No. 15

March 18, 1998

TREASURY BOARD WEB SITE OFFERS MISLEADING INFORMATION

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But is that really what Treasury Board had in mind? Early in March, a pay equity section suddenly appeared on Treasury Board's internet web site. The Alliance on the other hand has had a special section devoted to pay equity information on our web site - www.psac-afpc.com - since May 1997.

Why the sudden interest in a web site? Could it be the government is getting worried. By the end of March, we'll all have a better idea of when to expect the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision. Is Treasury Board trying a last-ditch attempt to persuade PSAC members to accept less than they're owed before the Tribunal reports?

The Treasury Board web site includes a chronology of pay equity in the federal public service. It's a very selective history. For example, the chronology jumps from 1991 to 1996 without mentioning the government's attempts to derail the Tribunal process during this period. Their tactics extended the process considerably and unnecessarily. The chronology also conveniently excludes the fact that it was Treasury Board who repeatedly walked away from the pay equity negotiations. The complete history has always been available to our members and can be found on our web site.

Contrary to Treasury Board's selective and inaccurate version of events, the Alliance has made no secret of the fact that it will take a large amount of money to settle this complaint. When Treasury Board walked away from negotiations last December, the Alliance reviewed the positions of both parties in our Bulletin #13 (Dec. 17/97) including a total costing of what we believe is owed.

Finally, their web site trots out again their last offer made in August, 1997. Significantly it doesn't make any mention of what is actually owed. While information on this offer was summarized in our Bulletin #10 (Sept. 11/97), for easy reference we've listed below both of Treasury Board's offers and our position on what is actually owed. Nothing has changed since August when their last offer was tabled. It still does not meet the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Pay Equity Guidelines and a previous Federal Court decisions. The PSAC's amounts are calculated on the results of the joint union-management pay equity study.

When reviewing these figures, please keep in mind the following important points.

Treasury Board's methodology is not consistent. It changes offer by offer. It changes within each offer. The Alliance has applied a consistent methodology, one which is consistent with the law and with past pay equity settlements.

The Treasury Board offer contains no provisions for interest or damages, even though Treasury Board had proposed simple interest before the Tribunal. Even Treasury Board's high-priced lawyer Mary Eberts made sure that interest was included in her contract. While not shown below, the Alliance has asked for both interest and damages.

While the ongoing amounts may seem quite attractive for some groups, the retroactive amounts are only about one-half of what is owed. For some, the Treasury Board offer on retroactivity for the period 1983 to 1987 is considerably less than that.

More than two-thirds of the employees covered by this offer are no longer federal government employees. Many of them are retired on very tiny pensions. Full retroactivity is their right by law and crucial to their ability to afford a retirement in dignity.

The full amount of the retroactive payments listed below, including both Treasury Board offers and PSAC calculations, only apply if you worked in the same group at the same level for the entire retroactive period.

Please Note:

• Due to space limitations, figures for the Hospital Services group have been provided only for those levels and zones where there are at least 10 employees. That does not mean that other HSs may not also be eligible for adjustments.

• The P.S.A.C. approach to adjustments for the Hospital Services group would eliminate Regional Rates, while the Treasury Board one would maintain them.