Pay Equity Bulletin # 10

N^o10

September 11, 1997

TREASURY BOARD REFUSES TO MEET

In a surprise move, Treasury Board announced on September 9^th that they were refusing to hold further pay equity negotiations unless the PSAC would agree to settle for about one half of what we believe is legally required. This is completely contrary to our discussions in August at which time we agreed to examine their latest proposal and get back to them in September. It is made in spite of PSAC President Daryl Bean's letter of September 5^th, requesting a meeting and indicating that the PSAC would be prepared to table a position on all outstanding matters at that time.

Highlights of Treasury Board's mid-August Proposal

This proposal includes a number of new methodologies - we've lost count of how many this makes - each applying to a different time period. Although we have some questions which we had hoped to have clarified at our next meeting, this appears to be what Treasury Board was offering:

Time Period	Methodology
April 1, 1997 to present	100% of an adjustment based on a male composite line which uses 1997 pay rates but eliminates 9 of the groups (even PM) included in the Joint Equal Pay Study. (Leaving out these groups reduces the amount of the adjustments.)
April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1997	The adjustments described in the box immediately below will be treated as pay for all purposes. For example, promotions and overtime will be recalculated and the 5% will no longer be paid.
April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995	65% of an adjustment based on a male composite line which uses male pay rates for 1993 but eliminates 4 of the male-dominated groups included in the Joint Equal Pay Study, plus 5% instead of recalculating such payments as overtime and promotions.
April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1993	65% of an adjustment based on a male composite line which uses male pay rates in 1987, plus 5% instead of recalculation of such payments as overtime and promotions.
Dec. 19, 1983 to March 31, 1987 (for the CR group) April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1987 (for all other female-dominated groups)	Lump sum payment of $3000 (to cover more than 3 years) pro-rated according to period of employment. Lump sum payment of $2500 (to cover a 3 year period) pro-rated according to period of employment. The lump sum payments are not based on any methodology whatsoever.

It is very important to understand that this proposal would amount to less than one half of what the Alliance calculates is owed, not the 65% to 100% that it may appear at first glance. This is because:

Treasury Board has dropped some of the higher paid groups from the male line;
the wage gap is not closed until 1997;
the male line is not recalculated between 1987 and 1993, a period when the wage gap increased dramatically because of large salary increases for some male groups; and
the lump sum payments before 1987 bear no relationship at all to the wage gap.

In our view, there is absolutely no justification for using different methodologies for different periods of time - other than the fact that something like a 5% payment instead of recalculation of things like overtime may be necessary for periods for which pay records no longer exist. We also believe that the Canadian Human Rights Act requires that the wage gap be closed completely, not 65% or less, as Treasury Board is proposing during the retroactive period.

Proposal on retroactivity particularly unfair

It's important to remember that this settlement would apply to far more former than current employees. Many of these former employees have retired on tiny pensions and are really struggling to make ends meet. In addition to being, as far as we know, illegal to pay less than full retroactive amounts, it is extremely callous to treat these former employees, who were discriminated against throughout their careers, in a totally discriminatory way now.

(No) Interest

Before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the PSAC requested compound interest, while Treasury Board proposed simple interest. In spite of that, Treasury Board has refused, throughout negotiations, to make any commitment at all with respect to interest. On the telephone, Mary Eberts suggested that Treasury Board was prepared to go "up to" simple interest, but, at negotiations she has always refused to confirm this.

Future Options

The Tribunal is expected to rule sometime in the next few months

Treasury Board President Marcel Mass has indicated that he will have a further announcement soon. There is widespread speculation that he may try to legislate a settlement. As the Ontario government discovered when they tried to repeal part of their Pay Equity Act, however, legislating away human rights is against the Charter.

The parties could return to the table to negotiate a reasonable settlement. We're more than ready! In spite of what Treasury Board has claimed, there are many areas in which we have shown flexibility. We are willing to look at any consistent methodology which closes the wage gap and meets the legal requirements. However, we can't find any methodology that would meet these requirements and cost as little as $1.3 billion, given the 14 years and close to 200,000 past and present employees affected.

Other Options

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 200,000 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.

Keep the pressure on

Parliament opens on September 22. Why not take this opportunity to show the government that you want the wage gap closed and the discrimination to end; you want what is owed to you. Join in the pay equity activities in your area. And keep those faxes and phone calls to Marcel Massé coming. His fax numbers are: (613) 952-5570, (613) 990-2806,

(819) 994-8557; his phone numbers are: (613) 952-5555, (613) 957-2666, (819) 994-8844.