On June 7, 2013 the Minister of Heritage, James Moore, ordered that a vote on the employer’s final offer be imposed on the FB bargaining unit. Here are the top 10 reasons to vote no.
1. DANGEROUS PRECEDENT:
We must reject CBSA and Treasury Board’s heavy-handedness and complete disrespect for the collective bargaining process. To do otherwise would set a very dangerous precedent.
2. RESPECT & PRIDE:
We must take a stand and tell our employer that comparing our work to Security Guards is wrong. The Public Interest Commission (PIC) recommendation recognizes the important work that we do as law enforcement agency employees. We should be treated accordingly.
3. NON-UNIFORMED:
The Employer’s final offer does not address issues that we’ve raised concerning non-uniformed workers.
4. PROTECTION:
Unlike the PIC recommendation, CBSA’s latest final offer does not provide the same protections for employees being armed as those agreed to at the last round of negotiations.
5. PARITY:
In terms of salary increases, many other groups in the federal public service, including Parole Officers who work in the same department as we do, have been given more than what is in the CBSA offer.
6. WE DESERVE BETTER:
In terms of salary increases, no other bargaining unit in the federal public service has received less than what’s contained in CBSA’s final offer.
7. PART-TIMERS:
The Employer’s final offer does not address issues that we’ve raised concerning parttime workers, even though the PIC recommendation includes new rights for part-timers.
8. MEAL PERIOD:
The CBSA’s final offer does not provide for a pensionable paid meal period for union members. A paid meal period is the norm for virtually all law enforcement workers in this country,
including Correctional Officers and RCMP Constables who work for the same department as we do. The PIC recommendation opens the door for serious discussion on this issue.
9. EQUALITY:
The one-shot $2000 taxable arming ‘carrot’ is only applicable to some BSOs at armed ports.
10. RIGHTS:
The Labour Board recently indicated that the law provides for union access to CBSA workplaces, and the PIC recommendation also contains union access rights, yet CBSA’s latest final offer ignores both the PIC recommendation and the Labour Board in this regard.
We protect and defend our borders, we take pride in what we do. Vote NO, so that we can get back to the table and negotiate a fair contract.
The Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO) thought it was important to provide an update on recent developments about their members and inform other unions about the implications of PAFSO job action for members of the [EC / CO / LA / PM / AS / FB] bargaining unit.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
As you may know, PAFSO job action has now entered its fourth month. They are seeking wages equal to those of other federal government professionals performing similar or identical work within Canada. An outline of their key issues can be found at http://www.pafso.com/news_releases.php?newsID=151.
Since June 6, PAFSO has escalated its service withdrawals to encompass hundreds of employees in dozens of work locations in Canada and abroad. This follows a collapse of talks on June 5 during which the employer decided not to revise its pay offer, again presenting the same offer to PAFSO that had been on the table since negotiations began 20 months earlier. PAFSO was advised that this decision has been made at the highest political level.
As a result, PAFSO’s job action strategy is now aimed at disrupting all Cabinet-level international priorities and travel (including that of the Prime Minister) as well as visa and immigration processing at Canada’s major processing centres abroad. As of early July, the effects of this strike on Government business and the Canadian economy are increasingly severe and mounting. We understand that barring meaningful engagement by the Government at the negotiating table, it is PAFSO’s intention to continue to exert maximum pressure throughout the summer and into the fall if necessary.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU
Current job action by PAFSO has important implications for labour relations across the federal public service in the short and long term. We keen to ensure that our own union and our members provide as much support to PAFSO’s efforts as the law allows.
1. All members: We ask all [CAPE / PIPSC / AJC / CEIU / UNE / CIU] members to continue to show support for PAFSO members who are on strike and to respect the lawful job action process by not attempting to perform any of the duties of striking FS employees. If directed by your supervisor to do so, you should refer them to your department’s own Guide for Strike Preparation, which states clearly that “Employees in other bargaining units should not be asked to perform duties of employees on strike.” If your supervisor persists, please contact your [CAPE / PIPSC / AJC / CEIU / UNE / CIU] labour relations officer for guidance.
2. Members assigned to FS positions: Substantive members of [CAPE / PIPSC / AJC / CEIU / UNE / CIU] bargaining units currently assigned/acting in a FS position are deemed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act to be members of the FS bargaining unit for the duration of their assignment and are therefore eligible to participate in job action. (The Public Service Labour Relations Board confirmed in its 2004 Potter decision that “you are what you do” is the overriding principle in determining an employee’s bargaining unit.) We urge all such members to follow job action instructions from PAFSO. This is true even if your union dues are still being directed to [CAPE / PIPSC / AJC / CEIU / UNE / CIU]: there is often a lag within a department’s compensation services in updating membership lists (“check-off”) for unions and redirecting union dues appropriately, especially in departments with heavy rotationality like DFATD and CIC.
3. Members on short-term deployments doing FS work: Substantive members of [CAPE / PIPSC / AJC / CEIU / UNE / CIU] bargaining units on short-term deployment (“temporary duty”) at missions abroad to provide surge capacity during peak season are performing FS work and deemed to be members of the FS bargaining unit for the duration of the deployment – even though you are not assigned to a specific FS position. This applies especially to employees deployed to CIC visa processing centres (generally PM or FB group members). You are eligible to participate in job action and we urge you to follow PAFSO’s instructions. No matter what your manager may say, you can not be disciplined for participating in lawful job action by your bargaining unit at the time. Management is prohibited from using replacement workers from other unions to compensate for the absence of striking Foreign Service officers, and PAFSO has signaled its intention to pursue an unfair labour practice complaint in cases where managers seek to circumvent job action by obstructing unionized employees on short-term deployments from striking.
4. Members who withdraw services on PAFSO’s behalf: PAFSO has confirmed that they will reimburse 100% of net pay recovered by the employer as a result of your participation in service withdrawals – even if your salary scale (which is protected during your assignment to a FS position) exceeds FS rates of pay. Remember that, under law, the employer may only recover salary plus Foreign Service Directives (FSDs) 56 and 58, prorated to the exact number of days for which you withdrew service. This is confirmed in Treasury Board’s “Policy on Strikes” (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12607). If you are on temporary duty and receiving FSD 8 (Short-Term Assignments outside Canada), the employer can not withhold accommodation, flight, or per diem costs.
In closing, the PAFSO wishes to thank all members for their continuing support and solidarity for our Foreign Service colleagues. Please contact your CIU labour relations officer should you have any questions concerning these or other implications of PAFSO job action for you and your work.
On Wednesday June 5ththe Public Interest Commission released its recommendation concerning our negotiations with CBSA/Treasury Board. Early the morning of Friday the 7ththe FB Bargaining Team issued a statement reiterating that the union is ready to negotiate. Later that same day the PSAC was notified that, at CBSA and Treasury Board’s request, the government is forcing a vote of the employer’s recent-most final offer, to be administered by the Labour Board. Imposing a vote on an offer that has not been agreed to by a union’s elected bargaining team has never happened in the history of federal public service.
In a letter to their co-workers (see link below), the PSAC FB bargaining team urged members to join them in voting NO to CBSA’s forced offer. For those being armed, the final offer does not provide the same employee protections that were agreed to in the last round of negotiations. In terms of salary increases, many other groups in the federal public service, including Parole Officers who work in the same department as we do, have been given more than what is in the CBSA/Treasury Board offer. The offer does not address issues that we’ve raised concerning non-uniformed officers. Finally, the offer does not include improvements contained in the recommendation released last week by the Public Interest Commission.
The bargaining team members, along with the National Executive and National Board of Directors of the Customs and Immigration Union, are calling on all FB members to vote NO, to reject this heavy-handed and disrespectful approach, and to stand together so that a fair, and negotiated, collective agreement might be reached. Please be sure to contact your CIU branch president and stay tuned for more information.
On Wednesday (June 5th) we received the Public Interest Commission (PIC) recommendation concerning our contract dispute with Treasury Board/CBSA. The PIC recommendation is non-binding. It is intended to guide the parties in negotiations and help provide an avenue for the parties to make progress towards an agreement. A copy of the PIC’s recommendation can be found at:
http://psac.com/news/2013/bargaining/20130605-e.shtml
We are disappointed with some of the PIC’s recommendations, particularly with respect to wages and issues that we have raised concerning non-uniformed members of the bargaining unit. Having said that the recommendation does address a number of key issues that we’ve raised in bargaining, issues that the employer has yet to adequately address, if at all. The recommendation opens the door for serious discussion concerning a paid, pensionable meal period for union members. It provides protections in the context of the arming initiative that are more in line with what was agreed to in our previous round of bargaining. It provides rights for part-time employees. It provides for union access to CBSA workplaces. None of these things were contained in any of CBSA/Treasury Board’s final offers.
What’s more, despite the position taken by the employer, the Commission suggests in its recommendation that we should be compared with workers employed at other federal law enforcement agencies. Indeed, while the recommendation points out that management has compared FB employees to “airport security personnel”, the Commission also states that “the law enforcement role of these employees, as well as their critical role in defense of
Canada’s borders, means that these employees are more akin to law enforcement occupations than those in security-type roles”.
We have always maintained that we are ready to negotiate. We remain so, and will be reiterating this with the employer in the coming days now that we have received the PIC recommendation. We’ll be sure to update as things progress. For a copy of our submissions to the PIC, and for previous updates, go to:
http://psac.com/bargaining/units/treasury_board/fb-e.shtml.
Last week CBSA and Treasury Board attempted to bypass the collective bargaining process by dropping off an offer via envelope at the PSAC office in Ottawa on Monday, and by communicating certain elements of the offer to union members that night. PSAC responded by stating clearly that all discussion regarding negotiations and offers must happen first and foremost at the bargaining table with our elected negotiating team. On Thursday Treasury Board consented to returning to the table and on Monday our Team met with representatives for CBSA and Treasury Board. Management did not have their full bargaining team present. We met with them until well after midnight on Tuesday morning.
At the table management reviewed its initial final offer with us. After discussion over the course of the day and into the night, the employer made modifications to its offer. To view a complete copy of the employer’s offer, go to: http://www.psac-afpc.org/documents/bargaining/fb_employer_offer_may6_2013-en.pdf. Treasury Board/CBSA’s offer includes the end of severance for the purposes of voluntary termination, the elimination of the Telework Committee appendix agreed to for Trade Compliance employees, and a new appendix concerning the arming initiative that removes employee protections agreed to in the last round of bargaining and effectively removes any serious consultation between the union and employer concerning selection of employees for firearm training.
In tandem with this the government has increased our out-of-pocket contributions to our pension plan (while other federal enforcement workers are afforded a superior, ‘25 and out’ pension scheme), employees hired as of January 1 will now have to work longer to access pension benefits, CBSA is in the process of cutting 1,300 positions, has begun replacing officers at airports with machines and has refused to agree to reintroduce telework practices for Trade Compliance employees. CBSA has imposed name tags on uniformed officers, despite the health and safety concerns raised by the union.
In exchange for all of this Treasury Board/CBSA are offering a 1.75% increase in 2011, 1.5% in 2012 and a 2% increase in 2013. There is a one-time, lump-sum payment of $2000.00 for those employees with firearm certification and who work in positions requiring the use of a duty firearm for the performance of their duties, or who meet these criteria by 2016. There are improvements to bereavement and family-related leave that reflect what was agreed to for other groups. The offer expands seniority rights.
While the expansion of seniority rights represents progress, the fact is that this offer does very little to bring us closer to the terms and conditions of employment of employees working for other federal law enforcement agencies. There is nothing in the employer’s offer that provides for a paid meal period or pension reform consistent with what is provided Corrections workers and the RCMP. What’s more many other groups that have reached settlement with the Treasury Board have seen improvements beyond the wage pattern contained in this offer. For example, Parole Officers received a new increment worth 5.5% in their settlement, Firefighters an increase worth 4.75% – both on top of the wage increases contained in the offer made to the FB group. With respect wages, while many have received more, no group has received less than the wage increases contained in CBSA/Treasury Board’s offer for us. Also issues specific to nonuniformed employees such as telework and clothing allowance remain unaddressed. Treasury Board’s contract offer does not contain language addressing issues related to part-time employees.
We do not have a recommendation yet from the Public Interest Commission. Our Essential Services Agreements are not yet finalized. The offer presented by CBSA/Treasury Board on Monday is inferior to a number of other settlements reached in the federal public service, and removes some of the protections agreed to in the last round of bargaining. Given these facts, our National Bargaining Team, after having consulted with the CIU Executive and CIU National Board of Directors last week, unanimously indicated on Monday night that we are prepared to negotiate, but that we are not prepared to accept Treasury Board’s current offer. Over the coming days additional information will be posted on the PSAC and CIU websites, and general membership meetings are being scheduled across the country. We will be sure to update as things progress.
[Update, May 3rd, 2013] Our FB bargaining team will be meeting Treasury Board/CBSA’s bargaining team in Ottawa on Monday. We will be sure to update as things progress. Be sure to check the FB Bargaining section regularly for updates.
[Update, May 1st, 2013] Our FB Bargaining Team has contacted Treasury Board and has proposed that the negotiating teams be reconvened at the bargaining table next week to review and discuss Treasury Board’s offer for the FB group. We’ll be sure to update as things progress.
This past Friday Treasury Board contacted our union and indicated that it had an offer for settlement that it wished to present. Both PSAC and CIU indicated that offers should be made at the bargaining table, with the parties’ negotiating teams, and that the union was prepared to set dates to meet and hear what CBSA/Treasury Board had to say. Treasury Board responded to this invitation to set dates and return to the bargaining table by dropping off its offer in an envelope at the PSAC office in Ottawa on Monday afternoon and contacting the union membership directly with “highlights” of its offer on Monday night. We
believe that this may constitute bargaining in bad faith and are consulting our legal counsel to determine next steps.
In the interim, our bargaining team will again be contacting management to set dates to meet and review CBSA/Treasury Board’s offer. Of course, the highlights contained in CBSA’s communications do not tell the whole story about the contents of the offer. To provide but one example, it would appear that – unlike our current agreement – any protections provided in the context of the arming initiative are to be subject to “operational requirements as determined by the employer” (i.e. at the discretion of CBSA management). Having said that, our Team will be seeking clarification from CBSA’s team on all matters in dispute
between the parties, including those contained in management’s offer. But out of respect for the collective bargaining process, we will be seeking that clarification at the bargaining table, with the bargaining teams.
We have not received a recommendation from the Public Interest Commission at this point. We will be sure to update as things progress.
