FPSLREB Decisions

1 On June 20, 2011, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“the bargaining agent”) served notice to bargain on the House of Commons (“the employer”) on behalf of the Reporting Sub-Group and Text Processing Sub-Group in the Parliamentary Programs Group bargaining unit (“the bargaining unit”) under section 37 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (PESRA). The last collective agreement for the bargaining unit expired on June 30, 2011.

2 Negotiation sessions between the parties took place on November 9 and December 20, 2011, and on February 25 and April 10, 2012.

3 By letter dated June 26, 2012, pursuant to section 50 of the PESRA, the bargaining agent requested arbitration for the bargaining unit. Following an exchange of relevant materials, an arbitration board was established.

4 The terms of reference for the arbitration board deemed to form the Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) were forwarded to the Board members on September 6, 2012 by a panel of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

5  A hearing of this matter was held on February 14, 2013. An arbitral award dated June 5, 2013 was issued to the parties on that same day in both French and English (“the arbitral award”).

6 On June 12, 2013, representatives for the employer wrote to the Board to request clarification of the arbitral award in relation to the economic increases. The employer identified that the effective date of those economic increases should be July 1 as opposed to April 1. In the same letter, the employer also raised a translation concern about clause 24.09 of the collective agreement, which was dealt with in paragraph 20 of the arbitral award. The employer suggested that the expression “the determining factor” (in English) and “un élément déterminant” (in French) did not have the same meaning and that that distinction between the French and English versions required some clarification.

7 The employer’s letter and a request for comments were sent to the bargaining agent. It was asked to provide its comments to the Board by June 19, 2013.

8 By letter dated June 24, 2013, the bargaining agent also requested clarification of the effective date of the economic increases and proposed that July 1 ought to be the effective date, rather than April 1.

9 Although the bargaining agent did not respond to the employer’s translation concern about clause 24.09 of the collective agreement, it requested clarification on what it described as inconsistent language between paragraphs (a) and (b) of that clause. In essence, the bargaining agent suggested that allowing the employer to allocate overtime work “on an equitable basis” in paragraph (a) was inconsistent with the recent implementation of a seniority-based system in paragraph (b) by this Board, of the arbitral award. The bargaining agent proposed that the words “on an equitable basis” be removed from clause 24.09(a), in accordance with its initial proposal.

10 The bargaining agent’s letter and a request for comments were sent to the representatives of the employer. They were asked to provide their comments to the Board by June 28, 2013.

11 By email dated July 3, 2013, the representatives of the employer indicated that the employer did not have additional comments other than the representations made at the hearing and in its previously submitted materials.

12 The Board has reviewed its arbitral award of June 5, 2013, the letter of June 12, 2013 and email of July 3, 2013 from the employer, and the letter dated June 24, 2013 from the bargaining agent.

13 As requested by the parties, the Board hereby provides the following clarifications and amendments that will be considered as the supplementary arbitral award.

14 Upon its review of the relevant material, the Board hereby decides that the effective dates of the economic increases provided for in Appendix A – Rates of Pay and referred to in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the arbitral award shall be July 1. It should be noted that the previous reference to April 1 as the effective dates of the economic increases was a clerical error and that the Board always intended to use July 1 as the effective date. For the sake of clarity, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the arbitral award shall now read as follows:

[40] The employer proposed a general economic increase of 1.5% in each year of the collective agreement. However, the employer expressed a willingness to offer 1.75% on July 1, 2011, 1.5% on July 1, 2012, and 2% on July 1, 2013 if its severance pay proposal were included in the arbitral award. It would amount to a 0.25% increase on July 1, 2011 and a 0.50% increase on July 1, 2013 as additional compensation for the severance pay amendments. The employer submitted that that would be similar to the economic increases agreed to in other settlements and recent arbitration awards. The employer maintained that no recruitment or retention problems exist within the bargaining unit and that no internal relativity issues justify any other increases.

[41] As indicated earlier, the Board accepted the employer’s proposal on severance pay and amended article 23 accordingly. The Board is of the view that the economic increases should be commensurate with that of other bargaining units in the federal public administration and that they should reflect the recent pattern established in the federal public service by agreement or arbitral award. Hence, the Board awards total economic increases of 1.75% effective July 1, 2011, 1.5 % effective July 1, 2012, and 2% effective July 1, 2013, inclusive of the additional compensation for the severance pay amendments.

15 As a result of the clerical error that occurred in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the arbitral award, the Board must also clarify the calculation date contemplated by clause 23.06(a) of the collective agreement, which was set out in paragraph 18 of the arbitral award. It was always the Board’s intention to determine that the severance payout be calculated after applying the 2013 economic increase. To reflect that intention, the Board has decided substitute the words “the day following the arbitral award” in clause 23.06(a) by the words, “July 2, 2013”. For the sake of clarity, clause 23.06(a) at paragraph 18 of the arbitral award shall now read as follows:

Terms of Payment

23.06 Options

The amount to which an employee is entitled shall be paid, at the employee’s discretion, either:

(a) As a single payment at the rate of pay of the employee’s substantive position as of July 2, 2013, or

16 Furthermore, since there was an error in the translation of clause 24.09 of the collective agreement, at paragraph 20 of the arbitral award, the Board hereby decides that the French version of clause 24.09 will be amended to correspond to the English wording. Hence, the words “unélément déterminant” will be replaced by “l’élément déterminant”. In addition, the Board also hereby decides that the words “on an equitable basis” in English and “aussi équitablement qu’il est pratique de le faire” in French will be removed from clause 24.09(a), as was always the Board’s intention. The omission of the removal of those words at paragraph 20 of the arbitral award was a clerical error. For the sake of clarity, clause 24.09 shall read as follows:

Assignment of Overtime Work

24.09(a) Subject to the operational requirements of the House of Commons, the Employer shall make every reasonable effort to avoid excessive overtime and to allocate overtime work among readily available qualified employees within the work section and to provide as much advance notice as possible.

(b) Whenever possible and where it does not hamper service delivery, overtime will initially be offered to employees on a voluntary basis. In the event that there are excessive volunteers, seniority shall be the determining factor for allocating the overtime. In the absence of sufficient volunteers, the Employer will assign the overtime in reverse order of seniority.

(c) The application of this clause shall not result in a negative impact on operations or incur additional costs to the employer.

17 While undertaking a full review of the arbitral award, the Board also noticed a further clerical error at paragraph 22, in relation to clause 24.17 of the collective agreement. To better reflect the Board’s intention, the words “in Publishing Services” will be added to the introductory paragraph of clause 24.17. Paragraph 22 of the arbitral award will now read as follows:

[22] Finally, the bargaining agent proposed that the existing clause 24.17, regarding workload scheduling, which provides that hours of work are scheduled to meet low, regular and peak workloads, be deleted in its entirety. The employer opposed this proposal. The Board has decided that the clause will remain unchanged, with the exception of the addition of the words “in Publishing Services” in its introductory paragraph. For the sake of clarity, the introductory paragraph of clause 24.17 shall read as follows:

24.17 When because of operational requirements, and depending on the Parliamentary schedule, hours of work in Publishing Services are scheduled to meet low, regular and peak workloads, they shall be scheduled as follows:

18 The Board will remain seized of this matter for a period of two months from the date of this supplementary arbitral award in the event that the parties encounter any difficulties in its implementation.

July 19, 2013.

Stephan J. Bertrand,
for the Public Service
Labour Relations Board