Public Service Modernization

Background information

National Board of Directors - On-line

Where we stand on the

Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations
in the Federal Public Service (Fryer Committee)

What the Fryer Committee is, and why you should be concerned!

In the Fall of 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury Board appointed John Fryer to head up a committee to undertake a review of union management relations in the federal public sector and the collective bargaining relationships between the federal government and the unions representing federal workers. So far so good! Finally, after a decade and a half of cutbacks, legislated wage freezes, employment reductions, contracting out, imposed terms and conditions of employment, privatization and a string of what can only be regarded as some of the most draconian labour legislation in Canadian history, the government decided that it needed to review, revisit and change the way it bargains with the unions representing its workforce.

After being appointed, Fryer selected nine current and former senior public sector employees, union representatives and members of the academic community to join him on the Committee. In May of 2000, and just eight months after being appointed, the Fryer Committee released its first report—« Identifying the Issues » that hit the mark more often than not. Again, so far so good!

In « Identifying the Issues », the Fryer Committee pulled few punches when it concluded that:

"The findings from all these consultations are remarkably consistent. Union and management representatives agree that the level of trust between the parties is low and has deteriorated in recent years. They point to the degree of power the government possesses in its dual role as employer and legislator as leading to a sense of powerlessness and frustration. This power has been used with increasing frequency over the past decade, taking the form of wage freezes, the suspension of collective bargaining and arbitration rights, and back-to-work legislation. The parties suggested that the frequent use of legislation has lessened their own abilities to work out problems jointly. As one Deputy Minister put it, "Unilateral government action has eroded confidence in the system."

In the light of the Fryer Committee analysis, the PSAC and others involved in the process had reason for optimism that the Committee would ultimately recommend a reformed federal public sector bargaining environment that would meet the needs of the PSAC and PSAC members. Our optimism started to evaporate when we appeared before the Fryer Committee to discuss the second (recommendation) phase of his Committee's work on August 30th.

At that time, Fryer challenged our assertion that:

"If you are to have a lasting impact on the labour relations environment in the federal public sector, you need to make it clear that the primary problem that exists is inherent in a relationship where the government has a dual role as employer and legislator, and has never shied away from unilateral action when it does not get its way. "

"Hence, you must in our view forcefully condemn the governments use of back-to-work legislation and do something serious by way of recommendation that is aimed at ending the practice. Otherwise, nothing that you say or do will have any chance of restoring faith in the system. It’s as simple as that."

He indicated that since the government would never agree to curtail its legislative prerogative, he would not be recommending anything that had no chance of being supported by government. Definitely not so good! Surely, Fryer was appointed to identify the problems and propose meaningful solutions, not structure recommendations that simply please the governing party.

And it was all down hill from there. While maintaining that he would never sign a report that eliminated the right to strike, Fryer raised a number of questions and observations that led us to believe that he is intent on increasing the number of steps during the bargaining process, making it harder to exercise the right to strike, and perhaps eroding the autonomy of individual unions and bargaining groups.

What the PSAC is doing to change the course of the Fryer Committee!

Exactly three weeks after Fryer started talking out loud about a longer bargaining process with less bargaining group autonomy, PSAC President Nycole Turmel participated in a panel discussion with Fryer and Treasury Board Secretary Frank Clayton at the National Joint Council Seminar to discuss the first report of the Committee. Amongst other things, she had this to say:

• When it comes to reforming the legislative framework for collective bargaining in the federal public sector, the PSAC takes the position that the first priority is two-fold. That is, we believe that a redefined and refocused legislative framework must provide some power balance between the employer and the unions representing federal public sector workers, and simultaneously eliminate the roadblocks to an effective, timely and comprehensive approach to bargaining.

• I also want to make it clear from the perspective of the PSAC that while reform is on the agenda, and rightly so, it should not be used as an excuse to challenge or distort the legitimacy of existing bargaining units.

• So, for example, we have no interest, none whatsoever, in any public sector bargaining reform that undermines the autonomy of individual bargaining units. We have no interest in a system that forces us to bargain across bargaining unit lines.

• We also take the position that the integrity of our bargaining units must remain intact under any revised legislative bargaining framework, and that they continue to have the right to individually negotiate all issues that form part of their respective collective agreements.

And in case Fryer missed the point, we followed up with a lengthy and strongly worded letter to Fryer that made the PSAC position as clear and unequivocal as possible. We are also making a commitment to continue to ensure that the PSAC position on the fundamental issues involved in any attempt to reform labour relations in the federal public sector are well known, and vigorously expressed at every opportunity.

Hence, when we participate in a Public Policy Forum roundtable on the issue in October of this year, our message will be the same. That is, that the main problems with regard to labour management relations in the federal public sector and the collective bargaining process are that:

• the government can and does use its legislative prerogative to get its way;

• the Public Service Staff Relations Act is antiquated and tilts the bargaining balance in favour of the employer; and,

• the Public Service Staff Relations Board and its procedures delay rather than facilitate the bargaining process.

And we will continue to insist that while reform is on the agenda, and rightly so, it should not be used as an excuse to challenge or distort the legitimacy of existing bargaining units. In short, public sector reform must simultaneously expedite the bargaining process, and respect the bargaining autonomy of each and every bargaining group.