Category Archives: Canada

Public sector employee protections watered down under bill C-4

Posted on by

http://www.lawtimesnews.com

Monday, 11 November 2013 08:00 | Written By Barry Goldman and Matthew Scott

On Oct. 22, the government of Canada introduced bill C-4, a massive piece of omnibus budget legislation containing reforms and amendments to many existing laws.

The amendments affect a number of laws, including the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

The bill C-4 amendments to the act would remove many labour rights public service employees are entitled to under current legislation. Sweeping reforms to the definition of essential services, the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board, the right to strike by public servants, and the financial nature of the arbitral and conciliation awards the board may grant would, among other things, effectively neuter the bargaining rights of the affected members of the public sector.

The opening volley on bargaining rights is a subtle change to the mandate of the board under s. 13 of the act. Previously, the board had a mandate to provide “adjudication services, mediation services, and compensation analysis and research services” in accordance with the act. But the amendments in s. 295 of bill C-4 dispense with the compensation analysis and research services powers of the board. That means the board could now only provide adjudication and mediation services. The change foreshadows amendments that will dramatically modify the board’s powers with respect to arbitral and conciliation awards.

The amendments to the act redefine essential services as being “a service, facility or activity of the government of Canada that has been determined under subsection 119(1) to be essential.” Under the old language of Division 8 of the act, the employer had only the exclusive right to determine the level at which an essential service could be provided. The employer and employees had to co-operate to determine which employees were affected and then enter into an essential services agreement. Failure to agree would result in intervention by the board.

The new language under s. 305 of bill C-4 would give employers the exclusive right to determine if a service, facility, or activity is essential “because it is or will be necessary for the safety or security of the public.” It would also give employers “the exclusive right to designate the positions in a bargaining unit that include duties that, in whole or in part, are or will be necessary for the employer to provide essential services, and the employer may exercise that right at any time.”

These changes would most certainly reduce the ability of federal public servants to strike. Bill C-4 also amends the process for dispute resolution under the act. It says bargaining units in which 80 per cent or more of the employees are designated as essential may not strike and must resolve their disputes through arbitration. Furthermore, bill C-4 would bolster s. 194(2) of the act that prohibits an employee organization such as a union from declaring or authorizing a strike, the effect of which would be to involve the participation of employees designated as essential by the employer.

Also, under bill C-4, no officer or representative of an employee organization would be able to counsel or procure the declaration or authorization of a strike with respect to an essential bargaining unit or counsel or procure the participation of those employees in a strike. Given that an employer would be able to designate employees as essential at any time, the change could very well make it significantly more difficult for employee organizations to secure strike votes in the future.

After having restricted the ability of employee organizations to engage in concerted labour action, the amendments would also rewrite the rules involving arbitrations and conciliations before the board. Before, under s. 148 of the act, the board had a broad spectrum of factors to consider in making an arbitral award as well as the ability to look at any other factors it deemed relevant. The new amendments strip the board of these broad powers.

Now the considerations take the form of preponderant and other factors. The term preponderant factors contains new elements, including consideration of whether the compensation levels are a “prudent use of public funds” and “Canada’s fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies.” Likewise, the term “other factors” is a category to which many of the former considerations under the current act have been relegated. There have also been similar amendments to the conciliation provisions set out in the new s. 175 of the act.

And bill C-4 goes even further. If passed, it would allow the chairperson, either by fiat or on the application of either of the parties, to direct the board to review the matter if, in the chairperson’s opinion, the decision does not represent a reasonable application of the s. 148 factors highlighted above. This new mechanism can force the board to reconsider decisions it could have made, without internal review, under the current act where it has considered the s. 148 factors but failed to do so in a “reasonable” manner.

There’s no doubt bill C-4 will have an impact on federal public servants. Although the act was not a perfect piece of legislation regarding the collective bargaining rights of federal public servants, it did afford reasonable protections. The amendments incorporated within bill C-4 have definitely watered down employee powers and protections and, in the process, effectively removed many of those rights.

Barry Goldman is a partner at Shibley Righton LLP and a member of its labour and employment law group. Matthew Scott is a litigation associate in the firm’s Toronto office and is also a member of its labour and employment law group.

Turning Back the Clock 50 Years: Bill C-4 and federal workers

Posted on by

 

Larry RousseauLarry Rousseau Regional Executive Vice President, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Posted: 11/23/2013 7:39 am    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca

Stuffed into the 309-page Conservative budget implementation act, Bill C-4, that was tabled last month, are a slew of drastic changes to the federal labour relations system, which will affect the health and safety provisions, human rights protections, and collective bargaining rights of federal workers. As its number suggests, Bill C-4 is truly explosive.

On the health and safety front, the government is changing the Canada Labour Code to limit the rights of workers to refuse unsafe work, and also doing away with independent health and safety officers, relegating their responsibilities to political appointees of “the Minister.”

Meanwhile, another part of the bill will alter the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSRLA) to prevent federal public service workers from accessing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal over workplace discrimination complaints. Workers facing discrimination will instead have to file their complaint directly with their employer, which would have the power to promptly dismiss it for “being trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.”

Bill C-4 also guts public service collective bargaining by further modifying the PSLRA to allow the government to unilaterally determine which workers are essential and therefore forbidden from striking, without recourse to third party review. (At present, when the government and the union disagree on who is essential, either party can refer the matter to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which ensures that neither side can exaggerate their assessment of who is essential or non-essential, a sensible system that has worked well over the years.)

Furthermore, Bill C-4 denies unions the right to refer a dispute to arbitration, unless more than 80% of workers are deemed essential. This means that the government would be able to declare 79% of workers in a bargaining group as essential, deny arbitration, and then force the remaining 21% minority to strike, in a classic attempt to divide and conquer workers in a given bargaining unit.
Arnold Heeney, the renowned Canadian diplomat and civil servant who led the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining in the Public Service way back in 1963, noted in his memoirs that prior to free collective bargaining “there was great and growing dissatisfaction among government employees generally with the arbitrary and paternalistic system which continued to prevail…” As a consequence of this dissatisfaction and the stunning 1965 wildcat strike by postal workers, the government under Lester B. Pearson was forced to pass in 1967 the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which first codified the right to free collective bargaining as well as the right of public service unions to choose between strikes and third party arbitration to resolve disputes. And as Heeney further observed, though a number of politicians and labour leaders at the time predicted an explosion in the frequency of strikes, “the majority of civil servants chose the former route” of arbitration to resolve their disputes with government.

Indeed, the historical record has shown that major public service strikes have remained rather infrequent, but that the right of recourse to a strike has been critical to balancing the overwhelming power held by the government over public service workers. After all, the government not only has inherent power as the employer, it also has the power to set the rules of the game through legislation.

Yet today, we find ourselves with a government intent on turning back the clock almost 50 years by attempting to rig the labour relations playing field to the point where public service workers will be thrown back to that “arbitrary and paternalistic system” Heeney wrote about. And it would seem, of course, that the government couldn’t care less that the proposed changes to the PSLRA will effectively undermine the right to free collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007.

Together, the dangerous, undemocratic and retrograde changes contained in Bill C-4 will directly impact some 800,000 Canadian workers subject to the Canada Labour Code in industries as diverse as rail, air, broadcasting, telecommunications and fisheries, in addition to well over 200,000 federal public service workers who fall under the PSLRA–approximately a million people in total.

Yet, the Conservatives have moved to limit debate in Parliament in an attempt to ram the bill through in the next couple of weeks. In fact, it has now emerged that labour changes in the bill were drafted secretly, without consulting law professors or labour-management experts (and certainly without consulting any of the unions representing federal workers).

It’s hard to imagine a reason for the callous health and safety changes, which needlessly endanger workers, but it’s clearly evident why the Conservatives are frustrating the collective bargaining process currently spelled out in the PSLRA.

Led by Treasury Board President Tony Clement, they have spent the last two years repeatedly attacking the pay and benefits of federal public service workers, claiming that these are out of line with the private sector. They say these workers, who deliver important quality public services like Old Age Security and food inspection to Canadians, are paid too much, but ignore that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently reported that in the last decade–the latter part of which was shaped by the Conservative agenda–wages of federal workers have mostly just kept up with inflation. They also absurdly claim at every opportunity that federal public service workers take over 18 days of sick leave each year, again ignoring research from Statistics Canada demonstrating that this is simply not true.

The repetition of such claims–false as they are–serves the goal of creating a political atmosphere conducive to squeezing out from federal public service workers non-monetary benefits they negotiated over previous decades, often in lieu of their requests for raises that were said to be unaffordable, and therefore rejected, in the context of deficits during the Mulroney years, followed by pressures of debt repayment during the Chrétien years.

We’ve been down this road before. Just this past year, the government repeatedly overreached and tried to undermine free collective bargaining with public service workers only to be forced back to the table following action by unions. It did it with technical inspectors, whose many bargaining positions were later validated by a Public Interest Commission. It did it with foreign service officers, who then won a bad faith bargaining decision. And it did it with border services officers, who also won a court injunction against a forced vote. Bill C-4 undoubtedly presents an unprecedented assault on workers and the middle class, aimed at rewriting the very rules of the game. However, one at a time, the abusive sections of this law will be defeated.

Follow Larry Rousseau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larryrousseau

Health & Safety At Work Under Threat With Harper Government Bill C-4: The Budget Implementation Act

Posted on by
The lives of almost one million Canadian workers will be placed in danger as a result of cynical amendments that the Conservative government is making to the Canada Labour Code. Buried deep in the government’s latest budget bill tabled on October 22 are amendments to the health and safety provisions of the Code that have nothing to do with balancing the budget, and everything to do with putting workers’ lives at risk. Watch this video to learn more on how you can help stop this.

No shortage of workers – just a shortage of training

Posted on by

Tue, 11/19/2013 – 10:06
Posted by Andrew Jackson     http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca

Two major recent studies – from Derek Burleton and his colleagues at Toronto-Dominion Bank, and from former senior federal government official Cliff Halliwell published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy – provide excellent overviews of recent developments in the Canadian job market, and an informed framework for thinking about our future skills needs.

This message seems to have finally got through to the Harper government. In a speech to the Vancouver Chamber of Commerce on November 14, Employment and Skills Development Minister Jason Kenney told employers to stop complaining and to stop relying excessively upon temporary workers. Instead, he said, employers should “put more skin in the game” by increasing wages in high-demand occupations and by investing more in the training of Canadians.

The TD and IRPP studies provide balanced overviews of our future skill needs. Neither see generalized shortages as an acute danger, notwithstanding the pending (if increasingly delayed) retirement of the baby boom generation. Indeed, Mr. Halliwell says we should welcome a tighter job market, after years of stagnant real wages for most workers.

Graduates from our postsecondary education system, together with new immigrants, will more or less match job vacancies opening up due to the retirement of highly skilled workers. And employers can be expected to minimize shortages as they emerge by investing in capital and skills so as to raise productivity.

All that said, these studies note that we face some specific skills shortages today in a limited number of occupations and regions, and that some employers may face increasing difficulties finding workers with the right education and skills to fill available jobs in the future.

This can, however, be seen more as an opportunity than a curse, given the significant unemployment and underemployment of today, especially for youth, recent immigrants and aboriginals. The challenge is to invest in skills to increase access to good jobs for Canadians who want to get ahead, and thus to forestall future shortages that might lower our economic potential.

One set of policies that makes sense is to raise the education and skills level of marginalized groups and to ensure that unemployed workers, especially the long-term unemployed, have access to retraining. While Canada has one of the most educated work forces in the world, we have a relatively high proportion of workers with low literacy and numeracy levels, and many recent immigrants need help to upgrade their qualifications.

Programs delivered by the provinces with the support of the federal government address these issues to a degree, although spending is well below the industrial country average. Unfortunately, the federal government proposal to introduce the Canada Jobs Grant will shift some funds away from training the most marginalized workers and toward employer-sponsored training.

Mr. Halliwell argues that our current educational and labour market policies fail the significant proportion of the work force that leaves the educational system with less than a postsecondary qualification and finds relatively low-paying, less-skilled jobs. These workers tend to receive little or no employer training – and are excluded from current government programs.

He suggests that we think about “second chance” programs for this group, to improve their opportunities in the job market later in life and to help fill employer needs for skilled workers.

One option that Mr. Kenney might consider is to give more employed workers access to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for training leaves, on the model of apprenticeship training. Apprentices qualify for EI benefits when they are away from their regular job for the classroom part of their program.

EI-supported training leaves would allow workers to take a community college or similar training programs – still at some considerable financial sacrifice to themselves, since benefits only replace up to 55 per cent of normal wages and since tuition costs would have to be paid.

Employers could contribute by making sure that a worker could return to the job from which she or he took a leave and, perhaps, by providing a supplementary income if the training program met the needs of their business.

EI-training leaves would empower individual workers to invest in their skills, and help create a higher-skilled work force for the future. Mr. Kenney might consider this option as an alternative to the proposed Canada Jobs Grant, which has won few supporters to date.

This article originally appeared on the Globe & Mail’s Economy Lab.

Photo: Cristiano Betta. Used under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 licence.

Job vacancies, three-month average ending in June 2013

Posted on by
Statistics Canada reports 6.3 unemployed people for every job vacancy in Canada in June 2013. That’s up from 5.2 a year earlier.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca

PDF version

Previous release

Canadian businesses reported 216,000 job vacancies in June, down 47,000 from June 2012. For every job vacancy, there were 6.3 unemployed people, up from 5.2 a year earlier. The increase in the unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio was the result of fewer job vacancies, as the number of unemployed people was little changed.

Ratio increases in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta

Provincially, Ontario had the most notable increase in the unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, going from 6.8 unemployed people for every job vacancy in June 2012 to 8.6 in June 2013. The ratio increased because there were fewer job vacancies in the province, as the number of unemployed people was little changed.

Chart 1 
Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, all unemployed, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Bar clustered chart – Chart 1: Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, all unemployed, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Chart description: Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, all unemployed, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

CSV version of chart 1

Saskatchewan’s unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio also went up, from 1.8 to 2.6, as the number of job vacancies fell faster than the number of unemployed.

The ratio in Alberta rose over this 12-month period from 1.6 unemployed people per job vacancy to 2.4. The increase in the ratio was due to fewer job vacancies, as the number of unemployed people was little changed.

Despite these increases, Saskatchewan and Alberta remained the provinces with the lowest unemployment-to-job vacancy ratios.

In the remaining provinces, the unemployment-to-job vacancy ratios were little changed compared with June 2012.

Ratio by sector

Among the large industrial sectors, construction had the highest number of unemployed people per vacancy, at 8.0 in June, up from 3.9 in June 2012. The entire increase was the result of fewer job vacancies in this sector.

The ratio in wholesale trade rose from 2.0 in June 2012 to 4.4 in June 2013. The increase occurred as the number of unemployed went up, while job vacancies declined notably.

Chart 2 
Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, by largest industrial sector, unemployed people who last worked within past 12 months, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Bar clustered chart – Chart 2: Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, by largest industrial sector, unemployed people who last worked within past 12 months, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Chart description: Unemployment-to-job vacancies ratio, by largest industrial sector, unemployed people who last worked within past 12 months, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

CSV version of chart 2

Manufacturing had a ratio of 5.7 unemployed people for every vacant job in June, up from 4.4 a year earlier, as there were fewer vacancies in this sector.

The ratio in transportation and warehousing increased from 2.5 in June 2012 to 3.6 in June 2013.

The unemployment-to-job vacancy ratio in health care and social assistance was 1.3 in June, the lowest of all industrial sectors. This ratio was unchanged from 12 months earlier. There was little change among the other large industrial sectors.

Among the smaller industrial sectors, regional and Aboriginal public administration as well as “other services” saw an increase in their ratio over the 12-month period, as they both posted an increase in the number of unemployed and little change in job vacancies.

Job vacancy rates

The job vacancy rate is defined as the number of vacant positions divided by total labour demand, that is, occupied positions plus vacant positions. It corresponds to the share of jobs that are unfilled out of all payroll jobs available. Higher job vacancy rates are often associated with periods of economic growth, while lower rates may be associated with periods of slower growth or economic contraction.

In June, the national job vacancy rate among Canadian businesses was 1.5%, down from 1.8% a year earlier.

Chart 3 
Job vacancy rate, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Bar clustered chart – Chart 3: Job vacancy rate, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

Chart description: Job vacancy rate, by province, three-month average, June 2012 and June 2013

CSV version of chart 3

Provincially, the job vacancy rate declined in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, while it was little changed elsewhere.

In Alberta, the rate fell from 3.4% to 2.4% between June 2012 and June 2013. Over the same period, the job vacancy rate declined from 3.3% to 2.0% in Saskatchewan, from 1.5% to 1.2% in Ontario, and from 1.5% to 1.1% in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Job vacancy rates by sector

Compared with 12 months earlier, the job vacancy rate declined in six sectors and was little changed in the other sectors.

Construction had 13,000 job vacancies and a job vacancy rate of 1.4% in June, down from 3.0% in June 2012. Retail trade also saw its rate decline from 1.8% to 1.4% over the same period. The sector had 26,000 job vacancies in June 2013.

The job vacancy rate in manufacturing fell from 1.3% to 1.1% in the 12-month period, with 17,000 job vacancies in June 2013. Wholesale trade saw its rate decline from 1.7% to 1.0%, with 7,300 vacancies. The vacancy rate in finance and insurance fell from 1.4% to 0.9%, with 6,400 vacancies.

The lowest job vacancy rate was recorded in educational services, at 0.5%, down from 0.7% a year earlier. In June 2013, there were 5,700 job vacancies in this sector.