Canadian Institutes of Health Research
March 18, 2008
Negotiations with Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Union going to court to fight arbitration award. »
Archives
Bargaining Update September, 2004As reported in our last update, due to the slow pace of negotiations and the lack of progress being made at the table, the bargaining team had applied for the services of a conciliation officer to assist the parties. The team was hopeful that the participation of an independent third party might accelerate the negotiations process and help achieve a collective agreement.
Meetings with the conciliation officer were held September 20 and 21 st . Unfortunately, little changed. The employer continued to reject various modest contract improvements that the PSAC has been able to achieve with other separate employers in this cycle of negotations. While the bargaining team made it very clear that we had a lot of flexibility regarding both our proposals and those submitted by the employer, we also emphasized that we needed to see some significant movement from the employer.
On the primary issue of pay and coversion to the new classification system, the union proposed a two-year contract with 3% increases in each year as well as an additional 3% increment to be added to the top of all pay grids. We also indicated that we wanted full salary protection for the small number of positions (3) that moved to lower-paying levels under the new classification system.
The employer tabled a wage proposal calling for a 26-month contract with a 0.333% adjustment to change the expiry date of the contract by two months and annual economic increases of 1.75 and 1.75 percent. These amounts are below any settlements that have been reached anywhere in the federal public service! Their model for conversion called for the elimination of the current fixed-step pay level system, replacing it with a model that would have a minimum and maximum rate and would see employees move up each year by 3%. The impact is that it would take employees an additional two years to move from the bottom of their pay range to the top. They also would reduce the current salary protection coverage provided for in the contract – this would affect employees on conversion and any future circumstances. The long and the short of it is that no employee in the bargaining unit would benefit financially from the conversion process. What they offered was also clearly inferior to what the non-represented employees had received.
On the second afternoon, the employer told the union and the conciliation officer that it had no room to move on the economic increases or on the conversion rates of pay. That statement effectively brought the conciliation process to an abrupt end.
The union will be applying for binding arbitration to resolve the issue of pay and the remaining items in dispute. A copy of the respective pay positions appears below.
PSAC Pay Position September 21, 2004
i) Effective February 1, 2004: economic increase of 3.0%
ii) Effective April 1, 2004 : conversion restructuring
• former AS employees only: economic increase of 3.0%
• adopt following pay structures
level 1 = CR-2 rates plus additional 3% increment at top
level 2 = CR-3 rates plus additional 3% increment at top
level 3 = CR-4 rates
level 4 = CR-4 rates plus additional 3% increment at top
level 5 = AS-1 rates plus additional 3% increment at top
• former CR employees in level 5 to be placed at nearest upward step
• all employees move up one step
iii) Effective February 1, 2005 : economic increase of 3.0%
Salary Protection
Employees converted to a grade level under the new Job Evaluation System having a lower maximum rate of pay will receive increment progression until they reach the maximum step of their former level. They will also receive all scheduled economic increases applying to their new level in the CIHR job evaluation plan.
Employees subject to salary protection as a result of the July 2002 re-organization will receive all scheduled economic increases applying to their new level in the CIHR job evaluation plan.
Employer Pay Position September 21, 2004
i) Effective February 1, 2004: economic increase of 0.333%
ii) Effective April 1, 2004 : conversion restructuring
Grade |
Minimum Salary |
Maximum Salary |
1 |
$29,103 |
$30,890 |
2 |
$31,422 |
$32,425 |
3 |
$33,257 |
$37,120 |
4 |
$36,374 |
$41,150 |
5 |
$39,915 |
$45,125 |
Employees move from the minimum towards the maximum by 3% each year
iii) Effective April 1, 2004 : economic increase of 1.75%
iv) Effective April 1, 2005 : economic increase of 1.75%
Bargaining Update June 10, 2004
The union bargaining team has completed its third bargaining session, meeting with the Employer on June 9, 2004.
It was another frustrating experience. The Employer continued to reject all union proposals to improve the working conditions for members of the bargaining unit, including proposals that have already been agreed to by Treasury Board or other Separate Employers. After five days of bargaining the only exception was a minor amendment to family related leave – the removal of the internal caps attached to the various circumstances under which the leave is granted (i.e. the one day for appointments, two days for birth or adoption).
Due to the slow pace of negotiations and the complete lack of progress being made at the table as a result of the Employer's behaviour, the bargaining team has decided to apply for the services of a conciliation officer to assist the parties. The team is hopeful that an independent third party will be able to accelerate the negotiations process and help achieve a collective agreement.
Bargaining update - April 8, 2004
The union bargaining team met with representatives of the Employer on April 6 and 7. The parties exchanged proposals and provided the rationale and explanation to support those proposals.
In response to incomplete information provided by the Employer, the union team requested information on the assignment of employees to the new job evaluation plan, specifically current classification level and rates of pay for all employees moving into each of the five levels. The Employer failed to provide that very basic information.
The union also requested information on the point boundaries for all the levels in the job evaluation plan in order to ensure that the respective levels are constructed in a fair and equitable basis. The Employer refused to provide the point boundaries for levels 6 and above - so as to prevent your representatives from having the ability to compare and examine how other CIHR employees are being treated.
The information requested by the union is necessary in order to develop our position regarding rates of pay and the rules for conversion to the new system.
The two days were extremely frustrating for your representatives and finally the team decided we had had enough of the Employer’s behaviour by about 2:30 on the second day.
Further meetings are scheduled for April 20, 21.
Your representatives on the bargaining team are Julian David and
Joanne Demers. Please feel free to contact them if you have any
questions or to obtain a copy of the union proposals.
Home Site Map Contact Us Bargaining Search Join Our Union Français
Date Modified : 2008/04/03
Public Service Alliance of Canada | 233, Gilmour Street, Ottawa, ONTARIO CANADA, K2P 0P1, Tel.: 1 888 604-7722 (PSAC)