But Bill C-60 opinions vary: Some call it interference, others 'mechanistic tidying up'
It sounds like high drama on Parliament Hill.
Tucked into the final pages of a federal bill are changes that, if passed, could have a major impact on unions and Crown corporations.
Proposed amendments to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2013 federal budget and other measures, basically give the Treasury Board greater power, through the Governor in Council, when it comes to the negotiation of collective agreements.
But John Fryer, an adjunct professor of public administration at the University of Victoria, said the amendments really just tighten up the relationship between the Treasury Board and Crown corporations.
“There has always been a connection — this makes it a statutory one. There’s always been a cabinet subcommittee on collective bargaining which keeps an eye on Crown corporation bargaining to ensure that they aren’t setting precedents in Crown corporations that then the entire public service will have to deal with,” he said. “I’d be the first to jump on the bandwagon and say it’s some sort of right wing plot by the current government, but I’m afraid I don’t think so. I think it’s much more a mechanistic tidying up of something they’ve been trying informally to do up to this point… And it stops the tendency in a collective bargaining process for one union to try and one-up another union.”
For one, a Crown corporation may be directed to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board when it comes to a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.
And the Treasury Board may impose any requirement when it comes to the mandate, including the terms and conditions of employment — even with non-unionized employees. And if the Treasury Board does get involved with the mandate, the Crown corporation may enter into the collective agreement only with the board’s approval.
Policy rather than an exception
The proposed changes would make direct government intervention in public sector negotiations in Crown corporations a policy rather than an exception so, essentially, policy makers, MPs or deputy ministers, for instance, could be actively involved in setting mandates, said Andrew Stevens, assistant professor (industrial relations and human resource management) at the University of Regina.
“Really, it ends any semblance of the arm’s length relationship between the government and the Crown,” he said. “They’re essentially taking the power to negotiate, they’re taking the power to bargain collectively, which is a cornerstone of the Canada Labour Code — they’ve taken that away.”
It’s part of a series of legislation, going back to the Expenditure Restraint Act and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, that try to take an ideology and impose it on collective bargaining, wages and labour relations, said Stevens. “I would imagine…. that they would want to calibrate the offers that different categories of employees are going to be receiving at the bargaining table. I have no evidence to suggest they have some kind of clear objective, it’s more of an ideologically driven principle of they how want to see negotiations transpire rather than saying, ‘We want everyone to be paid the same.’”
The measures are neither new nor revolutionary, according to Matthew Conway, press secretary at the Office of the President of the Treasury Board, adding Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair was a part of a provincial government that required political approval for negotiating mandates for Crown corporations.
And government approval was required for negotiating mandates for Hydro-Québec, Lotto-Québec and Télé-Québec, to name a few, he said, citing An Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors:
“Before undertaking the negotiation of a collective agreement with an association of employees, every government agency shall submit to the minister responsible a draft document setting out the general components of a policy on remuneration and conditions of employment.”
Bill undermines ‘freedom of collective bargaining’: Union
But with the changes in Bill C-60, the Treasury Board would basically take control over collective bargaining, according to Sylvain Schetagne, director and chief economist at the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) in Ottawa.
“It’s undermining the freedom of collective bargaining, the freedom of political intervention.” he said. “To us, it’s pretty obvious — they’re intervening to have a direct say to impose working conditions in those Crown corporations.”
The freedom of collective bargaining between the two parties, in looking to alternative solutions or being creative to deal with the mandates and the needs of both parties, is gone, said Schetagne.
“Now the Treasury Board is basically going to be at the table imposing its mandate throughout the process. There’s not going to be any negotiations anymore. It’s going to freeze the process,” he said. “That’s what they want — they want the process to be useless.”
The changes contemplate the Treasury Board is going to take a way more active role, albeit as a third party, said Heather Hettiarachchi, an associate in the labour and employment group at Clark Wilson in Vancouver.
“That’s kind of hard because collective bargaining is actually between two parties and if you have this sort of third party sitting in and not only sitting in but also dictating the outcome of the collective bargaining process, then that’s potential interference with collective bargaining rights.”
The decisions of Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia and Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser held that people have the right to bargain collectively, and that right is protected by the charter, so it will be interesting to see what kinds of challenges would be mounted if this goes through, she said.
And with the private member’s bill C-377, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which will require unions to make significant reports to the Canada Revenue Agency about factors such as salaries, stipends, bonuses, gifts and time spent on political activity, “that’s going to be quite a significant inroad again into the right of unions,” said Hettiarachchi.
If the Treasury Board has a veto power over any tentative agreement that’s reached, “this will jeopardize the freedom of the parties to bargain collectively,” she said. “There are those who would say that it’s time the union went, who see this as a good thing and point to the fact that there’s a huge disparity in wages with union and non-union employees, and that’s a fact. So is the government right in trying to address that? Yes. But is this the way to go? I don’t think so. I think it’s an unnecessary encroachment into labour relations.”
Greater accountability?
The government has said the changes are about being financially accountable to taxpayers as it has the ultimate financial responsibility for Crown corporations. “We must ensure these costs are sustainable,” said Conway. “Economic Action Plan 2013 stated that the government will look at options to improve the financial viability of Crown corporations, including compensation levels. We are ensuring that public service labour costs align and that taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars are used efficiently. We will also ensure consistency throughout government on this plan.”
The reality is the government is interested in controlling its expenditures with an austerity agenda, said the University of Victoria’s Fryer.
“It will be frustrating at times, for both sides, especially for the union side, but I don’t see any nefarious motives. I’m not clairvoyant but… it looks like an attempt by the federal government to get a handle on the overall mandate-setting process for its Crown agencies, and I’ve seen that happen in province after province, so it’s not an issue that’s exclusive to a Conservative government…. this is a worry for any minister of finance.”
But there is already accountability because the government has the right to issue directives even now, and any collective bargaining is within the government’s mandate, said Hettiarachchi.
“This goes one step extra and actually interferes with the process of collective bargaining, so I don’t think that that extra step is necessary for the government to be fiscally prudent or to say, ‘This is meant to protect revenues and finance expenditure and things like that,’ because they already have that Crown corporation accountability.”
Crown corporations are accountable to Canadian citizens through the electoral process, so that line cannot be justified, said Schetagne.
“The Treasury Board doesn’t have to be at the table, they already have a big say into what those Crown corporations are all about.”
If the changes go through, the union and employer are going to be adversely affected, said Stevens, adding the clause also affects nonunion employees, such as supervisors or managers.
“The ability of Crown corporations to, say, make a wage offer and negotiate on an individual basis with these non-unionized employees is going to be curtailed as well through the Treasury Board intervention.” And if Crown corporations are trying to compete for top talent, this could be very restrictive, he said, as there may be fewer options when trying to recruit a senior manager, especially if the corporation is trying to poach her away from the private sector where she might be more generously compensated.
The proposed changes are an attack on employers’ rights, according to Schetagne.
“It’s the employers and employers’ representatives that are losing their freedom of collective bargaining. It’s not us. We’ll be at the table, we’re ready to negotiate and they don’t set our mandate, they don’t set the way we operate. It’s undermining the employer’s representative. Hopefully, if they come to realize that’s what they’re doing… they might change their mind, but so far we haven’t heard that.”
