cape annual report 2004 - 2005acepcape.blob.core.windows.net/.../annualreport2004-05_e.pdf · 2014....

CAPE ANNUAL REPORT2004 - 2005

Canadian Association of Professional Employees

Table of Contents

President’s Message .............................................................................1

Dues, CAPE Members and the Future ..............................................3

Collective Bargaining .........................................................................6

Classification Reform: EC and TR ...................................................10

Pension Increase Outrageous! ..........................................................11

The Superannuation Act and the Employer’s Increase of Employee Contributions ............14

The Pension Surplus Litigation ........................................................16

The New Leviathan ...........................................................................17

Public Service Health Care Plan Negotiations ...............................21

CAPE Labour Relations ...................................................................22

CAPE Committees ............................................................................26

CAPE Local Leadership ....................................................................29

Membership Distribution ................................................................33

National Office Staff .........................................................................35

CAPE ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005 ...i

his year has been a year of enormous changeand enormous challenges. With a new Na-tional Executive Committee taking up its

President’s Message

Tposition in January, the first and most pressing issuefacing us has been the issue of the financial viabilityof the organization. Finding ourselves in the unen-viable position of assuming control of an organiza-tion in immediate need of financial stabilization,your National Executive Committee has applied itself to this task in a dedicatedand tireless manner.

Meeting Growing Demands on CAPE’s ResourcesAn expenditure review has been underway in order to ascertain where we can save– and likewise to ascertain what we cannot do without. This introspection has in-cluded a detailed analysis of the greater demands on our resources resulting fromthe Public Service Modernization Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act,and massive changes to the Public Service Employment Act. Treasury Board’s re-view of the EC Classification Standard, and a surprise review of the TR Classifica-tion Standard are further taxing our resources. You will see this as a recurringtheme throughout this document.

Maintaining a Viable CAPEMany of you will know that the CAPE National Executive Committee proposed asubstantial increase in dues in the summer of 2005, which was finally rejected by aslim majority of the membership. Faced with the prospect of running out of moneyto carry out our responsibilities as defined in law and by labour tribunals, we arepresenting a much smaller proposed increase this fall, in the hopes that the mem-bership will communicate its confidence in the organization by approving the in-crease so that we can continue to fulfill the requirements, demands and needs of ahighly regarded union – the 3rd largest union in the federal public service.

Who We Are and What We DoI hope that this annual report, its honest evaluations of what CAPE is, what it is wedo, what we need to do more of, and what we cannot do without, helps to cement

Change and Challenge

1... CAPE ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005

�TOC

in our members the understanding that CAPE is a vital federal public service union,one that has taken great pride in providing the best services and representation toits membership – the best that it is capable of. In order to continue, a dues increaseis an absolute necessity.

A National Executive Committee that is Dedicated and CommittedAgain, your National Executive has worked a long and arduous year. In my capac-ity as President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them, and to encour-age all of our membership to demonstrate the kind of dedication to theorganization that their peers on the National Executive Committee have demon-strated.

Still ServingIt has not all been a struggle, though. We have accomplished much, and many ofthese accomplishments and the hard work of your organization are reflected in thefollowing pages. Our visibility within the National Joint Council has increasedexponentially. Our activism on the Pensions Issues has been unfailing. We havebeen visible and prominent representatives on issues that matter to our members –again, pensions, classification reform, formal and informal representation of mem-bers, consultations and co-development committees, the continuous cycle of collec-tive bargaining, for our EC’s, for our members at the LoP, for our TR’s collectiveagreement and for their Financial Incentive Plan. The list goes on and on.

The Uncertain FutureBut again, all of this could be in jeopardy without the financial resources needed tomaintain the future of the Association. I ask you to read this Annual Report anddigest it. In particular I ask you to read the article entitled “Dues, CAPE Membersand the Future”. This is a sober and realistic assessment of how we came to be wherewe are, and what honestly needs to be done to redeem our future.

Together, we will make the Association stronger.

José AggreyCAPE President

CAPE ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005 ...2

�TOC

Dues, CAPE Members and the Future


CAPE was founded at a most inopportune time. The federal public service was about to

undergo major changes that would strain union resources across the federal public sector.

The every day manner in which unions relate to public sector employers was about to

expand in ways that were anticipated by no one. The Universal Classification System

(UCS) was replaced by a classification review exercise that would involve CAPE’s EC

members, and apparently now its TR members. Moreover, there were rumours of a review

of the classification of CAPE members at the Library of Parliament.

But neither the Social Science Employees Asso-ciation (SSEA) nor the Canadian Union ofProfessional and Technical Employees(CUPTE) were in a position to choose the tim-ing of their own demise. There were signs atTreasury Board that small bargaining agentswould be forced to merge in order to reducethe employer’s cost of labour relations. Thus,the merger became a pre-emptive move to en-sure that the respective memberships ofCUPTE and SSEA would become partners, be-cause they had been allies for so many years onso many issues. Moreover, there was a feelingthat a merger could delay an unavoidable in-crease in dues for SSEA and a possible increasefor CUPTE.

Other options were explored. There were in-formal talks with the leaders of other unions.But these talks never lead to a recognition of acommunity of interest. CAPE was “launched”,so-to-speak, in 2003, and the entire public serv-ice labour relations community has beenwatching, waiting, wondering whether theCAPE adventure would be successful.

Two Years OldTo some extent, the creation of a third “larger”union from the respected organisations thatwere SSEA and CUPTE was received as a posi-tive development in the labour relations envi-

ronment. Neither SSEA nor CUPTE had beenshy in the past to take a stand where the inter-ests of their members required strong advo-cacy. Both could be team players with otherunions. Both organisations were prepared tostand alone if they felt that it was necessary inorder to properly defend the interests of theirmembers. Both organisations had long histo-ries of working with management to approachproblems rationally and to seek solutions thatcould mend a work place torn by conflict.However, both organisations were relativelysmall and had limited impact. To combinewith a merger the forces of both organisationsin pursuit of shared objectives through sharedapproaches was seen as having the potential ofa great step forward for the respective mem-berships, and to some extent a positive devel-opment for labour relations in thepublic service.

But the timing, though it was imposed byevents, was not good. In addition to changes inlabour relations that would strain the re-sources of the new organisation, 2003 was nota good year to seek and rent new office space.So the founding organisations, which had an-ticipated manageable deficits and the prob-ability of a modest increase in dues maybe twoor three years after the merger, experienced anincrease in costs that could not be predicted.

�TOC


For an organisation of the size of CAPE work-ing with a small revenue base, the increase incosts was crippling.

OptionsBefore the end of the calendar year 2005,CAPE’s members will decide whether CAPE isthe best organisation to represent their inter-ests or whether CAPE will come to an end.

The decision will have long term effects onCAPE members. If members decide that theywant CAPE to continue to be their bargainingagent, they will do so by agreeing to an in-crease in their dues. If the dues increase is re-jected, then CAPE will have the option tobegin winding down operations. The nationaloffice will need to organize for an orderlytransfer of case files, bargaining table files, andconsultation files (eg: classification review). Asthe wind down progresses, most everythingwill slow down or need to be put on hold asCAPE lays off staff.

To whom the files are transferred will dependon the choices of each bargaining unit. Eachbargaining unit will need to chose either tojoin another union, or to set up their own un-ion. Of course, joining another union will de-pend on whether the other union is preparedto accept a CAPE bargaining unit. CAPEmembers can expect to pay significantly moredues than the increase proposed by CAPE’sNational Executive Committee in the largerunions. Smaller unions will be reluctant to beinundated by a large number of members thatwould potentially be in a position to take con-trol of their organisation.

Setting up a new union may sound more stra-tegic and less expensive. However, all bargain-ing units will share the cost of CAPE’sliabilities, which means that it should be ex-

pected that any decision to set up a new unionwill need to factor into the dues calculationthe costs of severing contracts including thelease of CAPE’s offices which runs for anothereight years. Moreover, the dues increases thatwere avoided for a short period of time bymerging will still be needed to meet the grow-ing costs of providing union services. The hardreality is that costs have gone up. Any new un-ion will need to address the issue.

ServiceIf members opt to wind down CAPE’s opera-tions, the matter of service to the memberswill need to be addressed. During the winddown, CAPE will continue to be responsiblefor carrying out its statutory duties. There areno provisions in the Public Service Labour Re-lations Act that allow a public service union tobe negligent because its members decide to putan end to the organisation. It will be impor-tant to transfer case files quickly in order toensure that the interests of each member isprotected. Even the most efficient transferprocess will cause delays. Collective bargain-ing will be delayed, as experienced by the CX(Correctional Services) community which isstill at the bargaining table after three years ofnegotiations (the CX group broke away fromthe Public Service Alliance of Canada threeyears ago to join the CSN).

There is no guarantee that staff, familiar withcases and with the bargaining interests of themembership, will find their way to the sameorganizations as each bargaining unit. Exist-ing unions have staff and they would have noobligation to hire CAPE staff in order to dealwith files coming from CAPE. Nor could anew union formed by one of CAPE’s bargain-ing units be able to guarantee career security.It is likely that CAPE staff would move to

�TOC

other employment opportunities; other un-ions and even employer representatives haverepeatedly made offers to CAPE’s professionalstaff over the past two years. Thus, there maybe a steep learning curve for some unsuspect-ing union staff somewhere, as well as a veryreal possibility that a few members and bar-gaining issues will fall through the cracks. Itwill probably be necessary for the organisa-tion to levy additional monies from the mem-bership in order to ensure that resources areavailable during the winding down period asstaff begin to leave.

Definitely, the overall cost to the individualmember will be significantly greater to moveto another union than to approve the pro-posed increase in dues at CAPE. Overall, thisshould be the case for a bargaining unit thatwould set up its own union, if liabilities, thecost of setting up a new organisation and thecost of addressing the growing work of publicservice unions are addressed responsibly. It is afantasy to imagine that it is possible to recre-ate an SSEA or a CUPTE as the world haschanged since 2002. Without diminishing thevalue of each of CAPE’s founding organisa-tions, it is important to realize that the sepa-rate resources of an SSEA and of a CUPTEwould fall far short of addressing the realitiesof the new labour relations environment.

Moreover, beyond the dollar concerns, dis-mantling CAPE would also mean dismantlingthe best team of labour relations professionalsin the public service, a team that includesClaude Archambault, Isabelle Borré, KarenBrook, Deborah Fiander, Liana Griffin,

Bertand Myre, Catherine O’Brien, JeanOuellette, Hélène Paris, Sylvie Richard andClaude Vézina. Its strength is in the combina-tion of contributions brought by each staffmember. As a collective it serves the member-ship with invaluable experience and knowl-edge and abilities.

Keeping CAPEKeeping it all together does come at a cost. Italways has. Maybe that’s why the word “un-ion” has always had a deep significance.

Now that the costs have risen, keeping CAPEtogether means an increase in dues.

The dues increase proposed by CAPE’s Na-tional Executive Committee was determinedby an exhaustive budgetary process wherebyeach line item was reviewed and challenged.Some services will change. Resources will bere-aligned to address new priorities includingthe process of negotiating an entirely new setof pay scales for the EC group further to con-version to a new standard, and reviewing theissue of translation done by public service em-ployees who are not TRs.

The dues increase will raise your dues to a levelthat is still significantly lower than all otherpublic service unions with the exception ofone. If you believe that it is the wisest course ofaction for you to support CAPE so that it cancontinue to work on your behalf over the nextfew years, and if you believe that CAPE is thebest organisation to represent your interests,tell us. The way to tell us now is to vote, and tovote “yes”.


The dues increase will raise your dues to a level that is

still significantly lower than all other public service un-

ions with the exception of one.

�TOC


Collective bargaining has become a continuous process for CAPE, where different stages

are increasingly overlapping. You may remember that negotiations of the EC collective

agreement began in 2003, broke down in April 2004, and were resolved at mediation and

arbitration in October 2004. During this same period, CAPE also negotiated a TR collective

agreement and the 2004-2005 edition of the TR Financial Incentive Plan (FIP).

Collective Bargaining

CAPE Negotiation LandscapeWhile the arbitrator was considering CAPE’spresentation on behalf of EC members in earlyOctober, the Association was preparing toagain negotiate a new TR agreement and a newversion of the FIP, and a new collective agree-ment for our members at the Library of Parlia-ment. A new FIP was signed at the end ofMarch 2005. Bargaining of the TR agreementbegan in June, with 15 full days of negotiationsset aside in the Fall. Bargaining for the Libraryof Parliament collective agreement began inSeptember, with several more dates set aside.

In September 2005 CAPE again began prepara-tion for the next round of EC (ES and SI) bar-gaining, as well as negotiation of the FIP for2006-2007. Thus, in the Fall of 2005 we are in-volved at the table or are preparing for fourseparate negotiations.

The EC Collective AgreementThe coming round of bargaining will be one ofthe most important rounds ever for EC em-ployees in the federal public service. CAPE in-tends to bring forth a number of issues thathave become irritants for our EC members.Most importantly, the next round is the classi-fication review round. The pay scales will bemelted down and reshaped in order to fit thenew EC classification standard that is almostcompleted.

Proposals will probably be exchanged sometime in June 2006, with bargaining starting in

the Fall. If all goes well at the table, the partiesmay reach an agreement some time in theSpring of 2007.

Our previous experience at the table for the ECgroup was fraught with frustration. The ECbargaining committee had sent the negotiatingteam on an ambitious adventure with over ahundred proposals. Some were addressed at thebargaining table. However, when CAPE brokeaway from the table after about nine monthsthere were many outstanding issues.

The bargaining team selected what it judgedwere the most important matters for referral toarbitration. CAPE was shocked that TreasuryBoard could not agree on an arbitrator:among the three names suggested by CAPE wasthe name of an arbitrator that Treasury Boardhad recently accepted for an impasse at anotherbargaining table. In the end, we were assignedFred Norman by the Public Service Staff Rela-tions Board.

Circumstances over which no one had controlworked against CAPE. About ten days beforewe appeared before the arbitrator, a less thangenerous arbitral award for another group wasreleased, and undermined our pay arguments.Moreover, Fred Norman was the conciliatorfor Table 1 of the Alliance, where another im-passe had developed. Norman was about to re-lease his conciliation report for Table 1 of theAlliance the day that he was to hear our case.Because conciliation reports are written to as-sist the parties to negotiate further, they usually

�TOC


leave some room for bargaining. Therefore,they are not particularly generous, which wasthe case for Norman’s Table 1 report. And, itbecame apparent that Norman was not aboutto reach different conclusions in his arbitralaward.

Just prior to the hearing, Norman encouragedthe Treasury Board and CAPE to work on out-standing issues through mediation. Two daysof mediation resulted in breaking down Treas-ury Board’s reluctance to make concessions. Infact, the parties may have made more progressduring these two days than during the previ-ous nine months of negotiation at the bar-gaining table. Several important issues wereresolved. Thereafter, our case was presentedby legal counsel, who used two expert econo-mists to outline the economic trends and envi-ronment. The decision was released about twoweeks later by Norman.

The arbitral award allowed for one break-through: the EC group was successful in get-ting wording that would allow parental leaveto be taken in more than one period. This hadbeen a long standing irritant for EC members,as the Employment Act allows for such flexibil-ity, whereas collective agreements in the fed-eral public sector did not. Subsequently, otherunions would eventually get the benefit attheir respective tables.

CAPE was frustrated again on the issue of pay.The difference in wage adjustment for the av-erage EC member when compared to thetrend at Treasury Board bargaining tables wasa little more than $90 in the third year of theagreement. On the positive side, CAPE was

successful in getting Treasury Board to agreeto returning to the table earlier than for mostother groups with a contract duration ofthree years rather than four. This was particu-larly important for our EC members in lightof the anticipated completion of the EC stand-ard. Had we agreed to a four-year contract, itwould have taken an extra year before wewould have the new standard in effect – an ex-tra year before the conversion to the newstandard and pay scales.

Financial Incentive Plan 2005-2006Negotiation of the Financial Incentive Planfor the TR group in 2005 was colored by theprevious round of bargaining. In 2004, theTranslation Bureau, like everyone else at Pub-lic Works and Government Services Canada(PWGSC), was concerned about contractsand costs. Consequently, the employer cameto the table with what was to the CAPE nego-tiating team an unacceptable set of proposals.The team was faced with a dilemma: the em-ployer’s proposals were unacceptable, yet, TRmembers had been consulted prior to bar-gaining, and a clear majority of members hadsaid that they wanted a FIP in 2005-2006.

When in doubt, ask the members. So the teamdecided to go back to the TR members withthe employer’s proposal in order to get direc-tion. The consultation was organized as avote, though it did not have the character of aratification vote as per our Constitution. Itshould be noted that the FIP contract is verydifferent from a collective agreement. It is acontract that applies to a TR member only ifhe or she volunteers to participate. Thus, it

When in doubt, ask the members.

�TOC


does not require a certification vote after bar-gaining because a member who doesn’t like itcan simply not participate, whereas with acollective agreement all of the members cov-ered by a ratified agreement are obligated toaccept it.

The employer was surprised, even takenaback, by the consultation. So, while the votewas being organized, the employer calledCAPE back to the negotiating table and sub-stantially improved its offer. The result was anew FIP, less generous than the previous ver-sion but significantly more generous thanwhat the employer had left on the table forCAPE to accept. The negotiating team foundthe offer acceptable and exercised its author-ity accordingly.

The agreement included, similar to previousagreements, a production ratio in the for-mula to calculate each participating mem-ber’s incentive monies. Unfortunately, as thenew FIP was coming into force the Bureau in-stituted a new production objective ratio fortranslation, which was exactly the same as theratio in the FIP formula. In addition to creat-ing a considerable amount of confusion overthe purpose of the FIP and of the productionobjective, this new objective was significantlyhigher than the previous objective. Suffice itto say that CAPE, the Translation Bureau Lo-cal in particular, spent a considerable amountof energy and time addressing the issue. Bythe time the parties were back at the FIP ne-gotiating table, the employer was prepared toconsider giving credence to the positions wehad put forth during consultations. A newFIP formula based on hours rather thannumber of words was proposed and the par-ties agreed to the details after a fair amount ofdifficult bargaining.

CAPE is preparing for another round of FIPbargaining. However, bargaining may not

take place, as it depends on whether the TRcommunity gives CAPE the mandate to nego-tiate prior to negotiations. Members will beconsulted this Fall. Moreover, there is a reso-lution put before the members this Fall which,if accepted, could have the effect of killing theplan. Stay tuned.

TR Collective AgreementThe previous round of bargaining resulted notonly in a wage adjustment that was betterthan the trend in the public service, but also inthe resolution of a pay equity complaint thathad been outstanding for several years. Con-ditions are different this time around. Thebargaining committee does not expect thekind of pay increases featured in the 2004-2005collective agreement.

TR members suggested several improvementsto their collective agreement, all of which havebeen reviewed by the committee. The packageof proposals that was finally put together bythe committee is fairly ambitious and couldresult in a lengthy round of bargaining.

AN & RA Collective AgreementPreparation of CAPE’s bargaining proposalsfor its members at the Library of Parliamentwas delayed by the untimely absence of its ne-gotiator who was on sick leave for the entiremonth of April. The delay made it impossiblefor the committee to complete its work priorto the Summer break, resulting in a delay tothe Fall of the first meeting at the table. Asusual, the response rate to the bargaining in-put questionnaire was quite high and pro-vided the committee with a clear idea of themembership’s priorities. Proposals were pre-pared accordingly.

At the time of writing this article, the dates forbargaining had yet to be finalized. CAPE sug-gested 19 separate dates to meet with the em-

�TOC


ployer at the bargaining table. If the employ-er’s team is available for these dates, we shouldbe able to complete bargaining before theChristmas break.

The challenge of negotiating with a smalleremployer is to reconcile the employer’s resist-ance to setting a trend with the legitimateneeds of the membership. In the previousround, SSEA cum CAPE and management atthe Library of Parliament had worked out a

constructive relationship at the table. As a re-sult, the issues that each party brought to thetable and identified as priorities were ad-dressed. The solutions were often compro-mises, but compromises that demonstratedgood will and imagination. The current roundwill require a similar spirit of compromise asthere are several issues that have been out-standing for some time and that are identifiedas recurring problems by CAPE members atthe Library.

The challenge of negotiating with a smaller

employer is to reconcile the employer’s resistance

to setting a trend with the legitimate needs of

the membership.

�TOC


Work on the new EC Classification Standard continues, on schedule. The Public Service

Human Resources Management Agency (PSHRMA) and a selection of departments

will be testing the new EC standard this Fall in order to ensure that its application to work

descriptions allows for consistent evaluations. This means that some departments have

already begun the process of transcribing work descriptions into the format that has been

designed for the new standard.

Classification Reform: EC and TR

At the time of writing this article, PSHRMA hasnot determined the rating scales for the eight el-ements of the standard. However, the ratingscales or point rating system will need to be fi-nalized shortly , with a final decision on thenumber of levels for the EC group. Then, infor-mation on all ES and SI positions will be en-tered into a database for the purposes ofcollective bargaining. Thus, the next round ofbargaining will be of particular importance forCAPE’s ES and SI members as the entire payscale structure in the EC collective agreementwill be changed as a result of the new classifica-tion schema.

Bargaining begins in the early Summer of 2006,and can be expected to last until late Winter2007 or early Spring 2007. If there is agreementat the table, the new rates could be effective atthat time, and conversion to the new standardwould proceed. Conversion rules regarding paymovement will be subject to negotiations.CAPE will endeavour to include salary protec-tion in the settlement for members who will beconverted to a lower rate of pay.

Every conversion results in some people landingon a step where the salary is greater than theirprevious salary, and some people landing on astep where the salary is lower. In most cases,those who land on a step with a lower rate ofpay than their previous rate of pay will want tocontest the classification. In other words, con-

version could mean grievances - many griev-ances. The rule of thumb is to plan for 15% ofthe affected members to grieve. The bargain-ing table may allow the parties to reduce thenumber of grievances. The use of genericwork descriptions may also reduce the num-bers. However, in the case of our EC commu-nity, CAPE should plan for a number ofgrievances that will be three or four times thenormal case load for CAPE’s seven LabourRelations Officers. Moreover, these griev-ances will need to be addressed at the sametime as CAPE continues to address its normalcase load. Current resources cannot meet thedemands of conversion.

In addition, CAPE has recently been in-formed that PSHRMA has delegated its re-sponsibility to review and reform the TRclassification standard to the Translation Bu-reau. At the time of writing this article, theAssociation was preparing to approach theBureau in order to determine how it wouldconsult with CAPE on the matter of changesto the standard. It is unlikely that the Bureauwill have completed its review and designed anew standard before the end of the currentround of bargaining. Therefore, conversionto a new standard would not occur until thenegotiated agreement expires, or the em-ployer asks and the union agrees to re-openthe collective agreement to negotiate payscales for the new standard.

�TOC


NJC Bargaining Agent Side members expressed their outrage at the unilateral

decision by the employer to increase employee pension contributions by 0.3% per year

over the next 8 years, starting in January 2006. When these changes were announced,

they were immediately and vociferously denounced.

Pension Increase Outrageous

“These changes are particularly insulting, giventhe timing of the announcement. We know thatthe government currently has an approxi-mately $7 Billion dollar pension surplus, overand above the $30 billion that they confiscatedfrom the employees. That this matter is beforethe courts, and that the hearings are scheduledto begin in November, makes this increase out-rageous,” said CAPE President José Aggrey.“What’s more, the Pension advisory committeehas already recommended a one time increase of0.2%. We strongly denounce this unilateral ac-tion, and find it entirely unacceptable.”

We underscore the fact that we are pursuing thematter of the pension surplus, in November. In

the interim, Bargaining Agents will be bringingpressure to bear, and developing strategieswith the goal of getting the employer to reversethis decision, and if necessary, implementing amore reasonable increase, more along the linesof the 0.2% increase recommended by the Pen-sion Advisory Committee.

The increased pension contributions will makeno changes in the pensions payable before age65. They make only minor increases in thepensions payable after age 65. When fully im-plemented in 2013, the pension increases afterage 65 for each year of service for employees attypical salary levels are shown in Table 1 below.

Summary of 2005 changes in pension afterage 65 for each year of service

Salary Pension in Increase2005 2013 $ %

$40,000 $520.00 $550.00 $30.00 5.77%

$50,000 $712.30 $743.13 $30.83 4.33%

$60,000 $912.30 $943.13 $30.83 3.38%

Table 1

�TOC


The changes make significantincreases in employee contribu-tions over the contributionspresently required. When fullyimplemented in 2013, the con-tribution increases for employ-ees at typical salary levels areshown in Table 2 (right).

Summary of 2005 changes inemployee contributions

Salary Contributions in Increase2005 2013 $ %

$40,000 $1,600.00 $2,560.00 $960.00 60.00%

$50,000 $2,311.50 $3,378.00 $1,066.50 46.14%

$60,000 $3,061.50 $4,218.00 $1,156.50 37.78%

A member earning a salary of$40,000 will be contributing60% more by 2013. Their pen-sion before age 65 will be un-changed. Their pension afterage 65 will be increased by 6%.



The “Employee required con-tributions” table, and the “An-nual pension for each year ofservice” table show how the in-creases in contributions andpensions after age 65 will beimplemented over the period2006 to 2013.

Table 2

Annual Year Employee required contributionsSalary

Before change After change Increasein 2005 in 2005 $ %

$40,000 2005 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $0.00 0.00%2006 $1,600.00 $1,720.00 $120.00 7.50%2007 $1,600.00 $1,840.00 $240.00 15.00%2008 $1,600.00 $1,960.00 $360.00 22.50%2009 $1,600.00 $2,080.00 $480.00 30.00%2010 $1,600.00 $2,200.00 $600.00 37.50%2011 $1,600.00 $2,320.00 $720.00 45.00%2012 $1,600.00 $2,440.00 $840.00 52.50%2013 $1,600.00 $2,560.00 $960.00 60.00%

$50,000 2005 $2,311.50 $2,311.50 $0.00 0.00%2006 $2,311.50 $2,461.50 $150.00 6.49%2007 $2,311.50 $2,611.50 $300.00 12.98%2008 $2,311.50 $2,761.50 $450.00 19.47%2009 $2,311.50 $2,884.80 $573.30 24.80%2010 $2,311.50 $3,008.10 $696.60 30.14%2011 $2,311.50 $3,131.40 $819.90 35.47%2012 $2,311.50 $3,254.70 $943.20 40.80%2013 $2,311.50 $3,378.00 $1,066.50 46.14%

$60,000 2005 $3,061.50 $3,061.50 $0.00 0.00%2006 $3,061.50 $3,241.50 $180.00 5.88%2007 $3,061.50 $3,421.50 $360.00 11.76%2008 $3,061.50 $3,601.50 $540.00 17.64%2009 $3,061.50 $3,724.80 $663.30 21.67%2010 $3,061.50 $3,848.10 $786.60 25.69%2011 $3,061.50 $3,971.40 $909.90 29.72%2012 $3,061.50 $4,094.70 $1,033.20 33.75%2013 $3,061.50 $4,218.00 $1,156.50 37.78%

Employee required contributions

Table 3

�TOC

Annual pension for each year of service

Annual Annual pension for each year of serviceSalary Before change in 2005 After change in 2005 Increase

$ %pre 65 post 65 pre 65 post 65 pre 65 post 65 pre 65 post 65

$40,000 $800.00 $520.00 2006 $800.00 $520.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2007 $800.00 $520.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2008 $800.00 $526.00 $0.00 $6.00 0.00% 1.15%2009 $800.00 $532.00 $0.00 $12.00 0.00% 2.31%2010 $800.00 $538.00 $0.00 $18.00 0.00% 3.46%2011 $800.00 $544.00 $0.00 $24.00 0.00% 4.62%2012 $800.00 $550.00 $0.00 $30.00 0.00% 5.77%2013 $800.00 $550.00 $0.00 $30.00 0.00% 5.77%

$50,000 $1,000.00 $712.30 2006 $1,000.00 $712.30 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2007 $1,000.00 $712.30 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2008 $1,000.00 $718.47 $0.00 $6.16 0.00% 0.87%2009 $1,000.00 $724.63 $0.00 $12.33 0.00% 1.73%2010 $1,000.00 $730.80 $0.00 $18.50 0.00% 2.60%2011 $1,000.00 $736.96 $0.00 $24.66 0.00% 3.46%2012 $1,000.00 $743.13 $0.00 $30.83 0.00% 4.33%2013 $1,000.00 $743.13 $0.00 $30.83 0.00% 4.33%

$60,000 $1,200.00 $912.30 2006 $1,200.00 $912.30 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2007 $1,200.00 $912.30 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%2008 $1,200.00 $918.47 $0.00 $6.16 0.00% 0.68%2009 $1,200.00 $924.63 $0.00 $12.33 0.00% 1.35%2010 $1,200.00 $930.80 $0.00 $18.50 0.00% 2.03%2011 $1,200.00 $936.96 $0.00 $24.66 0.00% 2.70%2012 $1,200.00 $943.13 $0.00 $30.83 0.00% 3.38%2013 $1,200.00 $943.13 $0.00 $30.83 0.00% 3.38%


Table 4

�TOC


Many members have communicated with CAPE in order to share with us their

opposition to the proposed increases.

The Superannuation Act and the Employer’s Increase ofEmployee Contributions

Some members also had questions regardinghow the federal pension plan works. Basic in-formation regarding the plan is available onthe Internet, at the Treasury Board Website atwww.tbs-sct.gc.ca. In addition, the Presidentof the Treasury Board is responsible for pro-ducing an Annual Report regarding the pen-sion plan. The last report available, for theyear 2003, is also available on the internet, atwww.tsb-sct.gc.ca/report/APSSA/2003/pspp-rrfp_fr.asp.

Some members have asked questions and com-mented on the necessity of a contributions in-crease and the integration of the Public ServiceSuperannuation Plan with the Canada PensionPlan and the Quebec Pension Plan. What fol-lows are some explanations that may be useful:

Increase in ContributionsRegarding the question of an increase in con-tributions, many members wanted to knowwhy Treasury Board has decided at this pointin time to increase the contributions of partici-pants in the superannuation plan. In their an-nouncement regarding the increase, the

Treasury Board indicated that they want toensure that “the costs of public sector pensionsplans are shared in a balanced way between theplan members and the Government, and ulti-mately, the Canadian taxpayer.”

The Public Service Superannuation Act dic-tates that the employer (the government ofCanada) and the employees of the federalpublic service must make contributions to apension fund, in order to finance future pen-sions benefits. Under the Public Service Pen-sion Plan, the Treasury Board decision is basedon the President who may establish theamount of contributions made by employees,every year. There are only two limiting fac-tors that are imposed:

1 – no single rate increase will exceed 0.4%(four-tenths of one per cent) of salary,

and

2- Rates will not increase past the pointwhere plan members are paying 40percent of the current service costs oftheir pension plan.

Many members wanted to know why Treasury Board has

decided at this point in time to increase the contributions of

participants in the superannuation plan.

�TOC

Thus, the government may increase the rate ofcontributions of employees by a maximum of0.4% (four tenths of a percent) of employee’ssalary per year, as long as the contribution ofthe employee does not surpass 40 percent ofthe current service costs of their pension plan.Employees in the federal public service arecurrently paying less than 40% of the servicecosts of the pension plan. The Treasury Boardmay then legally increase employee contribu-tions, and the announcement of a 0.3% in-crease per year conforms to the Public ServiceSuperannuation Act as long as the employees’contributions are less than 40% of the servicecosts of the plan.

How the Public Service PlanRelates to the Canada and QuebecPension PlansAccording to the Treasury Board Secretariat:

“The public service pension plan is integratedwith the Canada and Quebec pension plans(CPP/QPP). Integration affects both contribu-tions and benefits. This means, firstly, that youcontribute to your public service plan at a re-duced rate on your salary up to the maximumcovered by CPP/QPP. Secondly, it means thatyour pension under the public service plan willalso be reduced by a standard formula when youbecome eligible to draw CPP/QPP benefits at age65 or when you begin to draw CPP/QPP disabil-ity benefits at any age.”


For further information in this regard pleaserefer to Treasury Board’s Document entitled“Your Pension Plan”, which can be found athttp://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/Pensions/ypp1_e.asp.

For further information and details on the im-pact of the proposed contributions increase,please visit CAPE’s Website at www.acep-cape.ca

�TOC


At long last, it looks like the case challenging the federal government’s confiscation of the

surplus in the federal public service, Canadian Forces and RCMP Superannuation Plans is

in the home stretch.

Following passage of the government’s pensionlegislation in 1999 (Bill C-78), which allowedthe government to appropriate the $30 billionpension surplus, the Association joined withPIPSC, PSAC, The Armed Forces Pensioners’/Annuitants’ Association of Canada and theRCMP Veterans to contest the new legislation.This action claims ownership of the pensionsurplus for federal government employees.

The litigation in the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice regarding the surplus in the Public Serv-ice Superannuation Plan, the Canadian ForcesSuperannuation Plan and the RCMP Superan-nuation Plan is scheduled to go to trial com-mencing November 14, 2005, and the trial isexpected to last two to three weeks. Because ofthe large volume of evidence that will be sub-mitted, we can expect a decision by May of2006. However, we expect that whoever loseswill file an appeal following this decision.

Some of the steps necessary to get the case readyfor trial have taken place over the last fewmonths. The remaining steps have been sched-uled to take place prior to November 14th.

The most important recent developments havebeen the examinations for discovery of theplaintiffs in all three actions, which took place

in December 2004 and a case management con-ference on January 10, 2005.

In the January 10th case management confer-ence, all of the parties were able to agree on astrict time table for the various matters thatneed to be dealt with prior to trial. This in-cludes dates for finalizing an Agreed Statementof Facts and an Agreed Book of Documents.This is important because, to the extent that theparties can agree on certain facts and docu-ments, this can substantially shorten the lengthof the trial.

The schedule also provided for expert reports tobe completed by the plaintiffs by June 30, 2005and for the government lawyers to give theplaintiffs any expert reports they intend to relyon by September 30, 2005. It is expected thatmost of the witnesses at trial will be experts andtherefore the completion of the expert reportsby both sides will be a significant step in prepar-ing for trial.

Another key event in the preparation for trialwas a Trial Management Conference with thejudge who will be hearing the case, which wasscheduled to take place on September 23, 2005.At that point in time, the parties were expectedto have completed a great deal of the prepara-tion work for trial.

Because of the large volume of evidence that will be submitted,

we can expect a decision by May of 2006.

The Pension Surplus Litigation�TOC


In the wake of union reaction to program reviews in the 1990’s and to pruning of the

public service that resulted in the creation of the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency

(now the Canadian Revenue Agency), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and other

similar entities, Treasury Board Secretariate (TBS) realized at the end of the decade that

labour relations in the public service were, at best, strained. Prodded by public service

bargaining agents and by various third party observers including politicians, TBS

initiated a review which was assigned to an advisory committee, the Advisory Committee

on Labour Management Relations in the Federal Public Service (Fryer committee).

The New Leviathan

The committee consulted extensively, includ-ing union officials and employer representa-tives, and produced an impressive reportreleased in June 2001. The recommendationswere viewed by most observers as suggesting aset of changes that would balance the interestsof the principals involved, giving precedenceto an improved labour climate within thepublic service ultimately to allow for betterservice to Canadians.

The underlying conclusion of the report’s re-view was a two-pronged observation thatpower was seriously skewed in favour of theemployer and that bargaining agents hadfailed to engage their members in a relation-ship with an employer that has that specialpower to pass laws. Bargaining agents had res-ervations about the report, but were preparedto accept the bad with the good as long as theemployer was prepared to accept the wholepackage as well.

However, the report proved too risky for theemployer as it recommended a shift, minor asit was, in the balance of power. The employer’sresponse was to preempt the release of the re-port by creating a task force, the Task Force onModernizing Human Resources Managementin the Public Service (headed by Ranald

Quail). As a result, the issue of labour relationswas subsumed under the rationale of humanresources management. The concern thereafterwas to be the improvement or “modernization”of HR management. In short, the question thatwas asked changed, though the problems thathad been the source of the reflective processwere still the same. In other words, the wrongquestion was being asked.

The task force set out to consult various partiesbut under an unusually suffocating cloak ofconfidentiality that included the practice oftelling unions who they could send to representthem at meetings. The task force appeared tofeel compelled to placate a group of anti-unionDeputy Ministers simply to make some head-way on matters of labour relations. The mem-bers of the task force, including Ranald Quailand Monique Boudrias, were sympathetic tounion concerns. But the process was not ame-nable, nor was the existing balance betweenanti-union Deputy Ministers and DMs with amore modern management perspective, whichwas skewed in favour of the anti-union DMs. Inthe end, the task force made recommendationsthat were transformed into 300 pages calledBill C-25, the proposed Public ServiceModernization Act.

�TOC


A short six weeks after first reading of the billin the House of Commons, in late March2003, SSEA, one of CAPE’s founding organiza-tions, and other bargaining agents were ap-pearing before the Standing Committee onGovernment Operations and Estimates topropose amendments. While the committee,chaired by Reg Alcock (currently the Ministerresponsible for Treasury Board ) appeared tobe receptive to representations made before it,in the end only cosmetic changes were madeand serious issues were simply ignored.

When the bill moved to the Senate, so did bar-gaining agents. SSEA and other unions ap-peared before the Senate Standing Committeeon National Finance on September 2, 2003.SSEA’s argument regarding the importance ofprotecting the primacy of relative merit in thestaffing process was picked up by one Senator.But the bill passed without amendments.Royal assent was delayed for reasons un-known. Then, it was official in late November:the Public Service Modernization Act was pro-claimed.

Transition to the new orderIn the wake of years of labour unrest in thepublic service, the answer was the Public Serv-ice Modernization Act (PSMA). But it was notan answer to the question of labour relations.It was an answer to the question of human re-sources management, a question posed from aperspective seriously affected by indifferenceto public service bargaining agents at best, orat worst by anti-union sentiment.

The Public Service Modernization Act receivedroyal assent in 2003. The Act made substantialchanges to the Public Service Employment Act(PSEA) and to the Financial AdministrationAct, transformed the Public Service Staff Rela-tions Act into a very different Public Service La-bour Relations Act (PSLRA), and replaced theCanadian Centre for Management DevelopmentAct with the new Canada School of Public Serv-ice Act.

Changes were scheduled in a way that wouldaccommodate the employer’s resources andability to manage the changes. The newPSLRA came into effect on April 1, 2005. Andthe new PSEA will come into effect in Decem-ber 2005. For the most part, these far-reachingand numerous changes to labour relationsand conditions of employment in the federalpublic service have yet to make themselves feltin the work place (see “The Public ServiceModernization Act - Beyond Consultationand Co-development” in Professional Dia-logue, April 2004). However, they have al-ready significantly changed the landscape forbargaining agents.

In fact, the labour relations environment hasbeen destabilized to an extent that bargainingagents have been placed in a situation where,at the same time as they endeavour to provideunion services to their members, they are chal-lenged with a running review of their role inthe work place and concomitantly of their re-lationship to the employer. The new statuteshave ushered in a period where the employerhas been assigned the role of managing and di-

The new statutes have ushered in a period where the employer has

been assigned the role of managing and directing change, while bar-

gaining agents have been relegated to a reactive role of trying to keep

up with the changes forced by the employer.

�TOC

recting change, while bargaining agents havebeen relegated to a reactive role of trying tokeep up with the changes forced by the em-ployer. The irony of all of this is that it is thisvery dependent type of relationship which in-variably leads to frustration and confronta-tion, that observers five years ago argued mustbe changed.

Unfortunately, the instability being experi-enced by most if not all public service unionshas been exacerbated by the untimely depar-ture from the front lines of several union lead-ers, including CAPE’s own Bill Krause and LucPomerleau. Furthermore, many experiencedunion staff officers have moved to new careersmade possible by the expanded role of thePublic Service Labour Relations Board and bythe creation of a new staffing tribunal. Thus, alarge chunk of the union side representationthat experienced the battles of the nineties andthat had a well articulated position on theproblems that underlie labour relations in thefederal public service are no longer availableto fight the good fight.

Add to the mix the incredible strain on unionresources owing to the dual workload of thetransition period, and it is easy to understandwhy the past couple of years have been a mostdemanding period for federal public serviceunions. Those union officers who are left arenot only taking care of every day business, afull time activity in itself, but also respondingto changes and providing guidance and train-ing to the new generation of union officerswho have generously stepped forward to fillempty seats.

Some reasons for concernExperience of labour relations during thetransition period has already given unionsreason for concern. In many ways, the legisla-

tion’s consequences are unfolding as expected,like a steam roller’s wake over union advocacy.

For the past few months, Informal ConflictManagement Systems (ICMS) have been setup all across the public service. Bargainingagents have been “consulted”. But by and largethe systems that are being set up in each de-partment are copies of the model put togetherby the Public Service Human Resources Man-agement Agency (PSHRMA). CAPE has ar-gued that this model undermines thesafeguards of formal redress procedures andthe advocacy role of unions. With possibly oneexception, our concerns have not been heeded.

Co-development is being hailed as the way ofthe future. Yet, as CAPE has argued and dem-onstrated time and time again, co-develop-ment without an impasse resolution process issimply another word for tapping into unionknowledge and expertise for the purposes ofselecting what management wants to use forits own purposes. The notion of partnership iscontradicted by the employer’s control overthe decision-making process. The converginginterests of unionized employees and of em-ployer which was the supposed objective of co-development is nowhere to be seen.

And there is little to say about the new staffingsystem that is positive. The new system isskewed in such a way that many promotionswill be replaced with appointments from out-side the public service. Those promotions thatwill occur will be based mostly on individualmerit which means that managers will not bepromoting the most meritorious employee.Recourse has been weakened as the groundsfor invoking recourse are reduced to two is-sues: abuse of authority, which is very difficultto prove, and language, which was rarely theproblem invoked in the past by appellants.The time lines are shorter; moreover, the in-


�TOC

troduction of a new informal step in the re-course process will create confusion. In short,promotions will become less accessible, andchallenging staffing decisions will becomemore difficult.

If the past two years are a sign of the new Le-viathan, there is good reason for public serviceemployees to be concerned.

ResponseIt has become clear that in the new order es-tablished by the new legislation labour man-agement relations will be affected by anoverriding tendency. The tendency will be foremployer interests to subsume employee inter-est in the name of improved relations and “co-operation”. Such is the result of changing theproblem from one of union management rela-tions to one of human resources management.

A veneer of harmony will undoubtedly allowmany labour relations practitioners to believetemporarily that the new order is working.But the underlying problems will remain andwill continue to affect relations, and more im-portantly the work place. Distinctive objectiveemployee interests will not “conveniently” dis-appear. They will percolate through the ve-neer as unions advocate on behalf of theirmembers. Public service employees throughtheir union representatives will need to be

vigilant and avoid losing sight of specific em-ployee interests. It will be important for em-ployees and their unions to recognize theirown interests, to identify the employer’s inter-ests, and to seek convergence wherever possi-ble Paradoxically, it is this very advocacy thatcan give rise to a true partnership, to a trulycooperative relationship with the employer.This course of action should in fact be the ex-pectation of managers who are concernedwith good employer-employee relations. Al-lowing concerns to be muted in the name ofagreement can only lead to frustration andconflict. Unions need to express, and manag-ers need to know the realities of, employeeneeds.

The transition period may be too early to passjudgement on the legacy of the new legislation.After all, we are far from having felt its fullforce in the work place. Yet, when the solutiondoes not fit the real problem it is difficult toimagine how the outcome will be positive.There will be a period during which unionswill do their best to make the legislation work,while continuing to carry out their advocacyrole. The period of cooperation will be fol-lowed by frustration, as it will become clearerthat the new statutory framework is meant tofix HR management and not labour manage-ment relations. And frustration will be fol-lowed by confrontation.


The period of cooperation will be followed by frustration,

as it will become clearer that the new statutory framework

is meant to fix HR management and not labour

management relations.

�TOC

After lengthy and sometimes very difficult bargaining, the three parties to the negotiation

of a new Public Service Health Care Plan are close to reaching a tentative agreement.

Public Service Health Care Plan Negotiations

The negotiations have been undertaken byrepresentatives of the NJC Bargaining Side,the Federal Superannuates National Associa-tion, and the Employer Side.

While the details have yet to be finalized andpublicized, the parties are confident that onceeverything has been set to paper, agreementwill be unanimous.

It has been a successful experience of unioncollaboration at the table, with bargainingagent representatives from various unions andthe FSNA working to improve the plan for ac-tive and retired public service employees. José

Aggrey, President of CAPE, participated in thenegotiations and wishes to thank his col-leagues, in particular Paul Morse, BusinessManager of the International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, as well as Jean-GuySoulière, Executive Director of the FederalSuperannuates National Association.

For further information on the Public ServiceHealth Care Plan, please consult the TreasuryBoard website, at:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpb-rssfpp_e.asp


While the details have yet to be finalized and publicized,

the parties are confident that once everything has been set

to paper, agreement will be unanimous.

�TOC


CAPE employs the professional services of six Labour Relations Officers, a Senior Labour

Relations Officer, and a Director of Professional Services. Throughout the course of the year,

the Association’s Labour Relations Officers have been handling an increasing caseload, as

well as the growing responsibilities of consultations and co-development with

Departments, Agencies and with the employer at the national level. The Labour Relations

Officers are also responsible for professional services to locals, and for supporting Local

Officers at consultations, and in representations.

CAPE Labour Relations

RepresentationWhat follows is only a glimpse at the workperformed by your Labour Relations Profes-sionals:

• A member grieved the decision of thedepartment that denied her the right tohave paid parental leave in accordancewith the collective agreement. Thedepartment’s decision to deny parentalleave was based on their interpretationthat the employee did not meet atechnical requirement under the paren-tal leave provisions. CAPE viewed thisinterpretation as being in violation ofthe Human Rights Code on the prohib-ited grounds of family status. Thedepartment resolved the grievance atthe final level to the full satisfaction ofthe member.

• The Association successfully repre-sented a member on an Appeal basedon allegations that the competitiveprocess offended the merit principle.The Appeal Board Chairperson al-lowed the appeal, on the grounds thatour member was unjustly screened outof a competitive process for an ES 6

position. After reviewing all of theallegations, the Chairperson deemed thearguments advanced by the department,which denied our member the right tocompete, violated the merit principle.

• An Appeal by four members in theNational Capital Region was allowed.Because the corrective measures imple-mented failed to result in a meritoriousselection, the department agreed toconcede the appeal. In the subsequentcompetitive process, which resultedfrom the corrective measures, anotherappeal was filed. Their appeal for ourmember was also allowed, since it wasdetermined by the Chairperson that thedepartment erred in the manner inwhich they conducted the references forthe appellant. Corrective measures tofollow.

• A member filed a classification griev-ance in order to have the employerrecognise that the additional dutiesadded to the position should suffice toreclassify the substantive position to ahigher level. The Association presentedthe case to a grievance committee, and

�TOC

upon completion of the union’s summa-tion, a member of the committee sug-gested that the parties resolve this case.After many meetings the parties wereable to come to an agreement. Thehighlight of the settlement is that theemployee will be reclassified to a higherlevel, the effective date going back toApril 2002. The member’s salary willincrease accordingly and a retroactivepayment of more than $10,000.00 willbe made.

• A member filed a Human Rights com-plaint against the employer due to thelack of effort in accommodating hermedical condition, which prevented thismember from completing the frenchtraining at the PSC school. A settlementwas reached in mediation, and themember will receive financial compensa-tion for pain and suffering. Also, aprivate tutor will be provided to com-plete the language training.

• The employer imposed a two daysuspension on one of our membersalleging lack of productivity and notfollowing orders from management.

A grievance was filed and presented toall levels of the process. The designatedrepresentative of the employer at thefinal level agreed that the two dayssuspension was too severe, and thediscipline was reduced to a letter on file.

• Three employees filed a complaint withthe Public Service Commission contest-ing the appointment of one of ourmembers who had been hired on adeterminate basis, and who was subse-quently appointed without competitionto a position on an indeterminate basis.The complainants alleged, among otherthings, that the member in question hadobtained the first appointment byadministrative favoritism, and that theydid not meet the statement of qualifica-tions of the indeterminate position.Following an initial investigation by thePublic Service Commission, the investi-gating officer came to the conclusionthat our member did in fact meet thestatement of qualifications upon beingnominated without competition to theindeterminate position, but did notmeet the statement of qualifications


The burden placed on unions in the build-up to the

PSMA, the PSLRA and the PSEA has only been a prelude to

the increased load that CAPE will be carrying as a result of

the changes brought forth by these Acts.

�TOC

when originally appointed to thedeterminate position. The investigat-ing officer did not meet with ourmember during the course of theinvestigation. She recommended thatthe appointment be rescinded.

We challenged this first investigation reportbefore an Investigative Committee, by virtueof Article 6.3 of the Public Service Employ-ment Act. The Association and the employerdemonstrated that the conclusions of the firstinvestigation were erroneous, that our mem-ber did meet the statement of qualifications ofthe initial term position. The member didnot benefit from administrative favoritism,and the initial appointment respected all as-pects of the law, Regulations and Policies of thePublic Service Commission.

A member was participating in the Acceler-ated Economist Trainee Program. She hadbeen promoted to an ES-04 position in 2002,and in 2003 had received an evaluation for apromotion to the next level with an indicationthat she would be promoted to an ES-05 inDecember of 2003. She began maternity leavein September 2003, and returned to work inMay 2004.

In March 2004, she received a letter informingher that the Department was reclassifying herto the ES-05 level effective December 2003.She accepted the appointment the samemonth. Upon her return to work, the em-ployer withdrew the offer of appointment andsent her a modified letter indicating that her

appointment to the ES-05 group and levelwould not take effect until June 2004. Follow-ing the advice of the Association, she neitheraccepted nor refused the modified letter of ap-pointment. She filed a complaint with thePublic Service Commission demanding thatthey confirm her nomination to the ES-05level commencing December 2003, and thatthey cancel the attempt to reclassify her retro-actively from the ES-05 to the ES-03 level forthe period of December 2003 to June 2004.

The Public Service Commission found that“the contractual nature of said letter of ap-pointment makes it such that it overrides theprovisions of the progression guidelines of theprogram” and concluded, “that the letter ofappointment issued March 24 2004 with itsretroactive effects to December 1, 2003 is up-held so as to produce all its consequences.”

The Public Service Commission must now de-cide on appropriate corrective actions.

The Association successfully represented amember who was wrongfully dismissed duringthe probationary period.

ConsultationsCAPE is called upon to participate in all serv-ice-wide consultations because we are thethird largest union in the federal public serv-ice. In addition we are asked to consult withalmost 70 departments, agencies and tribunalswhere our members work. This degree of con-sultations periodically strains our limited re-sources. We play an active role on the


The simple matter of keeping abreast of changes and differences in

guidelines and policies over so many departments and agencies can

be a herculean task, and as a result, our LRO’s, who already carry a

tremendous load, will be called upon to do more.

�TOC

National Joint Council, and are involved withseveral working groups and committees, includ-ing the Public Service Commission AdvisoryCouncil working groups on Mobility, Pre-quali-fied Pools, and Co-Development, the NJC Den-tal Care Board of Management Committee, theDisability Insurance Board of ManagementCommittee, the Official Languages Committee,the Joint Employment Equity Committee, theWorkforce Adjustment Committee, the JointCompensation Advisory Committee, and thePensions Committee.

We are also present on the Public Service Hu-man Resources Management Working Groupson Staffing Recourse and Staffing Tools andModels and have collaborated successfully withother unions on issues of community interest,an example is the recent negotiation of a tenta-tive agreement regarding the Public ServiceHealth Care Plan.

The burden placed on unions in the build-up tothe Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA),the Public Service Labour Relations Act(PSLRA) and the Public Service Employment

Act (PSEA) has only been a prelude to the in-creased load that CAPE will be carrying as aresult of the changes brought forth by theseActs. Both in terms of human resources, andfinancial resources, the costs are mountingand will continue to grow. While bargainingagents attempt to minimize these costs bycalling on Local Leaders to participate in con-sultations, at the same time we call on the Em-ployer to help us in accommodating theunion representative who also has aregular job.

To a large degree the consultations regardingthe development of individual departments’and agencies’ guidelines and policies, are andwill continue to be attended by CAPE’s pro-fessional staff. With members in almost 70 de-partments these processes can be anenormous drain in terms of time and re-sources. The simple matter of keeping abreastof changes and differences in guidelines andpolicies over so many departments and agen-cies can be a herculean task, and as a result,our LRO’s, who already carry a tremendousload, will be called upon to do more.


�TOC


José AggreyCAPE [email protected]

Derek BrackleyVice President EC/LoPHuman Resources and SkillsDevelopment Canada

Richard OslundTR Vice-PresidentPublic Works and Government ServicesTranslation Bureau

Carol CardTR DirectorPublic Works and Government Services

Tom FurmanczykEC DirectorEnvironment Canada

Howard HaoEC DirectorStatistics Canada

Marcy HolykEC DirectorNational Defense

Maurice KorolEC DirectorAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Robert McVicarEC DirectorStatistics Canada

André PicotteTR DirectorPublic Works and Government ServicesTranslation Bureau

Philip RosenLoP DirectorLibrary of Parliament

Anna SiposEC DirectorForeign Affairs Canada/InternationalTrade Canada

CAPE National Executive Committee

André Picotte - ChairPublic Works and GovernmentServicesTranslation Bureau


Derek BrackleyVice President EC/LoPHuman Resources and SkillsDevelopment

Finance Committee

Com

mitt

ees

To contact any member of CAPE’s Committees or Local Leadership, call our National Office at 613-236-9181 or 1-800-265-9181.

Stan SpakEC DirectorAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Clayton TherrienEC DirectorStatistics Canada

Claude DanikDirector of Professional ServicesCAPE

Donna MartinManager of Administration [email protected]

Luc GervaisTranslation BureauPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Klaus KostenbauerStatistics Canada

Mike MonaghanStatistics Canada

Richard OslundTranslation BureauPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada


Clayton TherrienStatistics Canada

Sandra WensinkFinance OfficerCAPE

�TOC


Com

mitt

ees

Frédéric Beauregard-Tellier

Micheal Dewing

Andrew Kitching

Library of Parliament Collective Bargaining Committee

Sonya Norris

Philip Rosen


Frédéric Beauregard-Tellier

Micheal Dewing

Andrew Kitching

Library of Parliament Collective Bargaining Team

Sonya Norris


Hélène ParisResearch OfficerCAPE


Jean BlaisPublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Suzanne DumasPublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Ellen GarmaisePublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Luc GervaisPublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Lionel PerrinPublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

André PicottePublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

TR Negotiating Committee: Financial Incentives Plan (FIP)



Carol CardPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Karine CircéPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Suzanne DumasPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Ellen GarmaisePublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

TR Collective Bargaining Committee

Luc GervaisPublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Micheline LaSallePublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Lionel PerrinPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

André PicottePublic Works and GovernmentServices Canada

Claude PoirierPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada


Hélène ParisResearch OfficerCAPE236-9181

�TOC


Communications Committee

Philip RosenLibrary of Parliament

Clayton TherrienStatistics Canada

Michael ZinckDepartment of Veteran’s Affairs

Olivier Lalande - ChairAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Michael Dewing - Co-ChairLibrary of Parliament

Mohammad AliHealth Canada

David AubryPublic Works andGovernment Services CanadaTranslation Bureau

Elections Committee

Ben BedouaniNatural Resources Canada

Larry DetersStatistics Canada

Patrick FothergillIndustry Canada

Adrian JohnsonPenitentiary Services

Trong NguyenHealth Canada

Donna MartinCAPE Manager ofAdministration Services

Maurice Korol - ChairAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Jose AggreyCAPE President

André PicottePublic Works and Government ServicesTranslation Bureau

Com

mitt

ees

Deborah FianderCAPE Communications Officer

Constitution and By-Laws Committee

Carl LakaskiHealth Canada

Michael MonaghanStatistics Canada

Graham MyresHealth Canada

Trong NguyenHealth Canada

Richard OslundPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Clayton Therrien ChairpersonStatistics Canada


Bachir BelhadjiHealth Canada

Derek BrackleyHuman Resources and SkillsDevelopment Canada

Tom FurmanczykEnvironment Canada

André PicottePublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Luc PomerleauPublic Works and Government ServicesCanada

Philip RosenLibrary of Parliament

Donna MartinManager of Administration ServicesCAPE

�TOC


Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (Local #507)

President Luc TanguayVice-President Chris LeggetSecretary/Treasurer Roy BlaisStewards Maurice Korol

Margaret ZafiriouHealth & Safety Representative John Wheeler

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Steward Donna Duvall

Canadian International Development Agency(Local #517)

Vice-President Rebecca MellettSecretary / Treasurer Pierre BernierSteward / Contact Ghislain Dussault, Josée Patry

Canadian Radio-Television & TelecommunicationsCommission

Stewards Hermina HarrisChristian Maranda

Elections Canada (Local #518)

President Louise LussierVice-President Steve SkorenkyTreasurer Éric BolducSecretary Deborah IsaacDirector Jeff Campagnola

Environment Canada (Local #505)

Directors/Steward Marie JettenStewards Adam AuerHealth & Safety Representative Tom Furmanczyk

Foreign Affairs & International Trade (Local #516)

President Archie CampbellVice-President Anna SiposTreasurer Karen DiechunDirectors John Aboud

Sylvie-Aimée Anseme –BahaCharles La SalleKatie MacLaurin

Christine PendragonNancy Stewart

Bill Wilson

Health Canada (Local #512)

President Carl LakaskiTreasurer Martine Brault-KrzanCommunications Officer Ron WallStewards Bachir Belhadji

Sandra ChattertonAllan Gordon

Ida HendersonJohn HorvathPatrick Laffey

Tom LipsPierre Levasseur

Carol MilstoneSimone Powell

Human Resources Development Canada (Local # 514)

President Barry MaloneyVice President Syed NassemStewards Antonio Bakopoulos

Cynthia CarterKenneth Horricks

Marc LacroixGilles Léger

Damian LondynskiSarah Lutaaya

Garry MalloyBarry Maloney

Jean-François PlamondonChristian Strano

Health and Safety Representatives Alex BerljawksyBarry Maloney

Immigration and Refugee Board (Local #501)

President Louise HollisterVice-President Laurie HamSecretary Treasurer Louise CarriereStewards Sean Dineen

Christine SarafianSean Stewart

Suzanne Tomek

Indian & Northern Affairs (Local #502)

President Patrick SampsonTreasurer Jean FiskStewards Saajida Deen

Steve RozakNancy Stewart

Health & Safety Representative Steve Rozak

Local Leadership

National Capital Region Representatives

Loca

l Lea

ders

hip �TOC


Loca

l Lea

ders

hip

Local Leadership cont’d...

Industry Canada (Local #508)

Directors Jeff CormanNorman Fee

Marnie McCall

Justice Canada (Local # 513)

Directors Josée BarilPhyllis DohertyRoseanne Kelly

Paula McLenaghanHealth & Safety Representatives Robert Depew

Phyllis DohertyJane Evans

Judith EyamieHealth and Safety Policy Committee

Representative Phyllis Doherty

Library of Parliament (Local #515)

Directors Frédéric Beauregard-TellierMichael DewingAndrew Kitching

Sonia Norris

Library and Archives Canada

Steward Gabriel Breton

Public Service Commission (Local #509)

President Carole SageVice-President Christine AubrySteward Debbie Romain

Statistics Canada (Local # 503)

President Clayton TherrienVice President Robert McVicarTreasurer Mike MonaghanHealth and Safety Representative Anna Morrone

Julienne PattersonEmployment Equity Officer Clayton TherrienDirectors Anne Catalano

Gordon DaviesHoward Hao

Klaus KostenbauerStewards

Agriculture Wayne ArmstrongLes Macartney

Business Register Bill ParrottConsumer Prices Section Elda AllenIndustrial Org. & Finance Victor Brown

Mike MonaghanInternational Trade Raymond DubuissonManufacturing, Construction & Energy Don GrantPrices Gordon Davies

Clayton TherrienStandards Anne CatalanoTransportation Antoine Chrétien

Status of Women Canada (Local #510)

Directors Michele BougieMaria Shin

Stewards Teresa EdwardsTeresa Finik

Translaton Bureau (Local #900)

Executive Committee

President Luc GervaisRegional TR Representative Claude PoirierEC Representative Marjolaine Francoeur

Francophone Translators Representatives André PicotteSuzanne Dumas

English Translators Representative Ellen GarmaiseMultilingual Translators Representative Peter SchmolkaInterpreters Representative Teresa BeauregardTerminologists Representative Marie-Thérèse MocanuParliamentary Translators Representative Stephen Mullen

Lionel Perrin

CAPE TR V.P. Richard Oslund

Stewards: National Capital Region

External Affairs Marie-Anne CourbaronAgriculture Micheline PressoirIRB Marc ValléeCriminology Karine CircéNational Defense Wayne ThompsonBusiness Development Luc Pomerleau

Human Resources Development Diane BissonHeritage Line Niquet

Cécile LamirandeRevenue André PicotteHealth Marilyn GagnéLide Sciences Ellen Garmaise

Annie LeblondDave Perron

Solicitor General Caroline RaymondTechnical Section Micheline LaSalle

Luc GervaisCourts Claude Leclerc

Multilingual

Americas and Middle-East Bruno LobrichonEuropes-Asia Zoubair Rubio

IPTD

Parliamentary Committees Danielle ZanibellatoConferences Francine RoyDebates Lucie ArchambaultParliamentary Documents Lionel Perrin

Valérie DutilParliamentary Interpretation Carol Card

Carole LévesqueTerminology

�TOC


Regional Association Representatives

Alberta

Edmonton

Directors/Stewards Tina BodnarJason Brisbois

Sandra ClarkSarina Daviduck

Lorrie Henke

British Columbia (Local #301)

Directors/Stewards Ghada AhmedAnna Benke

Derek BrackleyMardie Campbell

Philip DaviesMike Haberl

Dale KomanchukRoberta Robertson

Dennis SiskaRod Smelser

Health and Safety Representative Ghada Ahmed

Manitoba (Local #601)

Directors/Stewards Sharon AllentuckWayne Kramble

Brad MorrisonStan Spak

Health and Safety Representative Jodi Turner

New Brunswick

Stewards Samuel Le BretonGilberte Nowlan

Newfoundland (Local #101)

President Frank CorbettVice-President Paul C. CahillSecretary/Treasurer Gail KennySteward Bonnie Gauvin

Nova Scotia (Local #201)

Stewards Ben BlackWendy Stonehouse

Christine Sutherland

Ontario

Burlington

Steward Tom Muir

Guelph

Steward Candice Lee

Kingston (Local #504)

President Lisa Manson-ShillingtonVice-President Marcelene HolykTreasurer William BaileyStewards William Bailey

Cathy McCoyToronto

President Mina GonzalesVice President Ivonne DoucetteTreasurer Wendy DennisStewards Cherill Baynham

Sault Ste-Marie

Steward Mercedes Aquilina

Professional Development Cathryn Anne ArnoldHuman Sciences Marie-Thérèse Mocanu

Iliana Auverana

Regional Offices

Halifax Denise Aucoin-DeveauCharlottetown Lyne PerrotteMoncton Claude J. PoirierMontréal Isabelle Girouard

Dennis MaloneyQuébec Claude Poirier

Hélène PaquinVille Saint-Laurent Raymonde Leclerc

Loca

l Lea

ders

hip


Toronto Michel GrondinWinnipeg Stéphane DreslerVancouver Nathalie Lavallée

Transport Canada (Local #506)

Directors Phil CarrièreJeff Harris

Janet Lynn MacNeilsBrian S. Oliver

�TOC

Loca

l Lea

ders

hip



Prince Edward Island (Local #102)

President Michael ZinckVice-President Teresa PoundDirectors Tara O’Connor

Samuel IlesoDerek Lefebvre

Québec, Montréal (Local #402)

President Mario JodoinStewards Gwenael Cartier

Claire CourtoisHélène Puskas

Sylvie ThéveninMarc Vallières

Canada Economic Development Agency Quebec Region

Steward Caroline Ranger

Québec - Québec City/Ste-Foy (Local #401)

President Bruno LevesqueStewards Clermont Belzile

Frederick Lessard

Saskatchewan Local #701 (Northern Region)

Directors Michelle BaldwinDeqiang Gu

Melanie KellyLinda Lazarescu-King

Joyce OlsonLori Warring

Patricia Yeudall

Saskatchewan (Southern Region)

Steward Rob Raisbeck

Yukon-Whitehorse

Department of Justice

Occupational Safety and Health Darlene Mataseje

�TOC

Department or Agency EC AN/RA TR Total

Statistics Canada 2195 0 0 2195Public Works and Government Services 299 0 1039 1338Health Canada 744 0 0 744Social Development Canada 574 0 0 574Indian & Northern Affairs Canada 420 0 0 420Justice Canada 356 0 0 356Natural Resources Canada 354 0 0 354Public Health Agency Canada 353 0 0 353Agriculture & Agri-food Canada 351 0 0 351Industry Canada 326 0 0 326Finance Canada 303 0 0 303Human Resources and Skills Development Can. 274 0 0 274Transport Canada 233 0 0 233Treasury Board 228 0 0 228Library and Archives Canada 225 0 0 225Environment Canada 216 0 0 216Foreign Affairs Canada 192 0 0 192Correctional Service Canada 172 0 0 172Fisheries & Oceans 170 0 0 170Canadian Heritage 127 0 0 127Canadian International Development Agency 108 0 0 108Privy Council Office 107 0 0 107Library of Parliament 88 88Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 76 0 0 76Elections Canada 75 0 0 75Indian Residential Schools Resolution 75 0 0 75National Defence 73 0 0 73Citizenship and Immigration Canada 67 0 0 67Public Service Commission 49 0 0 49Public Service Human Resources Management Agency 47 0 0 47Immigration & Refugee Board 42 0 0 42Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency 41 0 0 41Royal Canadian Mounted Police 40 0 0 40Infrastructure Canada 39 0 0 39Veterans Affairs 30 0 0 30Canada School of Public Service 29 0 0 29Western Economic Diversification 24 0 0 24International Trade Canada 23 0 0 23Canadian Transportation Agency 22 0 0 22Status of Women Canada 15 0 0 15Canadian Human Rights Commission 14 0 0 14Courts Administration Service 14 0 0 14Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission 14 0 0 14

Membership Distribution*

Mem

bers

hip


�TOC

Department or Agency EC AN/RA TR Total

Canada Economic Development - Quebec 12 0 0 12Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 12 0 0 12Transportation Safety Board 11 0 0 11Supreme Court of Canada 10 0 0 10Canadian International Trade Tribunal 9 0 0 9Passport Canada 9 0 0 9Prairie Farm Rehabilitation 9 0 0 9Canadian Dairy Commission 7 0 0 7Canadian Grains Commission 7 0 0 7Canadian Space Agency 6 0 0 6Commissioner of Official Languages 5 0 0 5Canada Industrial Relations Board 4 0 0 4Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners 4 0 0 4Canada Border Services Agency 3 0 0 3Canada Firearms Centre 2 0 0 2Federal Judicial Affaires 2 0 0 2National Farm Products Council 2 0 0 2Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal 1 0 0 1Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP 1 0 0 1Copyright Board of Canada 1 0 0 1Law Commission of Canada 1 0 0 1Military Police Complaints Commission 1 0 0 1NAFTA Secretariat 1 0 0 1National Parole Board 1 0 0 1Total: 9257 88 1039 10384

Associates 38

GRAND TOTAL: 9257 126 1039 10422

*Based on the most recent information provided by Treasury Board

Mem

bers

hip

Membership Distribution cont’d....


�TOC


National Office Staff

José Aggrey President [email protected] Danik Director of Professional Services [email protected]élène Paris Research Officer [email protected] Richard Research Assistant [email protected] Fiander Communications Officer [email protected] Myre Senior Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Archambault Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Borré Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Brook Labour Relations Officer [email protected] O'Brien Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Ouellette Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Vézina Labour Relations Officer [email protected] Griffin Professional Services Assistant [email protected] Wensink Finance Officer [email protected] Martin Manager of Administration Services [email protected] Bangiricenge Administrative Clerk [email protected] Francoeur Administrative Clerk [email protected] Lachance Administrative Clerk [email protected] Lebel Administrative Clerk [email protected] Wilson Administrative Clerk [email protected]


�TOC


CAPE ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005

Canadian Association of Professional Employess

100 Queen Street, 4th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario K1P1J9

(613) 236-9181 • 1-800-265-9181 • Fax: (613) 236-6017

Web site: www.acep-cape.ca