotiated at the table using the strike/conciliation option.
- The arbitrator is neutral and will tend to make a compromise between the positions of both parties. However, the Employer will only provide additional increments to groups where they feel adjustments are required. It is difficult to successfully argue for an additional increment for all levels of the FI group in arbitration. The membership could be divided as the Arbitrator may give a better settlement to parts of the membership (for example extra increments only to FI 03 and FI 04 in the last award).
- A reliance on binding arbitration as the primary method for settlement may weaken our bargaining position and may result in unfavourable settlements in the long run.
These are some of the Pros and Cons of the two negotiating approaches.
Please discuss among your peers in the FI Community, and feel free to contact us at ACFO if you have any questions about the negotiation process.
