FPSLREB Decisions

AWARD

1 This Arbitration Award is in relation to settling the terms and conditions of employment for employees in the Financial Management (FI) bargaining unit of the Government of Canada under the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22.  The bargaining unit represented by the Association is comprised of some 4,157 employees who work in four financial management group classifications, being FI-1, FI-2, FI-3 and FI-4.   The bargaining unit extends over some 65 federal government departments, with the majority of employees working in Quebec and Ontario, some 68.9 percent being in the National Capital Region.  The bargaining unit employees are said to be responsible for “… the planning, development, analysis, delivery or management of the internal Public Service financial policies, programs, services or other related activities.”  The current standard for access to an entry level financial management position (FI-1) is said to be two years of post-secondary education with concentrations in accounting, finance, business, commerce or economics.  Holding a Government of Canada Financial Management Certificate is also a form of qualification.  In fact the incumbents in the bargaining unit are generally university graduates, who commonly hold professional qualifications and designations such as Chartered Accountant (CA), Certified Management Accountant (CMA) or Certified General Accountant (CGA).

2 At issue is the collective agreement for the three-year period between November 7, 2011 and November 6, 2014.  The Association delivered notice to bargain to the Employer on or about August 12, 2011.  Bargaining progressed, commencing in February of 2012 through May, June and September of the same year.  The parties were successful in signing off on some 44 articles.  However, they reached impasse on a number of monetary issues, including wages.  After some further final discussions, it was agreed to proceed to arbitration to deal with outstanding issues, including annual rates of pay.

3 This arbitration is conducted under the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.  Notably section 148 of the Act gives a degree of direction to this Board and provides as follows:

148. In the conduct of its proceedings and in making an arbitral award, the arbitration board must take into account the following factors, in addition to any other factors that it considers relevant:

(a) the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians;

(b) the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions of employment in the public service that are comparable to those of employees in similar occupations in the private and public sectors, including any geographic, industrial or other variations that the arbitration board considers relevant;

(c) the need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to compensation and other terms and conditions of employment as between different classification levels within an occupation and as between occupations in the public service;

(d) the need to establish compensation and other terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the services rendered; and

(e) the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada’s fiscal circumstances.

4 The Board proposes to deal with the issues in the order in which they were presented by the parties.

I – WAGE RATES

5 The Employer relies on what it characterizes as the pattern of voluntarily concluded collective agreements reached with a number of bargaining agents establishing terms and conditions of employment for some 280,000 unionized and non-unionized federal government employees, including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces and executives in the Core Public Administration.  It describes the pattern of increases reached thus far through voluntary settlements as being 1.5 percent in the year 2011-2012, 1.5 percent in the year 2012-2013 and a further 1.5 percent in the year 2013-2014.  These increases are enhanced by an additional 0.25 percent in the first year and a further 0.50 percent in the third year, in exchange for the termination of severance pay for voluntary resignation and retirement. 

6 In the result, inclusive of an adjustment for the termination of severance pay, the Employer’s proposal on wages is increases of 1.75 percent, 1.5 percent and 2.0 percent annually over the three years of the collective agreement.  That, it maintains, is in step with the negotiated settlements achieved with 13 groups as reflected in the following table:

Bargaining Agent	Group
Public Service Alliance of Canada	Program and Administrative Services (PA) Group Operational Services (SV) Group Education and Library Science (EB) Group
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada	Architecture, Engineering and Land Survey (NR) Group Health Services (SH) Group Computer Science (CS) Audit, Commerce and Purchasing (AV)
Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association	University Teaching (UT) Group
Canadian Auto Workers	Air Traffic Control (AI) Group
Canadian Auto Workers, Local 2182	Radio Operations (RO) Group
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada	Non-Supervisory Printing Operations (PR (NS)) Group
Federal Government Dockyards Trades and Labour Council (Esquimalt)	Ship Repair (West)(SR-W)
Association of Justice Counsel	Law (LA) Group

7 The Association maintains that as matters stand the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit are underpaid as compared to their comparator fellow employees in the public service as well as in the private sector.  The Association argues that as a result the Employer faces recruitment and retention problems.  It submits that in recognition of these facts this Board should award pay increases of 3.5 percent annually for each year of the three years of the collective agreement.  Additionally, the Association submits that the pay grid should be restructured, effectively compressing it from a maximum of nine increments down to six increments for all classifications, with an added seventh increment representing an additional 4 percent at the top level.  That restructuring would be effective November 7, 2011 and in the Association’s submission that adjustment would substantially improve the situation of FI-1s and FI-2s who presently work through a grid with nine and eight pay increments respectively.  Compressing the grid would allow them to move more quickly to higher rates of pay.

8 The Employer argues that it has not experienced any significant problem with recruitment and retention.  Its representatives note that each external job advertisement over the past six years has received, on average, some 201 applications, with better than 80 percent of applicants meeting the essential requirements of the position.  The Employer’s position is that it has had no difficulty attracting an adequate number of high quality applicants for vacancies.  It is noted, in addition, that the population of the bargaining unit has increased by some 36.4 percent over seven fiscal years, a development which the Employer submits also belies any significant recruitment and retention problems.

9 In support of its argument on retention issues, the Association points to what it characterizes as the high level of internal job advertisements between 2010 and 2012.  Its counsel notes that over that three-year period some 727 FI positions were posted in relation to a bargaining unit of some 4,200 employees. That would represent a posting rate of 17 percent, as compared with the significantly lower posting rate of 9.8 percent registered in one of the comparable employee groups, being Economics and Social Sciences, the EC Group. There 1,216 postings were made in relation to a bargaining unit of some 12,352 members.  In the Association’s submission the above figures are in fact not fully revealing of the reality, as in some parts of the bargaining unit, as for example the RCMP, a substantial majority of appointments are historically made through non-competitive and non-advertised appointment processes.

10 In essence, what the Association focuses on is the internal rate of mobility or “churning” within the bargaining unit, which it maintains reflects a form of recruitment and retention problem. Its counsel stresses that over an 11-year period between 1997 and 2008 the internal rate of mobility among the employees of the bargaining unit was some 48 percent, a rate considerably higher than the 36 percent rate which applies to the public service generally.  The submission of the Association is that the Employer has particular difficulty hiring from outside of the bargaining unit, especially for positions that are more highly paid and considerably above the entry level.  On the issue of recruitment from the private sector, its counsel stresses that a 2011-2012 report issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada confirms that between 2011 and 2012 no more than 16.6 percent of FIs were recruited from outside of the public service.  That compares to a rate of 55.6 percent of external recruitment in the Economics and Social Sciences Group (EC) and 36.3 percent for the Computer Science Group (CS).

11 The Association further stresses that departmental business plans and reports have generally confirmed the difficulty for federal government departments and agencies in recruiting and holding qualified financial officers.  In that regard reference is made to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), Correctional Services Canada (CSC), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) as well as Transport Canada (TC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).  In one way or another, says the Association, all of these ministries and agencies have recorded their concern over the difficulty of attracting and holding qualified financial officers.

12 Upon a review of the material we are inclined to conclude that there is a qualified problem with respect to the issue of recruitment and retention.  The data at our disposal would suggest that while there is significant upward mobility within the bargaining unit itself, as more junior employees bid and obtain higher rated vacant positions, it appears that new blood generally enters the bargaining unit from the entry level, and hiring does not reflect the mid-career recruitment of seasoned qualified employees from the private sector.  It is difficult to dismiss out of hand the argument of the Association that that fact reflects, to some degree, the lower level of attraction of employees from the private sector at the middle to higher ranges of positions in the bargaining unit, which would suggest that the wage rates for more experienced financial officers in the bargaining unit do not compare all that well to those of equivalent experience and qualifications in the private sector.

13 It does not appear disputed that since at least 2000 the parties have agreed in identifying certain occupational groups in the federal government service as appropriate internal comparators, through several previous rounds of bargaining as well as in prior interest arbitrations.  They have identified four comparator groups:

• Economics and Social Sciences (EC)
• Personnel Administration (PE)
• Auditing (AU)
• Commerce (CO)

14 Over time the parties have worked out a rough equivalence for the wage categories of the FI group salary levels as compared with the four comparator groups.  Those relationships are reflected in the following table:

FI-1	FI-2	FI-3	FI-4
AU-2	AU-3	AU-4	AU-5
PE-3	PE-4	PE-5	PE-6
EC-4	EC-5	EC-6	EC-7
CO-1	CO-2	CO-2	CO-3

15 At the risk of oversimplification, employees in the EC group are said to conduct economic, socioeconomic and sociological research, surveys, forecasts and studies.  The PE group are involved in human resources management over the federal public service.  As with part of the EC group, they are said to require a university degree with some specialization in human resources or labour or industrial relations or comparable topics.  The AU group perform auditing and accounting functions and are generally required to hold a university degree with some specialization in accounting, business administration, commerce or finance.  The CO group are involved in the development and delivery of economic development policies, programs and services, albeit they need no more than secondary school graduation or the equivalent and have substantial clerical and administrative responsibilities.

16 The fundamental position of the Association is that the Employer’s offer would effectively result in the FI bargaining unit employees losing relative ground to the four other comparison groups.  To illustrate that argument the Association’s brief to this Board marshals a number of data tables reflecting the resulting relativity as among the five comparator groups based both on the wage increase proposed by the Employer and the Association’s own wage increase proposal.

17 As noted above, the position of the Employer is that this Board should follow the pattern of settlement which was effectively applied in the settlements reached with the four comparator groups.  Its representatives submit that the awarding of 1.75, 1.5 and 2.0 percent increases over the three-year period, inclusive of an allowance for the elimination of severance pay, is a fair outcome in all of the circumstances.  While the data may reflect a certain degree of internal mobility within the bargaining unit, there is no evidence put before this Board of a wholesale departure of employees to work outside the bargaining unit.  In the end, the retention problem raised by the Union is truly one of internal stability, rather than of any significant departure from employment within the bargaining unit.  At most, in the Employer’s view, what the data reflects is the upward mobility of employees through the grid by virtue of the filling of vacancies in the normal course.

18 Upon a close examination of the data presented, we do have concerns that the Employer’s proposal on wage increases alone could have an overall negative effect on the wage differentials between the salaries of the instant bargaining unit and the corresponding salaries realized in the four comparator groups.  We are also not prepared to dismiss out of hand the argument of the Union to the effect that the overall structure and level of the wage grid is such as to make it difficult to attract qualified financial officers from the private sector for vacancies in the more highly paid FI-3 and FI-4 classifications.

19 Additionally, we have some sympathy with the Association’s argument with respect to its proposal on compressing the wage grid.  As reflected in a table provided to us by the Association, when examining the number of pay increments which apply to employees in the four comparator bargaining groups, as well as the Law group, the average number of increments is 6.3.  That, in our view, signals a relative disadvantage to the employees of the instant bargaining unit for whom nine increments and eight increments apply, in the FI-1 and FI-2 categories, respectively.   In these circumstances we accept that it is appropriate to direct that the wage grid eventually be compressed to reflect seven increments at all four levels of classification. That, in our view, will bring the employees of this bargaining unit more fairly into line with the average of those of the comparator groups and the Law group.  It should be noted that even if the Law group is excluded, the average number of increments for the four comparator groups is 6.7, which can be fairly rounded to seven.  We fail to see why the instant group should be penalized in its rate of progression. Our formula for compression is reflected in Appendix “A” of this Award.

20 What of the rates of wage increase?  We do not accept the suggestion of the Association that there are wholesale problems of retention in the classic sense reflected in the bargaining unit, given that in fact the movement of employees is generally within the unit itself. However, while we cannot ascribe great weight to the issue of overall recruitment and retention, we cannot dismiss out of hand the fact that there is obvious difficulty in attracting experienced private sector employees into the ranks of the FI-3 and FI-4 classifications. The undisputed submission of the Union is that according to a report of Public Works and Government Services Canada, between 2011 and 2012 only 16.6% of FI officers were recruited from outside the public service while, by contrast, 55.6 % of new hires to the economics and social sciences group (EC) and 36.3% of new hires in the computer science group came from the private sector. We accept this as evidence that the wages of the bargaining unit are to some degree suppressed as compared to the wages of equivalent positions in the private sector. We do not believe that the Employer’s offer addresses that problem. Additionally, as noted by the Union, the Employer’s offer would result in the anomalous situation whereby some FI officers would earn less than clerical and administrative employees from the CO group who they are responsible for directing and supervising. We see value in the submission of the Association as regards the potential loss of relative position as between the employees of the Financial Officers’ bargaining unit and the employees in the four comparator categories.  In our view it is appropriate to issue a wage award which tends to respect and preserve the historical relationships with these comparator groups.

21 For these reasons we direct wage increases in accordance with the established pattern proposed by the employer, coupled with a formula for wage grid compression, as reflected in Appendix “A” of this Award.

II – ARTICLE 20 – CALL-BACK

22 The Employer proposes language to be added to articles 20.01 and 20.02 of the collective agreement.  The purpose of the new language is to stress that the minimum call-in pay is intended to apply only once during a single eight-hour period.  The object appears to be to avoid multiplying the minimum pay for call-back where it might occur that an employee receives more than one call during a single eight-hour period.  In our view the clarification sought by the Employer is in keeping with the spirit and intention of call-back pay, as well as with settlements made in a number of other collective agreements in the federal sector, and it is therefore awarded.

III – ARTICLE 25 - SEVERANCE PAY

23 As indicated above, our award on wages is fractionally augmented in compensation for granting the Employer’s proposal on the removal of severance pay.  In our view the proposal put forward by the Employer does represent an appropriate formula for the compensation of employees in relation to the permanent removal of severance pay from the collective agreement.  The Employer’s proposal in respect of article 25 is therefore awarded effective the date of this award.

IV – ARTICLE 29 – VACATION LEAVE WITH PAY

24 The Association proposes to improve vacation entitlements for new employees.  Under the current arrangement, new employees are entitled to three weeks of annual vacation with pay and they graduate to four weeks at their eighth year of service.  The Association’s proposal would grant to all employees four weeks of vacation until their sixteenth year of service from their time of initial hire.

25 Bearing in mind the level of executive responsibility at which most members of this bargaining unit function, and the overall high level of their wages, we are satisfied that some degree of improvement in the vacation leave structure is justified.  We therefore direct that the collective agreement be amended effective the date of this award to reflect that from the time of hire to the completion of five years of service employees shall be entitled to three weeks of vacation leave with pay.  Following the completion of their first five years of service they shall be entitled to four weeks of vacation leave with pay until the conclusion of their sixteenth year of service, after which vacation entitlements shall continue to be in accordance with the existing terms of the collective agreement.

V – ARTICLE 36 – LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR THE CARE OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY

26 The current collective agreement allows employees leave without pay for the care of family for conditions specifically described within article 36.03.  The proposal of the Employer would introduce language which would make that right conditional, rather than absolute, and ultimately “subject to operational requirements”.  We have been directed to no particular hardship visited upon the Employer by the use of the leave without pay provision for the purposes of family care by employees in the Association’s bargaining unit.  In the circumstances we can see no compelling basis for any change in the status quo.  The Employer’s proposal is therefore declined.

VI – ARTICLE 37 – LEAVE WITH PAY FOR FAMILY-RELATED RESPONSIBILITY

27 The Association seeks to introduce new language into article 37 to provide for paid leave to employees to a maximum of 7.5 hours in a fiscal year for personal family matters such as attending school functions, child care in the event of school closures and for attending legal, financial or other professional appointments.

28 In our view the leave provision amendments proposed by the Association are not unreasonable. We consider it appropriate to extend them, as proposed by the Association.  In doing so we note that the Employer does not strongly oppose this change, in consideration of the removal of severance pay for voluntary separations. The Association’s request in this regard is therefore allowed.

VII – ARTICLE 40 – BEREAVEMENT LEAVE

29 The submission of the Employer notes that the proposal of the bargaining agent on bereavement leave, which would increase the bereavement period in article 40.02 of the collective agreement from five to seven consecutive calendar days, has been agreed in a number of other recent settlements.  It confirms that should severance pay be removed for voluntary separations, this demand of the Association should not be viewed as unacceptable.  In the result, given the allowance of the Employer’s proposal on the removal of severance pay, we grant the Association’s proposal in respect of the amendment of article 40.

VIII – ARTICLE 47 – SEXUAL HARASSMENT

30 The current collective agreement contains a provision effectively prohibiting sexual harassment, as reflected in article 47.01.  The Association proposes to expand the scope of the article in question to remove the reference to sexual harassment, and simply allow a right of grievance, and presumably arbitration, in the event that an employee claims harassment of any kind.

31 In our view the proposal made by the Association would have substantial ramifications for the grievance and arbitration process.  We believe that any gain in respect of this issue, which could fairly be characterized as breakthrough gain, should be made voluntarily between the parties, presumably in exchange for some appropriate consideration.  We do not consider that this is an amendment which should be awarded by this Board of Arbitration.  The Association’s request in regard to article 47 is therefore declined.

32 The Board notes that the Employer’s proposal document presented to this Board also makes reference to article 47, the duration of the collective agreement.  We do not believe that this is in fact an issue in dispute.  For the purposes of clarity, however, the Board confirms that the duration of the collective agreement shall be from November 7, 2011 to November 6, 2014.

33 The Board retains jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Award.

34 Also included in this Arbitral Award, are dissenting comments from the Employer’s nominee that read as follows:

“I must dissent from this award as I do not agree with the majority of this Board that adjustments on top of the well-defined pattern of replication should have been awarded. 

The majority of this Board concluded that a recruitment and retention issue warranted adjustments beyond the Employer’s pattern. The grid adjustment and the vacation change are in my opinion unwarranted.

The evidence presented in this case demonstrated that the FI group is comparably paid to the both their private sector counterparts and to their proper internal comparator groups and thus no adjustments were warranted.

Furthermore the evidence indicated that on a total compensation basis the FI group is extremely well compensated.

On the issue of recruitment and retention the evidence established the following facts:

1. The FI population has grown from 3,533 in 2006/2007 to 4,154 in 2012/2013, an increase of 17.6%.
2. In 2012 the Employer has only 16 external postings for the entire FI group (this represents a 0.38% vacancy rate – 16 out of 4,154)
3. For the 16 external postings, there were 123 applicants on average per posting.
4. The Association gave no evidence of unfilled job postings
5. The Association led evidence at Tab 14 of their book of documents Volume 1 that demonstrates the large number of FI’s who were deemed surplus during the public sector downsizing, further tilting the supply demand equation. The number of individuals who were work force adjusted was 567, with 116 positions eliminated.  The FI group has 4,154 members of which 567 were work force adjusted. This works out to 13.6% (or 1 in every 7.3 employees) of bargaining unit being work force adjusted during the term of the agreement.

Given these facts I have to disagree with the majority of the Board that either recruitment or retention was a problem for this Employer.

How can an employer eliminating 116 positions and deemed 1 in every 7 employees surplus have a retention issue?

How can an employer receive 123 applications on average for each of the few vacancies that are posted externally and have a recruitment problem?

The majority of the Board also concludes that the Association’s group of internal comparators were an appropriate guide for this Board. I disagree with this approach.

I suggest that amajor flaw with this approach to assessing internal wage comparability is that it does not utilize valid job matching.  The Association’s assessment is based on a job matching technique which compares select occupational groups and levels that are deemed to be EX minus 1 or EX minus 2 equivalents for FI-3 and FI-4 levels, and work downward from these equivalency tables to assign comparators to the FI-01 and FI-2 classifications.  Comparisons were then made on a level-to-level analysis.  In each instance, the results cannot be considered valid since they do not imply that the work being done by the two positions are of equivalent value.  The equivalency tables were only meant to establish EX minus 1 and EX minus 2 feeder groups for the EX-01 level, not to be used as a tool for assessing wage comparability. 

It should also be noted that the occupational groups selected by the ACFO for comparison (i.e. AU, CO, EC, and PE) ignore the fact that there were other occupational groups and levels included in the equivalency tables (e.g. AS and PG groups) which received much lower relative rate of pay.   

With the exception of the EC group (which was just created in 2009) all the other groups including the groups not listed by the Association received the pattern increases with no other adjustments and no vacation improvements.

As a result of the evidence before the Board, I would have followed the overwhelming pattern of increase in the federal civil service without any special wage adjustments.”

Dated at Ottawa, Ontario this 5^th day of July, 2013.

Michel G. Picher
Chairperson

APPENDIX “A”

CURRENT PAY GRID

The current pay grid, effective November 7, 2010, is as follows:

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
FI-1	48,430	50,668	52,909	55,150	57,385	59,630	61,869	64,108	67,937
FI-2	58,951	61,685	64,420	67,157	69,893	72,627	75,362	79,971
FI-3	74,592	77,735	80,877	84,017	87,158	90,649	96,160*
FI-4	83,308	86,840	90,379	93,919	97,457	101,384	107,547**

*This figure does not include the 1 percent CFO Transitional Allowance currently available to FI-3s once they reach the highest increment level (level 7).

**This figure does not include the 2 percent CFO Transitional Allowance currently available to FI-4s once they reach the highest increment level (level 7).

PAY RESTRUCTURE & WAGE INCREASES

Step 1	Add the 1.75% wage increase effective November 7, 2011.
Step 2	Add the 1.5% wage increase effective November 7, 2012.
Step 3	Add the 2.0% wage increase effective November 7, 2013.
Step 4	Roll the CFO Transitional Allowance into salary for FI-3s and FI-4s effective November 7, 2013.
Step 5	Effective November 7, 2013 tocollapse the existing grid into 6 increments for all classification levels. Add a seventh increment to all classification levels.

Step 1 - 1.75% wage increase EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 2011

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
FI-1	49,278	51,555	53,835	56,115	58,389	60,674	62,952	65,230	69,126
FI-2	59,983	62,764	65,547	68,332	71,116	73,898	76,681	81,370
FI-3	75,897	79,095	82,292	85,487	88,683	92,235	97,843
FI-4	84,766	88,360	91,961	95,563	99,162	103,158	109,429

Step 2 – 1.5% WAGE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 2012

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
FI-1	50,017	52,328	54,643	56,957	59,265	61,584	63,896	66,208	70,163
FI-2	60,883	63,705	66,530	69,357	72,183	75,006	77,831	82,591
FI-3	77,035	80,281	83,526	86,769	90,013	93,619	99,310
FI-4	86,037	89,685	93,340	96,996	100,649	104,705	111,071

Step 3 – 2% WAGE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 2013

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
FI-1	51,018	53,375	55,735	58,096	60,450	62,816	65,174	67,533	71,566
FI-2	62,100	64,980	67,861	70,744	73,626	76,507	79,388	84,242
FI-3	78,576	81,887	85,197	88,505	91,814	95,491	101,297
FI-3	87,758	91,479	95,207	98,936	102,662	106,799	113,292

As part of the pattern wage increases from 2010 to 2013 and the termination of severance, the FI salary grid has increased by 5.25% (5.34% when compounded) for all levels.

STEP 4 – Roll the CFO Transitional Allowance into salary for FI-3s (1%) and FI-4s(2%) effective November 7, 2013.

Step 3 – 2% WAGE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 2013

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
FI-1	51,018	53,375	55,735	58,096	60,450	62,816	65,174	67,533	71,566
FI-2	62,100	64,980	67,861	70,744	73,626	76,507	79,388	84,242
FI-3	78,576	81,887	85,197	88,505	91,814	95,491	102,310
FI-4	87,758	91,479	95,207	98,936	102,662	106,799	115,559

STEP 5 – Effective November 7, 2013 to collapse the existing grid into 6 increments for all classification levels and add a seventh increment to all classification levels

Compress the pay grid to 6 increments and add a seventh increment with an additional 1 percent compounded at the top increment for all classification levels. The compression of the grid is to reflect the same percentage increase on the maximum increment level and the bottom increment level:

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
FI-1	51,528	54,988	58,447	61,906	65,365	68,823	72,282
FI-2	62,721	66,451	70,178	73,904	77,631	81,358	85,085
FI-3	80,186	83,565	86,942	90,318	93,694	97,447	103,333
FI-4	90,389	94,221	98,061	101,902	105,740	110,000	116,712

Effective November 7, 2013, bargaining unit members would be placed at the increment in the new grid that is closest to but not less than their current rate of pay.