FPSLREB Decisions

AWARD

This board of arbitration has been appointed under the terms of section 64 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It is agreed that the board's award will cover a three-year period, being April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. The Canadian Merchant Service Guild represents the Ships' Officers employed by the Federal Government in the following sub-groups: Floating Plant (FLP), Instructor (INS), Marine Operations (MAO), and Radio (RAD). The majority of the bargaining unit work for the Canadian Coast Guard, while a smaller portion work on certain vessels of the Department of National Defence (DND). This bargaining unit does have the lawful right to strike, but virtually all of the Officers have been declared "essential" for the last two rounds of bargaining, and the Guild has elected to settle the present collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties have reached agreement on a number of items, and the board hereby incorporates those as part of its award. One issue in particular, however, appears to have kept the parties from successfully completing their bargaining, and the board will address that issue first.

Appendix H - Lay-Day System

The lay "day" system is the predominant scheduling system utilized by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in its operations that include the Canadian Coast Guard and Conservation and Protection operations. It is a rotational work system allowing uninterrupted periods of service while a vessel is engaged in operations away from home-port. Its foundation is the use of two crews per vessel, alternating 28 days on and 28 days off, with their salary for those 56 days being paid out evenly over that full period. Each day "on", or working, in other words, creates a credit for a corresponding day "off" with pay.

In the bargaining for the 1998-2000 collective agreement, the employer tabled a proposal to convert the calculation of the various types of leave from days to hours. For vacations the conversion factor that the employer put forward was 2.1. It is apparent from a PSSRB decision that will be referred to that the Guild had considerable difficulty understanding the basis for that "2.1" factor put forward by the employer. In the end, however, the Guild was satisfied with the employer's explanation, as well as with what it thought was a common understanding as to its "lay-day" impact; i.e., effectively doubling the number of vacation days available to an employee, because of the drawing down of credits from the bank at a rate of six versus 12 hours for each vacation day taken. Following ratification of the settlement, however, a dispute arose on this point, and the parties proceeded to grievance arbitration. In a decision dated October 25, 1999, after lengthy evidence and submissions, Evelyn Henry, Deputy Chairperson of the PSSRB, concluded that the Union's interpretation of the new amendments was correct. The employer did not attempt to have the PSSRB decision of Ms Henry overturned by the Courts. The "Henry" decision accordingly stands at this point as the arbitrated impact of the new language introduced by the employer in the 1998 collective agreement. This is an interest arbitration, however, and changes to the existing provisions of a collective agreement, where unpalatable, can of course be bought. In the present proceedings, however, matters never did proceed to the point where such a quid pro quo could be specifically identified and weighed. The board accordingly declines to simply award the change in mathematical result that the employer takes issue with in the Henry award.

There are, however, some related items on Lay Days on which the board finds favour with the employer's position. Article 20.10 was agreed to by the parties in just the last round, and the board is not satisfied that the conditions have been established to warrant its removal. In addition, the board is prepared to award the standard-type language allowing an employee to request cash pay-out as follows:

6. During any vacation year, upon application by the Officer and at the discretion of the Employer, earned but unused vacation leave credits in excess of the equivalent of fifteen (15) days credits may be paid in cash at the Officer's daily rate of pay as calculated from the classification prescribed in the certificate of appointment of the Officer's substantive position on March 31st of the previous vacation year.

The board also finds it appropriate, in the face of the increase in lay-days occasioned by the adjusted Vacation drawn-down, to increase the pre-premium "cap" in the bank under paragraph (g) of Appendix H from 45 to 65 days. The board awards that new, higher figure in lieu of any of the other changes to Appendix H proposed by the employer.

Instructors - Article 30

The board finds it appropriate to award only the following amendment:

The four (4) month period for averaging of courses shall be: January through April, May through August and September through December.

Designated Holidays - Article 21.05

The issue raised by the Guild is really one of ensuring full salary indemnification for "holiday pay". As that is already in place, the board sees no demonstrated need for a change to the language.

Pay Administration - Article 35.07

The issue between the parties is credit on appointment to a new position for time already spent in a position at the same level on an "acting" basis. The board accepts the assurances of the employer, however, that existing Government rules provide for such a credit, so long as there has been no break in the assignment, and that there has been no orchestration of such "breaks" by the instant Employer group in the past. On that basis the board declines to make any change to the current collective agreement language.

Wage Rates

There are three components to the Salary item in dispute between the parties:

1. the amount of the general increase;

2. the amount of any "catch-up" warranted vis-B-vis the private sector;

3. the need for "re-structuring" in light of what the Guild says has been the historical relationship between the MSO Group and the Ship's Crews Group.

The board is not persuaded on the data before it to make the adjustment asked for in (3). Even the employer's figures, however, support the need for some "catch-up" under this award in relation to the appropriate comparators in the private sector. It appears that a similar problem has been identified and sought to be addressed in other recent settlements and awards for parties under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (a useful comparator group when sufficient data is available), and this will be noted in the settlement survey set out below.

In a closely-related settlement, in terms of both operation and contract years, the Ship Repair-Chargehand and Production Supervisor Group (East) recently were awarded 2.5% effective April 1, 2003, 2.5% 2004, and 2% 2005. That award also provided at its front end the deletion of the bottom five increment steps, and the addition of a new top step. Ship Repair (West) has settled as well now, showing 2.5%, 2% and 2%, effective October 1 in each of those same three years. Law recently settled on its own at 2.5% February 27, 2004, and 2% March 1, 2005. The Translation Group settled this year for 2.5% effective April 2003 and 2% April 2004. Air Traffic Control settled at 2.5% as of July 2003. In another arbitrated settlement the Applied Science and Engineering Group received 2.5% in 2003 and 2.5% in 2004, with new top increments added at the beginning of the contract in 2002. The Computer Science Group contract in its final year provided a wage increase of 2.5% effective December 2003, with an additional new increment step at all levels. The Financial Management Group received 2.3% for its final contract year in 2003, plus a new top increment for certain classifications in 2002. And the Civil Aviation Inspector Group got 2.5% in 2003, the third year of its contract, plus the elimination of the first step and addition of a new top step for all classifications effective the start of the contract in 2001. The board finds this survey of settlements instructive both as to the pattern of general increases, and the method of implementing some measure of "catch-up" in the public-sector wage grids now before us.

This bargaining unit is primarily comprised of the SO-MAO sub-group, and that sub-group historically has driven the wage increases for the unit. As noted, the board has been satisfied on the evidence that an element of "catch-up" against private-sector rates should be included in the present three-year contract. To accomplish that, effective April 1st, 2003, and prior to the application of any general wage increases, the board finds it appropriate to award a new increment at the top end of the grid levels for the various sub-groups in this unit, to be established at the same differential at each level as currently exists between the ultimate and penultimate annual increment (being roughly 3.5% in each case). Employees who had been at the current top increment for at least a year shall move to this new annual increment effective April 1, 2003; other employees shall similarly move to the new increment after the completion of a year in the current top increment, in accordance with the usual rules.

As well as this specific adjustment to the grids, the board finds it appropriate to provide an element of "catch-up" in the third year of the collective agreement as well, through the granting of general wage increases as follows:

Effective	April 1, 2003	2.5%
	April 1, 2004	2.5%
	April 1, 2005	2.5%

These annual increases will be applied to the specific Officer Allowances effective those same dates, as has been the practice in the past.

All other items awarded will be effective the date of the board's award.

The board is not satisfied of the "demonstrated need" for the other proposals submitted by the parties in this round, and the remainder of those requests are accordingly denied.

The board will remain seized in the usual way to deal with any problems between the parties with respect to implementation.

Dated at Toronto this 13th day of August, 2004.