|
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON ARBITRATION
October 22, 2002
On October 8th, 2002, the arbitration panel issued an  arbitral award regarding the outstanding issues in relation to the new collective agreement for the Financial Management (FI) Group. The results of the award were, to say the least, disappointing, and fell quite short of expectations. We knew from the beginning that the catch-up of 19.4% being asked for would be difficult to attain in one round of bargaining because past history shows that interest arbitrators are reluctant to provide full catch-up. The best interpretation that we can assume is that this is intended to be a partial catch-up, leaving the FI 1 and 2 for the next round. I wish I could explain why most of our arguments seemingly fell on deaf ears, but I cannot. The brevity of the Award was very disappointing. No explanations were provided for their decisions and unfortunately, there is no requirement for them to do so.
It has become apparent to me, judging from comments made by several members, that there is an apparent lack of understanding of the arbitration process. Arbitration occurs when the parties have reached the end of their arguments at the bargaining table without reaching a settlement. It is very confrontational. It is not a process where the parties are in any mood to cooperate with each other. The end result of a binding arbitration is final, with no appeal process.
We felt it was clear that the employer was going to continue to deny that there were any problems in the management of your community and that our historical pay relativity with other groups was causing the problem. There was no point in continuing this same argument with a non-receptive audience, so the Association applied for arbitration. The employer continued that denial in their submission to the Arbitration Panel. We supplied proof in our submission that there were admissions of problems by the employer's representatives not involved in the collective bargaining process.
It is also clear that the Arbitrator was not prepared to accept the truth and deal with the current reality by providing a solution. We did our very best to find evidence that would disprove the employer's denials that our community has major problems. I believe our brief was very closer to the truth even with our limited ability to get at the facts in the hands of the employer. The reaction by members at the FI 1 and 2 level gives me even more confidence that our brief was on the mark. The Treasury Board is either completely out of touch with what is happening in our community or they have made a deliberate attempt to cover up their mismanagement. It came down to "winning" was more important to Treasury Board than sitting down with us to analyse the problems and find solutions.
From a number of comments made by the employer representatives, it appears that over the years there has been a growing view that arbitration is not a substitution for a strike. Therefore, they should not make awards that would give something that should be gained by way of a strike. I strongly disagree with this viewpoint. The Public Service Staff Relations Act allows for two processes. It does not indicate that one is any less valid that the other. It would be nice if the amendments to the Act being proposed would make that clear. I doubt that because it is clear when you look at the results of our Award that this attitude clearly works in the employer's favour.
Our data showed that there was a problem for the entire group, but it was more evident at the higher levels. While claiming that the problem is solved, the Treasury Board did mention in their brief that there had been staffing problems at the FI 3 and 4. When I read that I feared that it would open the door for the arbitrators to treat each level differently. In our brief, you will see that we took the Treasury Board to task for saying at the bargaining table that there are no problems and in other forums saying that the FI community is having problems. We provided quotes to prove our point.
It also greatly disturbs me that several members have recently made statements such as "...the FI-01 and 02's were screwed by their own bargaining group." Have these people even bothered to read the APSFA brief? The final decision was made by the arbitrator, not by the team members. The research and hard work done by the members of the Collective Bargaining Committee, the Negotiating Team and APSFA staff over the past year resulted in a thorough submission which presented all our arguments in a clear, concise, and what we considered, irrefutable manner. No amount of money could have purchased a higher-quality or more informative submission. Their efforts must be commended.
It is important to note that the membership democratically chose binding arbitration as the dispute resolution method, and, it would now seem that it was not the panacea we were seeking. Perhaps the membership should carefully consider the advantages that a strike mandate would afford them, not only as a means to demonstrate their discontent, but to provide additional leverage to the Association in the next round of bargaining. If a vote was taken this moment, I have no doubt that the membership would seriously consider strike action as a viable option. I hope that those of you who are currently experiencing feelings of frustration or anger will revisit those feelings when the next opportunity to vote on the dispute resolution mechanism presents itself.
I dread to think of the problems there are going to be at the FI 1 and 2. The Treasury Board attitude that FI 1s and 2s are a "dime a dozen" is very short sighted. The movement to jobs in other occupational groups could prove to be very substantial. For more money and for a job that is less stressful and demanding why would an FI 1 or 2 want to stay in the FI group? If the possibility of a constant revolving door of people with little or no experience at the FI 1 and 2 level is not a major concern to Treasury Board, I fear for the future of our group and the finances of our country. This will be a major part of my discussions with Jim Judd, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, and I am hopeful that he will see the problem as clearly as we do and agree to a fast tracked classification review of the FI Group. Our relativity at the FI 1 and 2 to other occupational groups must be solved quickly. It cannot wait for the next round of bargaining.
|
