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.

CBSA reneges in Essential Services talks – again.

For several years – going back to 2007 – the Union has been engaged in talks with CBSA in an effort to resolve essential services agreements (ESA’s). Under the new Public Service Labour Relations Act of 2006, unions and employers in the public service must attempt to negotiate agreements covering each bargaining unit determining which duties are essential in the event of a legal job action. CBSA took a position at the outset of talks that all duties performed by BSO’s were essential. PSAC challenged this and the Labour Board ruled in our favour, stating that several duties performed by BSO’s are not essential to the safety and security of the public, including for example the collection of taxes and duties. Our Union has also had tremendous difficulty getting CBSA to provide information on other FB positions that the employer is proposing for inclusion in the ESA. Now, after years of talks and when the parties are very near completion of the ESA process, CBSA has suddenly proposed an additional 200 positions as performing essential duties that they want included in an ESA.

We have negotiated ESA’s with departments across the public service. Yet we do not have one for the FB bargaining unit, due to CBSA’s intransigence at every step. As a result, we will be taking CBSA/Treasury Board back before with the Labour Board in an effort to have this matter resolved once and for all.

In the meantime, we are waiting for a recommendation from the Public Interest Commission concerning our contract dispute with Treasury Board/CBSA. Immediately before Christmas the Commission requested an extension beyond the 30-day timeline set out in the legislation. Both our bargaining team and the Treasury Board consented to this request. The Commission has not provided an indication as to when we can expect its recommendation. For a copy of the submission provided by PSAC to the Board, go to: http://www.psac-afpc.com/news/2012/bargaining/20121212c-e.shtml