N^o 9

August 15, 1997

Q. Have there been any further Pay Equity discussions?

A. Discussions have been continuing throughout the summer. Progress has been made. Treasury Board has recognized the Alliance's demands for retroactivity to December 1983 for CRs and March 1984 for the other groups. However, the amounts have not been agreed to.

Treasury Board also presented new methodology which the Alliance is currently analyzing.

Q. Will there be further meetings?

A. The parties intend to hold further meetings in September.

Q. Why was the PSAC asking for retroactive pay to 1983.

A. The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommends payment back to a year prior to the filing of a complaint. This was upheld by a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The complaint on behalf of CRs was filed in December, 1984, so the PSAC requested retroactive pay to December, 1983. The other groups were included in the joint study which began in 1985, so the PSAC requested retroactive pay to March 1984 for them.

Q. I was a CR 4 from 1988 to 1993 and an acting PM for a year in 93/94 and have been a

CR 5 since that assignment. How would my retroactive pay be calculated?

A. You would receive the CR 4 rate from your start date in 1988 to the date of your acting assignment and the CR 5 rate from the time you started working at that level. PMs are not part of this settlement so there would be no payment for the year you were an acting PM.

Q. My sister worked in the EU group until her retirement in 1992 and she passed away last year. What happens to the money she would have received if she were still alive?

A. The retroactive pay she would have received up until the time of her retirement will be paid to her estate, if application is made to her last department by her executor.

Q. Why is the Alliance requesting retroactive pay and ongoing adjustments for all DA-CON groups and DA-PROs at levels 1-3, but not for other DA-PROs?

A. Because the DA group is female-dominated, it is eligible for pay equity adjustments. The results of the 1985-89 equal pay study, which PSAC has used for calculating retroactive and ongoing adjustments, showed that DA-PROs above level 3 were not being underpaid when compared to the average rate of pay for male-dominated groups at the same point value.

Q. Why hasn't the Alliance put the Treasury Board offer to the members for a vote?

A. There are reasons why holding a vote is not practical or appropriate:

• Treasury Board now estimates that there are potentially 190,000 current and former employees affected by this settlement. Since many of them have resigned, retired or moved into other occupational groups (in some cases with other unions), organising a vote of all those affected would be almost impossible. It would not be fair, for example, for current employees to opt for a settlement with limited retroactivity when that is the most important issue for those who have retired.

• Since different groups and levels are offered different amounts, it would also be unfair for a vote by members of a group with a large adjustment to be binding on those who would only receive a small adjustment or none at all. Once again, because of the time elapsed, it would be virtually impossible to organise separate votes by various groups. Even if it were possible, accepting part of the settlement and rejecting the rest does not appear to be an option.

Q. I feel that Treasury Board's recent ads in the Ottawa newspapers were really misleading. They also posted these ads in the workplace. Why didn't the Alliance reply with ads of its own?

A. The Alliance has been providing information to members through regular bulletins and on our internal web site. Information is also provided by the union's regional offices and its 1-800 pay equity hotline. We believe this is a more effective way of keeping our members informed than expensive one-time ads in daily newspapers.

Q. Some of the questions and answers in these bulletins are starting to sound repetitive. Why?

A. The questions come from letters, faxes, phone calls, etc. we receive from the members. Sometimes we realize what we've answered needs clarification.