union's submission

SUBMISSION OF 

LOCAL 2228 OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 

TO THE ARBITRATION PANEL 

YVON TARTE, CHAIRPERSON 

FAZAL BHIMJI, UNION NOMINEE 

JOCK CLIMIE, EMPLOYER NOMINEE 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 

and a dispute affecting LOCAL 2228 OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 

and THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA SECRETARIAT, 

in relation to the employees of the Employer in the 

ELECTRONICS GROUP 

JUNE 26-27, 2012

FOREWORD 

This brief is presented without prejudice to the Bargaining Agent's right to present any 

additional facts or arguments it considers appropriate and relevant during the 

proceedings before the Panel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 

1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5 

1.1 ABOUT THE LOCAL ............................................................................................... 5 

1.2 ABOUT THE BARGAINING UNIT .............................................................................. 7 

1.3 ROLE IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE ................................................................ 8 

1.4 IBEW BARGAINING TEAM ................................................................................... 13 

2 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS ............................................................................. 14 

3 LAW AND ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 16 

3.1 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE ................................. 16 

4 OUTSTANDING ISSUES ....................................................................................... 26 

ARTICLE 17 – VACATION LEAVE ................................................................................. 27 

ARTICLE 18 – OTHER LEAVE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY .................................................. 30 

ARTICLE 19 – SICK LEAVE ........................................................................................ 33 

ARTICLE 24 – DAYS OF REST .................................................................................... 37 

ARTICLE 25 – OVERTIME .......................................................................................... 40 

ARTICLE 27 – TRAVEL .............................................................................................. 46 

ARTICLE 31 – SEA DUTY .......................................................................................... 51 

ARTICLE 35 – WORKING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 56 

ARTICLE 43 – TRAINING ............................................................................................ 58 

ARTICLE 60 – DURATION AND RENEWAL .................................................................... 60 

ARTICLE 61 – NO DISCRIMINATION OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT ...................................... 62 

5 RATES OF PAY .................................................................................................... 65

Local 2228, IBEW Submission June 26 and 27, 2012 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Local 2228 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“Local 2228” or 

“IBEW” or the “Union”) and the Treasury Board (the “Employer”) are before this panel to 

conclude over twenty months of bargaining towards the renewal of the Collective 

Agreement applicable to electronics technologists working in the federal public service. 

This Brief sets out Local 2228 of the IBEW’s case with respect to the outstanding issues 

which continue to be in dispute between the parties. 

Local 2228 of the IBEW is dedicated to protecting and advancing the goals and 

interests of electronics technologists in the federal public service, whose daily work has 

a direct influence on the safety and security of the Canadian public. 

The parties have met regularly to negotiate, yet many important issues remain 

unresolved. Treasury Board’s position has effectively remained unchanged since 

bargaining first began in October 2010. Consequently, the IBEW has undertaken to 

refer the unresolved issues to binding arbitration. The request for arbitration is an 

unfortunate but necessary step in the resolution of the Collective Agreement between 

the parties. 

The Union has raised the following proposals for contract change to this panel: 

• Improve vacation entitlements for new employees; 

• Allow for flexibility in accessing leave for family-related responsibilities; 

• Ensure that expenses incurred in obtaining an Employer-required medical 

certificate are borne by the Employer; 

• Improve compensation for being required to work on an employee’s days of rest; 

• Provide compensation for hours worked outside an employee’s headquarters 

area; 

• Increase overtime meal allowances; 

1


• Improve travel status leave to ensure proportionality with the amount of travel 

incurred; 

• Increase sea duty premium amounts to reflect the true nature of an employee’s 

availability at sea; 

• Introduce a premium for the packaging of dangerous goods; 

• Improve compensation for employees assigned to training courses at the 

Canadian Coast Guard college; and 

• Introduce a no-discrimination and no-harassment clause into the Collective 

Agreement. 

The Union has also proposed a pay increase that would provide for a 1.50% increase 

as of September 1, 2010, a 2.00% increase as of September 1, 2011 and a 2.25% 

increase as of September 1, 2012. These increases are modest, thoroughly reasonable 

and respectful of the true state of the Canadian economy and the Employer’s true ability 

to pay. 

The IBEW’s proposals are principled and practical. They constitute, we submit, the 

agreement that the parties would likely have concluded if both parties had made every 

effort to produce a negotiated settlement. 

2


INTRODUCTION 

This Brief, together with the accompanying and supporting documents, sets out Local 

2228 of the IBEW’s case in favour of a number of unresolved matters between the 

parties dealing with the renewal of their Collective Agreement between the Treasury 

Board and Local 2228 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

The dispute concerns certain terms of the Collective Agreement to take effect 

retroactively on September 1, 2010, between the Employer and a bargaining unit of 

electronics technologists. The parties have successfully negotiated the renewal without 

change of several Collective Agreement provisions, but remain at impasse on a number 

of issues, which can generally be characterized as small and necessary improvements 

sought by the Union for the well-being of its members. 

Part 1 of the Brief introduces the parties. It describes both the bargaining agent and the 

employees, the electronics technologists who make up the unit. A brief description of 

the bargaining team is also provided. 

Part 2 sets out the history of negotiations with respect to the renewal of the current 

Collective Agreement. 

Part 3 outlines the law to be applied in interest arbitrations in the federal public service 

and how the law ought to be applied in the present case. 

Part 4 then sets out the IBEW’s proposals put forward in its Request for Arbitration, 

together with its rationale for each proposal. 

Along with this Brief, the IBEW will provide a bound volume of supporting documents, or 

relevant excerpts thereof, containing the more important documents that are referenced 

in this Brief. 

3


The Union’s goal, in these proceedings, is to realize small improvements and greater 

flexibility for its members, and to achieve greater work-life balance for the mutual benefit 

of both employees and the Employer. 

4


1 BACKGROUND 

1.1 ABOUT THE LOCAL 

Local 2228 of the IBEW represents electronics technologists who are specialists in the 

installation and maintenance of electronics equipment for weather facilities, radio 

frequency allocation and monitoring, as well as air, land, and marine transportation 

systems. Our members are employed across Canada in several federal government 

departments, including National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast 

Guard, Environment Canada and Industry Canada, among others. 

The bargaining unit consists of electronics technologists working in the federal public 

service, for which the IBEW is the certified bargaining agent under the Public Service 

Labour Relations Act. Local 2228 has represented the bargaining unit since March of 

1969, when the former Public Service Staff Relations Board certified the Union as the 

representative of the Electronics Group, one of the occupational groups created for the 

purpose of collective bargaining. To this day, Local 2228 continues to be dedicated to 

protecting and advancing the goals and interests of the more than 1100 electronics 

technologists in the federal public service, in addition to nearly 700 electronics 

technologists employed at NAV CANADA. 

In striving to promote reasonable and safe methods of work, provide assistance and 

secure employment and adequate compensation for our members, we advocate a 

principled approach to labour relations. Local 2228 encourages a democratic and 

member-centered methodology in developing its bargaining proposals. Our members, 

employees who experience the practical application of the Collective Agreement each 

day, are given an opportunity to voice their concerns. Since this member input, which is 

sorted and refined at local, regional and national levels, forms the basis of the Union’s 

collective bargaining proposals, it is not surprising that our approach is often described 

as reasonable and practical. We strongly believe that negotiated settlements are 

5


usually better than those imposed, and that dialogue promotes better labour relations 

amongst all parties. 

6


1.2 ABOUT THE BARGAINING UNIT 

The bargaining unit consists of 1114 members in the Electronics (“EL”) Group, working 

in one of nineteen federal government departments. 

The EL Group is described as comprising positions that are primarily involved in the 

application of electronics technology to the design, construction, installation, inspection, 

maintenance and repair of electronic and associated equipment, systems and facilities 

and the development and enforcement of regulations and standards governing the use 

of such equipment. It includes positions that have, as their primary purpose, 

responsibility for one or more of the following activities: 

(1) The inspection, certification and licensing of telecommunications, radio 

communications and broadcasting equipment installations; 

(2) The examination and certification of radio operators and related personnel; 

(3) The development and enforcement of international and domestic radio 

regulations, agreements and equipment standards, and the examination of 

related applications and technical briefs for radio and television stations; 

(4) The detection, investigation and suppression of radio and television interference; 

(5) The design, construction, installation, testing, inspection, maintenance, repair or 

modification of electronic equipment, systems or facilities, including the 

preparation of related standards; 

(6) The conduct of experimental, investigative or research and development projects 

in the field of electronics, under the leadership of an engineer or a scientist; 

(7) The planning and delivery of a quality assurance program for electronic systems 

and equipment; 

(8) The development, direction and conduct of training in the above activities; and 

(9) The leadership of any of the above activities. 1 

1 Treasury Board of Canada, Occupational Group Definitions, Tab 1 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

7


1.3 ROLE IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE 

The majority of bargaining unit members work in the Department of National Defence 

(“DND”), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“DFO”) or Industry Canada. The remaining 

members work in one of sixteen other departments. Yet within each federal 

government department, electronics technologists perform multifaceted and difficult 

work. 

NATIONAL DEFENCE 

The work performed by the EL Group at DND is complex, important and often 

hazardous. Generally, ELs support uniformed soldiers, sailors and airmen by ensuring 

that their electronic equipment is working according to exacting standards. Similar work 

is performed by ELs in every branch of the armed forces, whether the ground forces, air 

or navy. By way of example, applicable with minor modifications to every branch of the 

forces, members of the bargaining unit working at CFB Esquimalt will: 

• plan and design the installation of missile systems on ships; 

• integrate the missile's electronic system to the ship's target acquisition and fire 

control radars; 

• ensure that the safety systems are effective and operating; and 

• develop the planned maintenance routines to keep the weapon in perfect working 

condition. 

Once installed, the weapons system is subject to rigorous testing. ELs will: 

• accompany the ship's crew on missile trials to record all the electronic data used 

to acquire the target, develop the firing solution and reach the decision to attack; 

and 

• monitor and record the entire flight path of the missile using both internal and 

external sensors to ensure that the weapon will not be a danger to friendly 

forces. 

8


FISHERIES AND OCEANS 

The ELs at DFO support the Canadian Coast Guard (“CCG”) or fisheries research, both 

of which are heavily dependent on electronics technology. ELs play crucial roles in 

maintaining critical equipment and supporting clients in a mission-critical environment. 

Such equipment is located both on Coast Guard vessels and land sites, and is used to 

maintain the safety of life at sea and provide a sure means of communications in 

emergency situations. 

On land, ELs will: 

• maintain and repair marine harbour radar, Direction Finding equipment 

(hardware and software), and radio communications equipment used by land 

communication station; and 

• install and maintain all electronic systems in Canadian Coast Guard vessel traffic 

centres. 

At sea or on ships, ELs will maintain: 

• all navigational equipment (Radar, Direction Finding systems, Echo Sounders, 

Gyrocompass, Global Maritime Distress and Safety Systems (GMDSS) systems, 

GPS, and Satellite communications systems); 

• cellular communication, including hardware and software, and Secure Telephone 

and Fax equipment for security operations involving both fisheries patrol and the 

RCMP when in arrest mode scenarios, or for security purposes involving 

sensitive or classified documents; and 

• multiple radio communication systems in a wide range of frequencies that are 

required to exchange critical information between the Coast Guard, fishing or 

commercials vessels and our communications crisis centers. 

9


ELs will also install and maintain: 

• weather monitoring and reporting equipment (NAVTEX and MDS); 

• radio beacons on Coast Guard vessels (for CCG or other government and 

private sector helicopter and rescue plane communications). This equipment is 

critical to the safe execution of distress, surveillance and meteorological 

missions; and 

• all communications systems onboard vessels that ensure a safety watch on all 

radio communications channels. 

Additionally, ELs perform Ships Radio Inspections (“SRI”) under the authority of the 

Canada Shipping Act for most ocean-going vessels entering Canadian ports. These 

inspections cover communications and navigation systems, as well as power 

requirements for safety of life at sea. 

INDUSTRY CANADA 

Part of Industry Canada’s mission is to facilitate the development and use of world-class 

communications infrastructure, technologies, and services by: 

• ensuring a flexible and efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum as a 

strategic national resource; 

• supporting timely and equitable access to high quality, affordable communication 

systems and services; and 

• promoting industrial development by facilitating innovation and investments in 

Canada’s communication infrastructure. 

This mission is supported and delivered in a large part by the ELs employed by Industry 

Canada. Among other duties, ELs at Industry Canada are expected to: 

• develop systems and undertake installations that assist in the monitoring and 

regulatory functions of the department; 

10


• ensure compliance with the Radio Communications Act and the Broadcasting Act 

by conducting investigations (e.g.: the theft of telecommunications or tracking 

down radio signals that may be jamming critical safety services), searching 

premises with the RCMP, laying charges, issuing summonses and testifying in 

court; 

• ensure that clear and reliable communications channels are available at high 

profile events such as the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics, the upcoming Pan 

American Games, royal visits, G8/G20 meetings, auto races, rock concerts, etc.; 

and 

• support emergency response activities (Swiss Air, 9/11, BC forest fires, etc.) by 

ensuring clear and interference-free communications for various agencies. 

OTHER DEPARTMENTS 

Although Industry Canada, DFO and DND represent the principal departments for the 

EL Group, many other departments employ ELs for a wide range of tasks. 

At Transport Canada, for example, Civil Aviation Safety Inspectors ensure the safety of 

the travelling public by performing audits of NAV CANADA’s Communication Navigation 

Surveillance / Air Traffic Management. For their part, Security Electronics 

Technologists safeguard the travelling public by performing audits of security equipment 

(carry-on and checked baggage x-ray equipment, explosive chemical detection 

equipment, etc.) installed in Canadian airports to ensure that the systems are installed, 

operated and maintained according to International Civil Aviation Organization 

standards. Transport Canada also employs operation employees within the Safety and 

Security Branch at the Aircraft Services Directorate (“ASD”), responsible for performing 

all major overhauls on Canadian Coast Guard helicopters, Transport Canada’s fleet of 

aircraft, as well as on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 412 (Transport) Fleet, which is 

responsible for VIP Administrative Flight Service. It also performs Medevac duties in 

conflicts around the globe. 

11


Additionally, Electronics Technologists at the Canadian Space Agency perform highly 

technical work on advanced projects for many Canadian and foreign clients. ELs are 

responsible for the correct functioning of many components used on the International 

Space Station, the Space Shuttle, Canadian and foreign commercial satellites and 

foreign military satellites. 

12


1.4 IBEW BARGAINING TEAM 

During the course of the arbitration process, Team members may be called upon to 

provide a more detailed explanation of specific issues of the enclosed proposals. The 

IBEW Electronics Group Bargaining Team is: 

Malcolm Ross 

Jean-François Sanfaçon 

Alex Smolic 

John Wedge 

Stephen Wheeler 

DFO/CCG 

DND 

DUS 

DND 

DFO/CCG 

The chief negotiator is Daniel Boulet, Business Manager / Financial Secretary, with 

assistance from Paul Cameron, Assistant Business Manager, and Luc Couture, IBEW 

International Representative. 

13


2 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS 

The parties commenced bargaining in 2010 when, on October 15, 2010, proposals were 

exchanged between the parties. As would become clear throughout the bargaining 

process, the Employer’s position was effectively limited to one key issue, being 

severance. On December 6, 2010, the Employer tabled a revised set of proposals, at 

which time it dropped its demands with respect to six Articles in the Collective 

Agreement, and one Letter of Understanding. From December 6 to 10, 2010, the 

parties met in an attempt to negotiate a collective agreement, and continued 

discussions from January 10 to 14, 2011. 

Early in 2011, the Union proposed a contract extension which would have allowed both 

parties more time to discuss the issues on the table. The extension proposed by the 

Union would have respected the constraints of the Expenditure Restraint Act. Local 

2228 representatives outlined the advantages of a contract extension on at least two 

occasions and followed up with a formal request on or about March 30, 2011. The 

Employer rejected the request a full five weeks later. 

On June 27, 2011, the parties agreed to sign off on a number of Collective Agreement 

provisions, without change. Valuable time was wasted, however, in July and August of 

2011 when the Employer refused to return to the Union its copy of the “no-change” 

clauses. Nevertheless, and as evidence of its commitment to bargaining in good faith, 

the Union tabled a comprehensive package to settle all outstanding issues during a 

bargaining session on August 26, 2011. In scheduling follow-up negotiations, the Union 

stressed the importance of the Employer’s response to this package, so as to gain an 

understanding of the Employer’s position with respect to the Union’s proposals, as well 

as to hear from the Employer as to the issues important to it. A formal request for such 

response was also made by email on September 23, 2011. 

14


Commensurate with the parties’ obligations to bargain in good faith, the Union 

continued to have the reasonably-held expectation that a formal response would be 

forthcoming at the scheduled follow-up negotiations. On October 11, 2011, however, at 

the meeting scheduled for the Union to receive the Employer’s comprehensive package, 

the Employer simply reverted to its original position. The Employer chose only to table 

language on Severance Pay and proceed to shift the discussion to two of the Union’s 

proposals. The Employer failed or refused to submit a comprehensive package, and 

failed or refused to indicate any intention ever to do so. As a result, the negotiations 

ended. 

The Union spent thirteen months attempting to negotiate a new Collective Agreement, 

and is no further ahead today than it was before negotiations commenced. Ample time 

has been devoted to the Employer’s issues. It is the Union’s position that the Employer 

is simply going through the motions of surface bargaining, with no serious intent to 

conclude a Collective Agreement. 

The Union submits that it is only through the binding arbitration process that resolution 

on the important issues between the parties can be achieved, and the entering into of a 

new Collective Agreement can be facilitated. 

15


3 LAW AND ARGUMENT 

3.1 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE 

Throughout the world, most jurisdictions have drafted laws to prevent certain services 

from being disrupted by labour disputes. In Canada, at times, the right to strike is 

denied to those employees providing services deemed essential for the well-being of a 

jurisdiction’s citizens. In other circumstances, procedures are established to limit the 

actions taken by unions by designating a number of specified workers who will continue 

to maintain a minimum level of services. 

The Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22 (“PSLRA” or the “Act”) 

provides that employees holding positions that are necessary for “the interest of the 

safety or security of the public” are prohibited from striking. The Act gives significant 

discretion to the employer in determining the number of employees who may not strike. 

Furthermore, the employer has an exclusive right to determine the level at which an 

essential service must be provided to the public. 2 In essence, the employer is within its 

rights to make no changes at all to the manner in which it operates or provides its 

services; that is, to continue its business as usual. The PSLRA also includes directions 

that, in identifying the number of positions necessary for an essential service, some 

employees may be required to perform their duties in “a greater proportion during a 

strike than they do normally.” 3 Furthermore, the number of employees that are 

necessary to provide the essential service is to be determined on the basis that the 

employer is not required to change the manner in which it normally operates, including 

normal work hours, overtime, or use of equipment. 4 

Because the daily work of most Local 2228 members has a direct influence on the 

safety and security of the Canadian public, the Union is subject to severe constraints 

2 Public Service Labour Relations Act, (“PSLRA”), section 120, Tab 1 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

3 PSLRA, subsection 121(1), Tab 1 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

4 PSLRA, subsection 121(2)(b), Tab 1 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

16


with respect to its right to free collective bargaining and its right to strike. The Union 

and its members acknowledge that they are essential to the safe and secure functioning 

of Canadian society. A strike involving electronics technologists in the federal public 

service would be contrary to the public interest, and the law with respect to essential 

services recognizes this. Considering this reality, the Union has chosen to seek binding 

arbitration when, as in the present case, it is faced with the Treasury Board’s 

intransigence towards its reasonable bargaining proposals. 

In coming to decisions in the context of interest arbitration, the Public Service Labour 

Relations Act requires Arbitration Boards to consider five factors, set out pursuant to 

section 148 as follows: 

148. In the conduct of its proceedings and in making an arbitral award, the 

arbitration board must take into account the following factors, in addition to 

any other factors that it considers relevant: 

(a) the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, 

the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians; 

(b) the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions 

of employment in the public service that are comparable to those of 

employees in similar occupations in the private and public sectors, 

including any geographic, industrial or other variations that the 

arbitration board considers relevant; 

(c) the need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to 

compensation and other terms and conditions of employment as 

between different classification levels within an occupation and as 

between occupations in the public service; 

(d) the need to establish compensation and other terms and conditions of 

employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications 

required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the 

nature of the services rendered; and 

17


(e) the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada’s 

fiscal circumstances. 5 

In conjunction with these statutorily prescribed factors, PSLRB Arbitration Boards have 

found it helpful to refer to traditional principles of arbitration as guidelines in coming to 

decisions, as well as to arbitration decisions in the broader public sector. 

It appears to be well accepted that the role of an arbitration board in an 

interest arbitration in the public sector, where the right to strike is nonexistent, 

or at best illusory by reason of the likelihood of back-to-work 

legislation, is to attempt to replicate what the parties might have arrived at, 

had both parties been left to free market forces, which include the right to 

strike and the right to lock out. An interest arbitration board’s impression 

of what the parties might have eventually settled for, must of necessity, 

depend in large part on the evidence presented in the hearing. 

With respect to that evidence, the Board must take into account not only 

the "power" position of the parties and attempt to determine who might 

prevail if a unrestricted economic warfare was permitted, but must be 

guided in large part by the "reasonableness" of the respective positions of 

the parties. 6 

As stated by arbitrator Stan Lanyon in his April 1996 unreported decision respecting the 

Electrical Contractors Association of Alberta, " …an arbitrator will take into account such 

factors as the parties' respective positions in negotiations; settlements reached by other 

parties; the significance of the issues, both in collective bargaining terms and to the 

parties themselves; and the likely trade-offs that would have been made during 

negotiations, both in regard to particular items and in regard to the collective agreement 

as a whole." 

5 PSLRA, section 148, Tab 1 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

6 Regina Professional Fire Fighters Association and the City of Regina, unreported, July 11, 1991 (Laing), 

as cited in Re Yorkton Professional Fire Fighters Assn. Local 1527 and Yorkton (Municipality), 

Saskatchewan Arbitration Board, 2003 CLB 16295, Tab 2 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

18


REPLICATION PRINCIPLE 

The arbitral mandate in interest arbitration is fundamentally different from the role of the 

arbitrator in rights arbitration. In interest arbitration, the prevailing principle is 

replication, that is, to finish the agreement that the parties were unable to conclude by 

attempting to replicate the likely results if free collective bargaining had produced a 

complete negotiated settlement. 

This principle has been consistently adopted by arbitrators in interest arbitrations. It is 

the foundation for a fair and reasonable settlement of the issues that continue to be 

outstanding between the parties: 

In submitting this case to arbitration, the parties have merely extended 

their negotiations – they have left it to this board to determine what they 

should, by negotiation, have agreed upon. We take it that the fundamental 

inquiry, as to each issue, is: what should the parties themselves, as 

reasonable men, have voluntarily agreed to? 7 

It is not expected that replication can be achieved with scientific precision. The exercise 

involves a consideration of several factors. In Skidegate Band Council, Arbitrator 

Korbin observed, at paragraph 45: 

Put another way, an interest arbitration board must put itself in the 

positions of the respective parties, and seek to arrive at the bargain the 

parties would have reached on their own. Necessarily, this includes due 

consideration to matters such as the parties' historical bargaining pattern, 

the use of comparators, the prevailing economic context, etcetera. At 

different times in a collective bargaining relationship, different factors will 

be prominent in shaping an outcome. It remains the task of an interest 

arbitrator to be sensitive to the prevailing bargaining reality of the parties, 

7 Twin City Rapid Transit Co. (1947), 7 L.A. 845 (McCoy), at p. 848 as cited in South Shore District Health 

Authority and C.U.P.E., Local 2431, 2525 and 4150 (Re) (2002), 72 C.L.A.S. 340, Tab 3 of the IBEW 

Book of Authorities 

19


and make a decision consistent with what they themselves would have 

bargained. 8 

The principle was expanded in Star of Fortune Gaming Management (BC) Corp v. 

Teamsters, Local 31, which emphasized that interest arbitrators utilize two principles: 

the replication theory and a determination of what is fair and reasonable in the 

circumstances: 

In applying the replication principle, an arbitrator's objective is to replicate 

or construct a collective agreement which reflects as nearly as possible 

the agreement that conventional bargaining between the parties would 

have produced had they themselves, been successful in concluding a 

collective agreement. This approach seeks to put both parties in the same 

position they would have been had there been no breakdown in 

negotiations. 

However, arbitrators try to overcome one serious flaw in this approach; 

that is, they do not simply want to mirror any great imbalances of power 

between parties in drafting the terms and conditions of employment. They 

will attempt to look at other objective criteria - for example, the terms and 

conditions of employment of other employees performing similar work. 

They therefore, in addition to employing the replication principle, impose 

what they consider to be fair and reasonable terms and conditions. We 

endorse both these approaches in the determination of first collective 

agreements. 

The replication principle describes the estimation of a collective 

agreement within the parameters of reasonable expectation emanating 

from a context where the employer would not have locked out, and the 

union and employees would not have struck; i.e. where there would have 

been no breakdown in negotiations. The fairness and equity principle is 

concerned with moderating power imbalances and applying objective 

criteria. The two principles should apply hand-in-hand. 9 

8 Skidegate Band Council (2002), 70 C.L.A.S. 335 (Korbin), Tab 4 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

9 Star of Fortune Gaming Management (BC) Corp v. Teamsters, Local 31, 2001 CarswellBC 3270, (B.C. 

Arb. Bd), Tab 5 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

20


In determining what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, an interest arbitrator is 

also expected to act adjudicatively and base the final result on rational, objective 

criteria, including: 

(a) The terms and conditions of employment freely negotiated by other unions and 

employers in the same industry within the relevant community; 

(b) The terms and conditions of employment freely negotiated by other unions and 

employers generally within the relevant community; 

(c) The terms and conditions of employment contained in the expired collective 

agreement; 

(d) The bargaining history between the parties; and 

(e) The economic situation in which each party finds itself. 10 

These criteria include some of the factors explicitly listed in the PSLRA, including the 

“comparability” principle, found at paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 148, and the 

“economic position” principle, found at paragraph (e) of section 148. In a very real 

sense, these and other principles are subsumed within the fundamental guiding 

principle of replication. 

CONSERVATISM PRINCIPLE 

Interest arbitration is an inherently conservative process: “as a general rule, neither 

party should look for a major breakthrough from a third party neutral; that is reserved for 

negotiations.” 11 Interest arbitration is not a proper forum for establishing breakthroughs 

or innovations. Interest arbitrators must attempt to replicate the collective bargaining 

process and what has been agreed to by the parties in a free collective bargaining 

10 Vernon (City) v. CUPE, Local 626, 76 C.L.A.S. 94 at paragraph 14, Tab 6 of the IBEW Book of 

Authorities 

11 Construction Labour Relations Association of British Columbia v. Operative Pasterers’ and Cement 

Masons’ International Association, Local 919, [2006] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 11 at paragraph 8, Tab 7 of the 

IBEW Book of Authorities 

21


environment. Therefore, interest arbitrators will generally follow bargaining trends, not 

establish them. 

NECESSITY PRINCIPLE 

The first two factors prescribed at subsection 148(a) and (b) of the Act concern 

attracting and retaining competent public servants, and maintaining comparability 

between public and private sector wages. The Federal Court has considered these 

enumerated factors to be part of the principle of necessity: 

In my view, it was reasonably open to the Board to interpret subsections 148(a) 

and (b) as encompassing the concept of operational necessity with the broader 

inquiry under subsection 148(a) being directed at recruitment and retention and 

the more narrow inquiry under subsection 148(b) at market conditions in relation 

to terms and conditions of employment. 

… subsection 148(a) is directed at the goal of ensuring that competent people 

are attracted to and will remain in the public service. Where there are difficulties 

in the area of recruitment and retention, subsection 148(b) requires a board to 

consider the necessity of offering terms and conditions of employment in the 

public sector that are comparable to those of employees in similar occupations to 

overcome the difficulties and to address the goal articulated in subsection 

148(a). 12 

Subsection 148(a) refers to the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and 

retaining them in, the public service. The Union submits that the issue for the 

Arbitration Board in the present case is to determine whether there should be a wage 

increase or other adjustment to the terms and conditions of employment in order to 

ensure that this necessity is met. 

COMPARABILITY PRINCIPLE 

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 148 also relate to the principle of comparability. 

Wages should be comparable to the private sector, and should also be comparable to 

12 CAW-Canada, Local 5454 v. Canada (Treasury Board Secretariat) (2006), 2006 CarswellNat 3086, 

2006 F.C. 989 (T.D.) at paras. 24-25, Tab 8 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

22


other similarly-situated positions within the federal public service. The Board has 

affirmed that where pay rates are out of line with the private sector, it will adjust those 

pay rates to something more comparable: 

The Board agrees with the employer that pay comparability is not the only factor 

relevant to the establishment of rates of pay for this bargaining unit, and it has 

not relied on it to the exclusion of other factors. However, where, as here, the 

evidence indicates unequivocally that bargaining unit rates of pay are 

significantly out of line with outside sector rates, the Board feels obliged to move 

in the direction of eliminating or reducing the disparity. 13 

The Board is equally concerned about internal comparability, including evidence of 

comparator groups where employees perform similar jobs. Public sector arbitrators 

commonly rely on information about occupations performing the same or similar work. 

As Justice Henderson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia stated in Hudson's Bay 

Co. v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board): 

… the interest arbitrator is to be guided, not only by the present 

circumstances of the parties, but also by such broader concerns as the 

general economic climate and the prevailing labour market conditions for 

similar work. Collective agreements negotiated by other similarly situated 

parties in the recent past constitute an important source of objective 

information. 14 

In applying these interest arbitration principles, an arbitrator must make an objective 

judgment in determining what the prevailing standard is where similar work is performed 

under similar working conditions. The terms and conditions of employment, the wage 

increases and wage rates established in negotiations for similar occupations in the 

same geographic areas represent comparators which should be replicated in interest 

arbitration cases. 

13 Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Financial Administration Group – Administrative 

and Foreign Service Group Category), [1986] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 74 at para. 46, Tab 9 of the IBEW Book of 

Authorities 

14 1996 CarswellBC 2764, Tab 10 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

23


Subsections 148(b) and (c), then, refer to the necessity of maintaining comparability 

between the public and private sectors. The Union submits that the question for the 

Arbitration Board, then, should be to determine the best means of achieving such 

comparability. 

ECONOMIC FACTORS 

Interest arbitrators have traditionally refused to consider “ability to pay” as a relevant 

criteria in the public sector. In this vein, Arbitrator Christie has stated: 

Interest arbitrators in the Canadian public sector have, apparently, 

universally rejected the legitimacy of an “ability to pay” argument. They 

have not allowed governments as employers to hide behind their own 

skirts in their role as the source of funds, to escape pay increases 

indicated by the other criteria. This has been so even where, as in the 

Ontario hospital sector, the employing body and the funding body are 

legally and formally different. The accepted view is that to allow 

government underfunding to justify the payment of substandard wages is 

to ask public sector employees to subsidize the rest of the community. 15 

Arbitrator Teplitsky has also rejected “ability to pay” as a principle of interest arbitration, 

stating that “the reality is that it is not a question of ability to pay. It is a question of 

unwillingness to pay. …it has long been recognized that public sector employees do not 

have to subsidize the community by accepting sub-standard wages and benefits.” 16 

The reference to the state of the Canadian economy in section 148(e) of the PSLRA is 

not an invitation for the arbitration boards to consider “ability to pay” as a relevant 

criteria for an interest arbitration award. Rather, arbitrators have stated that the test is 

what a fair-minded, well-informed taxpayer would accept: 

15 University of Toronto, unreported, (13 February 1981) (Christie) 

16 M. Teplitsky, Speech to the Ontario Bar Association – Ontario Labour Law Section (30 January 

1996),as cited in Christopher Rootham, Labour and Employment Law in the Federal Public Service 

(Toronto: Irwin Law, 2007) at 227, Tab 11 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

24


The test, then, is the arbitration board’s view of what a majority of fairminded, 

well-informed taxpayers would consider to be a fair and 

reasonable award, even if it meant tax increases. The greater the tax 

increase required to support the arbitration award, the more confident the 

board must be that that award is a reasonable and credible one, one that 

a majority of fair-minded, well-informed taxpayers would see as 

reasonable and fair. This squares precisely with another of the new 

criteria, “the extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the 

current funding levels are not increased.” If services are to be reduced, 

then that is an operational and political decision which the employer, not 

the arbitration board, must make. On the other hand, the greater the 

probability of that happening, the greater the onus on the arbitration board 

to be confident that its award is a fair and reasonable one, on that would 

be understood and supported by a majority of the informed, fair-minded 

public. 17 

In essence, then, the wording of section 148(e) of the Act requires the Board of 

Arbitration to rely on the reality of the general financial situation, rather than relying 

merely on a surface review of the employer’s financial situation. 

17 Niagara (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board v. Niagara Police Association (1997), 78 L.A.C. 

(4 th ) 42 at 58-59, Tab 12 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

25


4 OUTSTANDING ISSUES 

The union proposes that the following Articles and Memoranda of Understanding be 

awarded without change: 

• Article 13 – Information 

• Article 20 – National Joint Council Agreements 

• Article 22 – Severance Pay 

• Article 23 – Hours of Work 

• Article 28 – Call-Back 

• Article 32 – Sea Trials Allowance 

• Article 54 – Pay Administration 

• Article 58 – Part-time Employees 

• Memorandum of Understanding 15-09 – Leave for Union Business 

• Memorandum of Understanding 17-09 – Weekend Standby Assignments 

The Union proposes that the remaining Articles be amended as noted in the following 

section. 

26


ARTICLE 17 – VACATION LEAVE 

IBEW Bargaining Proposal 

17.02 Accumulation of Vacation Leave 

An employee who has earned at least ten (10) days’ pay for each calendar month of 

a fiscal year shall earn vacation leave of: 

… 

(a) fifteen (15) twenty (20) working days per fiscal year for an employee who has 

completed up to eight (8) sixteen (16) years of service; 

(b) twenty (20) working days per fiscal year if he or she has completed eight (8) 

years of service; 

Renew remaining clauses in Article 17 without change. 

Rationale 

Vacation leave provides employees with necessary rest and diversion from the regular 

work routine. The proposed new clause is a significant step towards achieving this 

goal for newer employees, many of whom have come into the federal public service 

after lengthy careers in the military or the private sector. 

Local 2228 proposes to improve vacation entitlements for new employees, providing 

them with access to twenty days’ vacation. This benefit would then not increase until an 

employee had completed up to sixteen years of service, after which time vacation leave 

would increase to twenty-two days, and so on, as per the current collective agreement. 

27


Access to the current vacation entitlements after a shorter period of employment is a 

valuable incentive for the recruitment and retention of employees. New employees 

currently must work for eight years before seeing an improvement in their vacation 

entitlement. It is not uncommon for employees in the EL Group to join the federal public 

service after a career in the private sector or a full career in the Canadian military. In 

fact, Statistics Canada has acknowledged that employees in the core public 

administration are, on the whole, much older than the general workforce. The aging 

workforce and looming retirement of the baby boomers has also been a topic of 

increased concern. Older workers play a key role in transferring institutional memory, 

and their experience and skill in occupations are essential in a knowledge-based 

economy. 18 These older employees may be more willing to continue working beyond 

their early retirement date if there is improved access to vacation leave to meet their 

desire for more leisure time away from the workplace. 

Improvement to the current vacation leave provision is also an issue of internal equity, 

and would bring the EL Group’s Collective Agreement in line with other public service 

agreements. The Air Traffic Control (AI) Group 19 earns twenty days’ vacation leave per 

year of service immediately upon hiring, as does the Research (RE) Group. 20 The 

Ships’ Officers (SO) Group, for its part, earns twenty-one days’ vacation leave per year 

of service for a 40-hour workweek, up to sixteen years of service. 21 The SO Group 

collective agreement provisions in this regard are significant, in part, because many ELs 

work with the Canadian Coast Guard, side-by-side with ships officers, often for 

extended periods of time. It is not uncommon, for example, for them to spend six or 

more weeks at a time out at sea. The proposed changes would be fair and reasonable, 

as these employees perform similar work to employees who have received greater 

compensation and additional benefits. 

18 Katarzyna Naczk, Employment Trends in the Federal Public Service (Statistics Canada: March 2007), 

Tab 13 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

19 AI Group Collective Agreement Excerpts, Tab 2 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

20 RE Group Collective Agreement Excerpts, Tab 3 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

21 SO Group Collective Agreement Excerpts, Tab 4 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

28


ARTICLE 18 – OTHER LEAVE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY 


18.12 Leave With Pay for Family‐Related Responsibilities 

… 

(b) 

… 

The Employer shall grant leave with pay under the following circumstances: 

(ii) to provide for the immediate and temporary care of a sick member of 

the employee’s family and to provide an employee with time to make 

alternative care arrangements where the illness is of a longer duration; 

(iii) to provide for the immediate and temporary care of an elderly member 

of the employee’s family; 

(iv) two (2) day’s leave with pay for needs directly related to the birth or to 

the adoption of the employee’s child. This leave may be divided into two 

(2) periods and granted on separate days; 

(c) 

The total leave with pay which may be granted under subparagraphs (b)(i), (ii), 

(iii) and (iv) shall not exceed thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours in a fiscal 

year. 


Rationale 

Entitlement to leave for family-related responsibilities is intended to allow employees 

with sufficient time off to respond to the real needs of employees which are envisaged in 

30


these provisions. 23 Access to this and other forms of paid leave is a measure by which 

a compassionate employer recognizes that employees have, from time to time, a need 

for leave to deal with their personal lives. This is a purpose repeatedly recognized by 

the Board's Adjudicators as well as by the Federal Court of Canada. 

The Bargaining Agent proposes to remove the two-day cap found at clause 18:12(b)(iv) 

for leave surrounding the birth or adoption of a child, to provide only for a single allinclusive 

cap of 37.5 hours. Employees ought to be provided with the option of taking 

up to a maximum of five days, as provided for in the current collective agreement, and 

dividing that time in a manner that best suits their particular circumstances. Because 

the cap would remain as is, there would of course be no additional cost to the employer. 

It is well-recognized that best practice employers have in place family-related leave 

policies that are practical, flexible and tailored to the specific circumstances of the 

employees. Family-related leave policies should benefit both employers and employees. 

They assist employees to manage their transition out of and back into work by providing 

clarity around entitlements and expectations. They also help employers ensure that 

valuable employees are attracted, retained and feel appreciated. 

Furthermore, the Union’s proposal would bring the EL Group’s Collective Agreement in 

line with other public service agreements as well as with arbitral decisions in the federal 

public service bargaining context. 24 Indeed, a significant number of collective 

agreements recognize the flexibility sought by the IBEW for its members when 

experiencing the birth or adoption of a child, and the unforeseen consequences that 

sometimes inevitably arise from such a life event. In particular, the following 

23 Alan Phillips and Treasury Board (Board file 166-2-20099), as cited in King v. Canada Customs and 

Revenue Agency (Tarte), 2001 PSSRB 117 at para. 25, affirmed by the Federal Court (Trial Division), 


24 See, for example, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Treasury Board, 2006, 

Board File 585-02-3 (Tarte), Tab 15 of the IBEW Book of Authorities, and Public Service Alliance of 

Canada v. House of Commons, 2009 PSLRB 161 (Butler), Tab 16 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

31


occupational groups enjoy virtually identical terms and conditions of employment in this 

regard: 

• Program and Administrative Services 

• Border Services 

• Applied Science and Patent Examination 

• Architecture, Engineering and Land Survey 

• Audit, Commerce and Purchasing 

• Computer Systems 

• Financial Management 

• Foreign Service 

32


ARTICLE 19 – SICK LEAVE 


19.02 An employee is eligible for sick leave with pay when he or she is unable to 

perform his or her duties because of illness or injury provided that: 

(a) 

he or she has the necessary sick leave credits, 

and 

(b) 

he or she satisfies the Employer of this condition in such manner and at such 

time as may be determined by the Employer. 

Add the following clause to Article 19: 

19.XX Expenses incurred by the employee as a result of satisfying 19.02(b) shall be 

reimbursed by the Employer. 


Rationale 

As explicitly set out in the collective agreement, the Employer has the right to insist on a 

medical certificate as a condition of granting sick leave. To claim an entitlement to sick 

leave, Article 19.02(b) requires an employee to satisfy the Employer “… of this condition 

in such manner and at such time as may be determined by the Employer”. This 

establishes an unfettered right of the Employer to require certification of any and all sick 

33


leave, so long as it is acting in good faith. Employees have no control over when, how, 

or how often the Employer can exercise its right to request a medical certificate. Since 

it is the Employer who benefits from the production of a medical certificate, it is the 

Employer who should pay for it. 

Established case law shows that where there is a discretion conferred on the employer, 

that discretion must be exercised reasonably. 25 Where an Employer requires that an 

employee produce a medical certificate, it is asking that employee to compromise his or 

her fundamental right to privacy for the Employer's benefit in policing its sick leave plan. 

An employee can refuse to produce the certificate, but with the consequence that 

administrative action could follow, such as withholding pay. 26 The jurisprudence is clear 

that while an Employer has the discretion to ask for a medical certificate, that discretion 

must be exercised reasonably. The Union submits that when the Employer asks, it 

should have to pay for its production. 

Furthermore, while the cost of medical certificates varies among medical professionals, 

these costs are significant to individual employees. Costs may even be prohibitive for 

employees with chronic health conditions or disabilities, and who may be required by 

the Employer, at the Employer’s discretion, to repeatedly produce medical certificates. 

On the other hand, they represent a minor overall cost to the Employer. 

For example, given the demographic information provided by the Employer, 

approximately 3075 days of sick leave were granted to the 1114 members of the EL 

bargaining unit, representing an average of 2.76 sick leave days per member. 27 By 

25 See for example Re NAV CANADA v. Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, 86 L.A.C. (4th) 370, Re 

NAV Canada v. Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, 74 L.A.C. (4th) 163 and Re Meadow Park 

Nursing Home v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, 9 L.A.C. (3d) 137 

26 See for example International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, (I.B.E.W.), Local 2228 v. NAV 

CANADA, 2003 CarswellNat 6275, (Christie), Tab 17 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

27 Data provided by Treasury Board for fiscal year 2008/2009, Tab 6 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

34


contrast, Canadian workers in the same time period used an average of 7.9 sick leave 

days. 

Assuming an average cost of $25 per certificate, and assuming the Employer requested 

a certificate for every sick leave day taken by each member, the total cost to the 

Employer would be approximately $76,875 (3075 x $25 = $76,875), or $69 per EL 

($76,875 ÷ 1114 = $69). Therefore, if the Employer requested a certificate for every five 

sick leave days taken by each member, the total cost to the Employer would be 

approximately $15,375, or $13.80 per EL. 

The Union submits that its proposal is fair and reasonable. Furthermore, its position is 

supported by the Canadian Medical Association’s Third Party Forms: The Physician’s 

Role, which clearly states that the obligation to pay for medical forms ought to be borne 

by the third party requesting the form, that is, the employer: 

[A]s a matter of principle, third parties, including governments, should 

cover physicians’ fees for providing this information [medical certificates]. 28 

This proposal is also an effort on the Bargaining Agent’s part to keep current with sick 

leave trends and to place its members on a parallel footing with other public and private 

sector employees. For example, the Collective Agreement between The Parks Canada 

Agency and The Public Service Alliance of Canada contains a similar clause to that 

being proposed by Local 2228: 

33.02 An employee shall be granted sick leave with pay when he/she is 

unable to perform his/her duties because of illness or injury provided that: 

(a) he/she satisfies the Agency of this condition in such manner and at 

such time as may be determined by the Agency, 

and 

28 Third Party Forms: The Physician’s Role at page 6, Tab 18 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

35


(b) he/she has the necessary sick leave credits. 

33.03 

(a) Unless otherwise informed by the Agency, a statement signed by the 

employee stating that because of illness or injury he/she was unable to 

perform his/her duties, shall, when delivered to the Agency, be considered 

as meeting the requirements of paragraph 33.02(a). 

(b) In the event that the Agency requests that an employee submit a 

medical certificate to meet the requirements of clause 33.02(a), the 

Agency shall reimburse the employee for the amount billed to the 

employee for the issuance of the certificate upon presentation of a 

receipt. 29 

A number of agreements outside the core public service also contain similar provisions 

and recognize that the cost of requiring a medical certificate ought to be borne by the 

Employer. See, for example, the collective agreements between Queen’s University 

and a number of Canadian Union of Public Employees Locals, including Local 229, 254 

and 1302, as well as the collective agreement between the Management Negotiating 

Committee for English-language School Boards (CPNCA) and the Fédération des 

employées et employés de services publics Inc. (CSN) and the collective agreement 

between Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Professional Institute of the 

Public Service of Canada. 30 

29 Collective Agreement between Parks Canada and PSAC, Excerpts, Tab 7 of the IBEW Book of 

Documents 

30 Relevant excerpts of these Collective Agreements can be found at Tab 8 of the IBEW Book of 

Documents 

36


ARTICLE 24 – DAYS OF REST 


24.06 In an unbroken series of consecutive and contiguous days of rest, an 

employee shall be paid at twice (2X) his or her straight‐time hourly rate on a second 

or subsequent day of rest, provided the employee has worked and has received one 

and one‐half (1 1/2) times his or her straight‐time hourly rate in accordance with 

clause 24.05 for any day of rest in that series. 


Rationale 

The Union proposes to amend Article 24.06 of the Collective Agreement to allow for the 

payment of twice an employee’s regular rate of pay when he or she is required to work 

on a second or subsequent day of rest. The amendment proposed is, in short, a matter 

of equity among employees working side by side, performing complementary tasks. 

Transport Canada, for example, has operational employees within the Safety and 

Security Branch at the Aircraft Services Directorate (“ASD”). ELs in the ASD are 

licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers with a specialty in Electronics systems. They 

are responsible for performing, among other things: 

(1) All of the major overhauls on Canadian Coast Guard helicopters; 

(2) Overhauls and daily maintenance on Transport Canada’s fleet of aircraft, 

which transport civil aviation inspectors around the country as well as 

37


government officials, such as Ministers, members of the Transportation 

Safety Board, etc.; and 

(3) Overhauls and daily maintenance on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 412 

(Transport) Fleet, which is responsible for VIP Administrative Flight Service. 

The Challenger fleet transports the Prime Minister, the Governor General and 

foreign dignitaries. It also performs Medevac duties in conflicts around the 

globe. 

Electronics technologists are keenly aware that when they are called in to work on their 

second or subsequent days of rest, they are working alongside members of the 

Engineering and Scientific Support (EG) Group and Aircraft Operations (AO) Group who 

are, in fact, being paid at a rate of twice their straight-time hourly rate, while ELs are 

not. 31 This type of wage discrepancy leads to labour disagreements and lowers 

employee morale. It has been long recognized that serious morale problems inevitably 

arise when employees working side by side within the same department, but being 

members of different bargaining units, find themselves subject to significantly different 

conditions of employment. 32 

Federally, PIPSC and PSAC have repeatedly negotiated language ensuring double-time 

pay to employees when required to work on the employee’s second or subsequent day 

of rest, without the requirement of having been called to work on the employee’s first 

day of rest at a rate of one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay. 33 

31 AO Collective Agreement, Article 19, Excerpts at Tab 9 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

32 Commission of Inquiry into Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of British Columbia, 

Making Bargaining Work in the British Columbia Public Service (Victoria, BC: The Commission, 1972) at 

26, as cited in Christopher Rootham, Labour and Employment in the Federal Public Service (Toronto: 

Irwin Law, 2007) at 157, Tab 11 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

33 See the Agreement between the Treasury Board and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of 

Canada, Applied Science and Patent Examination Group at Article 9.01(c)(i); Architecture, Engineering 

and Land Survey Group at Article 9.01(c)(i); the Agreement Between the Treasury Board and the Public 

Service Alliance of Canada (Program and Administrative Services Group) at Article 28.06(b); Technical 

Services Group at Article 28.01(b); and Border Services Group at Article 28.05(b), relevant excerpts of 

which are at Tab 10 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

38


Moreover, the cost to the Employer is by no means unreasonable. There are currently 

approximately 1114 ELs in the federal public service. Using the latest data provided by 

Treasury Board, being fiscal year 2008/2009, the cost to the Employer would be an 

additional $18,191.79 or $16.33 per EL: 

• Hours paid per second day of rest at 1.5X straight-time: 999 hours 

• Hourly rate for EL-5, being the top rate in 2010: $36.42 

• Additional cost (from 1.5X to 2X = 0.5X) would be 0.5 x $36.42 x 999 hours = 

$18,191.79 

• Additional cost per EL = $18191.79 ÷ 1114 = $16.33 

Our proposal is grounded in sound rationale. The federal sector collective agreements 

and cost projections prove that our proposal is fair to our members and workable for the 

Treasury Board. 

39


ARTICLE 25 – OVERTIME 

The Union is proposing three separate and independent amendments to Article 25. 

First, the Union is seeking to have its members be fairly compensated for hours worked 

outside the employee’s headquarters area. Second, the Union is seeking to increase 

the amount of compensation for overtime meals. Finally, we propose a change which 

would allow members with accumulated leave a better opportunity to use the banked 

leave. 


Amend Article 25.02(b) as follows: 

25.02 Each completed six (6) minute period of overtime shall be compensated for 

at the following rates: 

(a) time and one-half (1 1/2) for hours worked other than provided in 25.01; 

(b) notwithstanding clause 25.01, double (2) time for all hours worked 

(i) in excess of twelve (12) in a continuous period of work, 

(ii) or, in excess of twelve (12) hours of work in a day, or 

(iii) outside the employee’s headquarters area. 

This section shall not apply to Article 27 “Travel”, except as specifically provided in 

Article 27; 

… 

40


Rationale – Article 25.02(b) 

When an EL is called to work outside his or her headquarters area, the work involved is 

often difficult, hazardous and essential to the public. Few other occupational groups in 

the federal public service perform the type work in the conditions to which our members 

are subjected. 

Industry Canada, for example, strives to facilitate the development and use of worldclass 

communications infrastructure, technologies and services. Its mission is 

supported and delivered in large part by ELs. Among other duties, ELs develop 

systems and undertake installations on behalf of Industry Canada and for the benefit of 

the Canadian public. On a more critical basis, ELs support emergency response 

activities across the country, from the Swiss Air Flight 111 disaster in Nova Scotia to 

forest fires in British Columbia, by ensuring clear and interference-free communications 

for various agencies. 

When required to work away from headquarters, ELs are often in isolated areas, without 

access to amenities, such as a mountain-top site or remote areas of northern Ontario. 

There is often no time to rest, and frankly nowhere to go for a coffee or lunch break. 

While our members appreciate the importance and necessity of this type of work, 

fairness dictates that they ought to be compensated for such. 

While it has been difficult to estimate the cost to the Employer of this proposal, the 

Union has made a goodwill attempt to do so. Information provided to the Bargaining 

Agent from the Employer demonstrates that in fiscal year 2008-2009, 29,704 hours 

overtime were paid out at a rate of time and one-half. While the Union was not able to 

obtain accurate numbers from the Employer, if we assume that 50 percent of those 

overtime hours had been worked outside of the employees’ headquarters area, under 

the Union’s proposal there would have been a 16.83% increase in cost to the Employer: 

41


• 29,704 hours of overtime worked at 1.5X in 2008-2009; 

• If 50% of overtime was worked outside of the HQ area, approximately 15,000 

hours would have been paid at 2X; 

• These estimates represent approximately an additional 7,500 hours (2X - 

1.5X = 0.5X, which is the equivalent of 7,500 hours of paid straight time); 

• Further assuming that the typical member is an EL-05 and paid at the top 

level of the pay grid, an hourly rate is $36.42 can be attributed to each 

member; 

• 7,500 hours x $36.42 = $273,150 

Under the present provisions of the Collective Agreement, the Employer pays 

approximately $1,622,729.00 annually in overtime hours. Under the changes as 

proposed by the Union, the Employer would pay approximately $1,895,879.00, 

representing a 16.83% rise in cost. Considering the nature of the work involved and the 

personal costs to employees, the Union submits that the added cost to the Employer is 

reasonable and workable. 

42



Amend Article 25.05 as follows: 

25.05 Except for employees serving abroad with Foreign Affairs and International 

Trade where current local conditions for payment of meals will continue, employees 

working overtime will be granted meal breaks and compensated for meals as follows: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

an employee who works three (3) or more hours of overtime immediately 

before his or her scheduled hours of work shall be provided a paid meal break 

of up to one‐half (1/2) hour duration and be reimbursed his or her expenses 

for one (1) meal in the amount of ten eleven dollars and fifty cents 

($10.50$11.50). Effective September 1, 2012 this reimbursement is increased 

to twelve dollars ($12.00). Effective September 1, 2013 this reimbursement is 

increased to twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50). 

An employee who works three (3) or more hours of overtime immediately 

following his or her scheduled hours of work shall be provided a paid meal 

break of up to one‐half (1/2) hour duration and be reimbursed his or her 

expenses for one (1) meal in the amount of ten eleven dollars and fifty cents 

($10.50$11.50). Effective September 1, 2012 this reimbursement is increased 

to twelve dollars ($12.00). Effective September 1, 2013 this reimbursement is 

increased to twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50). 

For each four (4) hours an employee works overtime continuously extending 

beyond the period provided in paragraph (a) or (b) above, he or she shall be 

provided a paid meal break of up to one‐half (1/2) hour and be reimbursed at 

the rate of ten eleven dollars and fifty cents ($10.50$11.50) for each meal. 

Effective September 1, 2012 this reimbursement is increased to twelve dollars 

($12.00). Effective September 1, 2013 this reimbursement is increased to 

twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50). 

When, at the request of the employee, a meal period of more than one half 

(1/2) hour can be arranged and taken prior to the beginning of an overtime 

assignment such meal period shall be unpaid time and no reimbursement for 

expenses will be made. Utilization of this option shall not serve to deny an 

employee entitlement under paragraph (c) above. 

43


Rationale – Article 25.05 

Article 25.05 of the current Agreement provides for an overtime meal payment in the 

amount of $10.50. This meal is paid to employees if they are required to work overtime 

for three hours immediately before or after their regularly scheduled hours of work, and 

every four hours thereafter. The principle behind this benefit is that employees working 

overtime are entitled to be fed every few hours. It goes without saying that the work of a 

technologist can be physically and mentally challenging. 

The Union is seeking modest increases to these premiums over the life of the Collective 

Agreement. 

These premiums have not been increased through multiple rounds of 

bargaining. g. In fact, the overtime meal allowance has been set at $10.50 since 2004. 

Moreover, these amounts remain well below the National Joint Council directives, which 

currently provide for an allowance of $14.60 for a lunch. 34 Even as proposed, they do 

not begin to keep up to the cost of inflation and the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for 

food, nor do they take into account any additional costs incurred by virtue of the 

introduction of harmonized sales taxes in some jurisdictions: 

34 National Joint Council Directives, Appendix C – Allowances, , effective October 2011, Tab 11 of the 

IBEW Book of Documents 

44


Amend Article 25.08(d) as follows: 

25.08 

… 

(d) 

If any time off in lieu of overtime earned in paragraph 25.08(c) cannot be 

liquidated by September 30th of the next fiscal year, the end of the fiscal year, 

then payment in cash will be made at the employee’s rate of pay as of March 

31st. 


Rationale – Article 25.08 

While the main benefit provided by Article 25.08 of the Collective Agreement meets the 

needs of the members, the existing terms are satisfactory only if overtime is earned 

early enough in the vacation year. Overtime earned and banked in February or March 

can rarely be taken as time off in lieu, often because of operational requirements. In 

such circumstances, the clause as presently written essentially becomes ineffective. 

On the contrary, however, much overtime is worked towards the end of the fiscal year. 

Common sense dictates that the Employer ought to permit time off in the summer, 

during slower work periods, providing employees with an additional six months to use 

any accumulated overtime at no additional cost to the Employer. In fact, a number of 

federal public service groups enjoy comparable provisions in their collective 

agreements, including the Computer Systems Group, the Applied Science and Patent 

Examination Group, the Audit, Commerce and Purchasing Group and the Financial 

Management Group. 35 

35 Excerpts from relevant Collective Agreements at Tab 12 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

45


ARTICLE 27 – TRAVEL 


27.10 Travel Status Leave 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(a) 

(bd) 

(ce) 

An employee who is required to travel outside his or her headquarters area on 

government business, as these expressions are defined by the Employer, and is 

away from his permanent residence for forty (40) nights during a fiscal year shall 

be granted fifteen (15) hours off with pay. The employee shall be credited with 

seven decimal five (7.5) hours off for each additional twenty (20) nights that the 

employee is away from his or her permanent residence to a maximum of sixty (60) 

additional nights. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (a) above, an employee who has been required to 

travel less than forty (40) nights and who is required to travel outside his or her 

headquarters area on government business, as these expressions are defined by 

the Employer, for twenty (20) consecutive nights, shall immediately be entitled to 

seven decimal five (7.5) hours off with pay. These seven decimal five (7.5) hours 

shall form part of the fifteen (15) hours off the employee will earn if he or she is 

required to travel for forty (40) nights or more during the fiscal year. 

The maximum number of hours off earned under this clause shall not exceed 

thirty‐seven decimal five (37.5) hours in a fiscal year and shall accumulate as 

compensatory leave with pay. 

Employees who are in travel status and incur an overnight stay outside of the 

headquarters area shall receive one-half (1/2) hour of compensatory time off in 

lieu for each overnight stay. 

The Employer shall grant the travel status leave at times convenient to both the 

employee and the Employer. 

If any of this leave cannot be liquidated by the end of the fiscal year, then 

payment in cash shall be made at the employee’s rate of pay as of March 31st. 

The provisions of this clause do not apply when the employee travels in connection with 

courses, training sessions, professional conferences and seminars, unless the employee 

is required to attend by the Employer. 


46


Rationale 

There are significant demands on many members of the EL group to travel extensively 

for their job. This results in stress and a substantial loss of personal time as a result of 

being away from home, family and personal commitments. 

The Union proposes to modify the model for earning Travel Status Leave, with a 

consequent minor improvement in entitlement. In essence, the proposal would permit 

all overnight stays to be counted towards earning the Leave, ensuring that the benefit is 

proportional to the amount of travel undertaken. It would also eliminate the cap of 37.5 

hours of compensatory leave with pay. 

Members of Local 2228 face a unique set of challenges when they are required to travel 

on Employer business. Significantly, they have little or no control over the timing and 

duration of their business travel. It is commonly known that employees who are away 

from their homes for extended periods of time may experience a range of negative 

psychological and social impacts. Frequent or extended travel has a negative impact 

on a member’s family life. Time spent away from one’s spouse and children may be 

stressful and difficult not only for the employee, but for the stay-at-home spouse and 

family as well. Travel sometimes results in an additional financial burden as well, in that 

employees may incur additional expenses for home maintenance and repair, child care, 

loss of spousal earnings, etc. An employee’s personal time is also greatly affected, in 

that frequent travel may prevent him or her from taking courses outside of the 

workplace, developing hobbies, or participating in community events. Finally, the 

nature of the work away from headquarters is such that it is often remote, difficult and 

hazardous, which is stressful and which has a cumulative effect on members’ wellbeing. 

47


EL group members report that the nature of their work demands extended periods in 

particularly isolated situations, such as remote Northern field locations or aboard a ship. 

When employees are in these situations, cut off from their families, unable to access 

normal recreational facilities, they should be compensated for the fact that their time is 

not their own to do with as they please. They cannot participate in community events, 

pursue personal interests or be present with their families. While fully acknowledging 

the necessity of such work, the fact remains that work away from home holds these 

members captive. The IBEW is seeking to address this issue through further 

improvements to the Travel Status Leave provision. 

While the existing Travel Status Leave benefit goes part way towards addressing these 

concerns, EL group members continue to experience difficulties with the restrictions 

contained in this Article. Many members cannot access the leave due to the 

unreasonably high threshold required to be met before qualifying for any time off. 

Moreover, the relatively modest amount of time off once that threshold is reached and 

the restrictive nature of the clause is simply insufficient. 

The purpose of Travel Status Leave is to compensate members for the time that they 

are away from home. The negative impacts described above do not only begin to 

manifest themselves after twenty (20) nights away. The requirements with respect to 

travel are difficult, no matter how often this occurs. The compensation should reflect this 

reality. 

Further, some ELs are away for prolonged periods of time. Indeed, the Employer 

requires some members to travel so extensively, they reach the 100-night limit of 

compensation under Article 27.10. The Union submits that there should be no maximum 

entitlement under this article. If the Employer requires a member to be travelling 

overnight, it must be prepared to fully compensate members for this time away from 

their home lives and families. 

48


The Union’s proposal is simple and fair: for each night away, a member shall be given 

one half hour of leave with pay. This is not without precedent in comparator groups 

and, even as proposed, would not match our closest comparator group, being the 

electronics technologists employed at NAV CANADA. Article 29.07 of the collective 

agreement between NAV CANADA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (IBEW) states: 

Employees who are in travel status and incur an overnight stay outside of 

the headquarters area shall receive one-half (1/2) hour of compensatory 

time off in lieu for each overnight stay up to and including fifty (50) 

overnights in a vacation year. Employees who are in travel status and 

incur an overnight stay outside of the headquarters area of more than fifty 

(50) overnights shall receive one (1) hour of compensatory time off in lieu 

for each overnight stay in a vacation year. If the compensatory time off in 

lieu cannot be liquidated by the end of the vacation year, then payment in 

cash will be made at the employee’s straight-time rate of pay as of March 

31 st . 

Based on the most recent data provided to us by the Employer, in fiscal year 

2008/2009, a total of 78 days of Travel Status Leave was paid out to the EL Group as a 

whole. These 1114 members used an average of approximately 0.04 days, and were 

paid out an average of approximately 0.03 days under this article. The increased cost 

of the program to the Employer would be relatively minimal – approximately $71.93 per 

EL per year, or 0.101 % percent of payroll for this group. The Union submits that this is 

a cost-effective proposal for the Employer, especially in light of the potential work-life 

balance benefits to its employees. 

The Union’s proposal maintains a fair degree of compensation for EL members required 

to travel by the Employer. There is no arbitrary threshold a member must meet before 

being able to access the entitlement. It abides by a simple principle: employees 

required to travel should be reasonably compensated for such, and the benefit received 

is directly proportional to the working conditions imposed. Finally, the Union’s proposal 

49


allows employees the benefit of earning time off in lieu each time they are required to 

travel. 

50


ARTICLE 31 – SEA DUTY 



31.01 Except for employees of the Department of National Defence when covered 

by Article 32, Sea Trials’ Allowance, any employee assigned to work aboard a ship 

shall be paid a Sea Duty Allowance of nineteen twenty-five dollars ($19$25) for each 

such night he or she is at sea. Effective September 1, 2012, this amount shall be 

increased to twenty-seven dollars ($27). Effective September 1, 2013, this amount 

shall be increased to twenty-nine dollars ($29). 


31.02 Except for employees of the Department of National Defence when covered 

by Article 32, Sea Trials’ Allowance, any employee assigned to work aboard a ship 

shall be paid a Sea Duty Allowance, in addition to clause 31.01 above, of twenty‐five 

thirty-one dollars ($25$31) for each night beyond forty‐four (44) consecutive nights 

that he or she is at sea. Effective September 1, 2012, this amount shall be increased 

to thirty-three dollars ($33). Effective September 1, 2013, this amount shall be 

increased to thirty-five dollars ($35). 


51


Rationale 

The Union proposes an increase to the Sea Duty Allowance in line with the amount 

previously awarded at arbitration between these same parties, but never implemented 

as a result of the Expenditure Restraint Act, S.C. 2009, c. 2, which legislated very 

significant restrictions on the monetary provisions that could be included in a collective 

agreement or arbitral award. 

The Canadian Coast Guard employs ELs on each of its larger class icebreakers, which 

patrol Canada’s arctic waters in the summer months, its coastline and gulfs in the 

winter, as well as science vessels performing offshore programs. This undertaking 

requires the efforts of seven vessels from four different regions: Quebec, the Maritimes, 

Pacific and Newfoundland. There are between thirty-nine (39) and forty-four (44) ELs 

performing sea duty each year, maintaining the vessels for three six-week trips per 

vessel from July to November, and up to four four-week trips in the winter months from 

January to May. 

Each EL onboard a Coast Guard vessel has the primary responsibility for the 

maintenance and repair of all electronic navigation and communication systems, and 

local area networks on that vessel, as well as providing support to science programs. 

Once the vessel is underway, the EL is essentially on standby around the clock and is 

expected to respond to any maintenance issue at any hour of the day. Yet ELs 

continue to be paid as though they had never left the comforts of home. 

Sea duty is difficult and physically demanding. Members required to go to sea must 

pass regular physical examinations. It is common knowledge that the workforce is 

aging. Practically, this means that more ELs are unable to pass these physicals, putting 

a strain on the younger ELs, many with young families, who are required to spend more 

time at sea than they otherwise would were it not for the aging workforce. 

52


The Union’s proposal is fair and reasonable. One need only consider the true value of a 

technologist at the ready. Any land-based technologist required to be available 24/7 

would be paid a standby premium equal to one hour’s pay for every 8-hour standby 

shift. For an EL-5, this amounts to $36.42 per 8 hours or $72.84 per night. This same 

technologist at sea would, under the current agreement, receive $19 per night. 

The Employer will counter that this is not a valid comparison, as technologists at sea 

are not assigned standby duties in accordance with Article 29 of the Collective 

Agreement, and are therefore not required to be available during their off-duty hours. 

While this may be technically accurate, it is also a gross misrepresentation of the 

situation. In fact, evidence of the employee’s continuous availability is found at Article 

25.10 of the Collective Agreement, which states: 

25.10 An employee aboard ship who performs overtime work which is not 

contiguous to his or her regularly scheduled hours of work shall be paid 

the greater of: 

(a) compensation at the applicable overtime rate for the time worked, 

or 

(b) one (1) hour's pay at the straight-time rate. 

This provision recognizes that employees onboard ship are readily available to work 

and do not require the “inconvenience premium” afforded to other employees under the 

usual call-back provisions of Article 28. 

Moreover, the Collective Agreement does not contain any language which would permit 

employees to refuse overtime. In any event, even if our members had this right, 

virtually none would exercise it. An ocean-going vessel such as a Coast Guard ship is a 

small community. Our members maintain the peace in this community by responding 

to the needs of the ship’s captain, whether required to do so or not. It is not the Union’s 

goal to change this. 

53


Sadly, however, the employer takes advantage of these circumstances and only 

provides a small payment for sea duty. 

Even if this panel awarded the increase 

proposed the union, these amounts would still be less than the full value of having a 

technologist on standby and would not fully compensate employees for the hardships 

experienced which being at sea for extended periods of time. 

Additionally, the Sea Duty Allowance as currently provided for at Article 31.01 has 

remained unchanged since 2004. In real terms, this signifies a drop from 7.89% to 

6.85% percent of an EL’s rate of daily pay. Even more significantly, there has been no 

change in the amounts provided for under Article 31.02 since at least 1991, which is a 

drop from 13.14% to 9.02% of daily pay. 

Sea Duty Allowances 

31.01 as % of Daily Pay 31.02 as % of Daily Pay 

14.00 

13.00 

Percent (%) 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Year 

54


By way of comparison, offshore oil workers at the Hibernia platform in Newfoundland 

receive a ten (10) percent premium of offshore work. The Collective Agreement 

between the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Local 2121 and the 

Hibernia Platform Employers Organization representing fourteen (14) companies on the 

platform states that Operations Technicians (IT Support and Telecommunication 

Technicians), Electronics Group, working on offshore platforms in Newfoundland are 

entitled to a 10% premium for offshore work. 36 Significantly, 10% of the current (2009) 

EL-05 current daily rate of pay would represent a premium of $27.31 per day. 

The arbitration panel recognized this inequity in 2008 when, in an interest arbitration 

decision dated December 23, 2008, the Board of Arbitration awarded the following: 

Article 31.01 shall be amended to reflect the payment of a Sea Duty 

Allowance of $23.00 (twenty-three dollars) effective the date of this award 

and a Sea Duty Allowance of $25.00 (twenty-five dollars) effective 

September 1, 2009. Article 31.02 shall be amended to reflect a Sea Duty 

Allowance of $29.00 (twenty-nine dollars) effective the date of this award 

and a Sea Duty Allowance of $31.00 (thirty-one dollars) effective 

September 1, 2009. 

This decision was effectively nullified as a result of the Expenditure Restraint Act, and 

yet the Employer has continued to this day to refuse to include the text in the Collective 

Agreement. 

36 Collective Agreement between CEP, Local 60N and Hibernia Platform Employers’ Organization, 

Appendix A, section 1.2, Tab 13 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

55


ARTICLE 35 – WORKING CONDITIONS 



35.XX (New) An employee certified pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous 

Goods Act and who is assigned responsibility for packaging and labelling dangerous 

goods for shipping in accordance with the above Act shall receive a daily allowance 

of three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) for each day he or she is required to package 

and label dangerous goods for shipping, to a maximum of seventy-five dollars ($75) 

in a month, for each month where the employee maintains such certification. 


Rationale 

The Union proposes to add a provision to the Collective Agreement whereby employees 

certified pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (“TDGA”) and its 

Regulations who are assigned responsibility for packaging and labelling dangerous 

goods for shipping in accordance with the TDGA would receive a dangerous goods 

allowance for each day they are required to package and label dangerous goods for 

shipping. 

The proposal is essentially designed to prevent an abuse of the terms of and conditions 

of employment of ELs by certain members of management. Some Local 2228 

members have the necessary qualifications and training to pack dangerous goods and 

certify these to be ready for shipment. These members work alongside employees in 

56


other bargaining units that have identical certification, but whose collective agreements 

provide for the payment of a dangerous goods allowance. The Union has been advised 

by its members that at times, managers will assign responsibility for packaging and 

labelling dangerous goods to ELs, simply to avoid the payment of this small allowance. 

The Union’s proposal with respect to working conditions mirrors that which currently 

exists in many other federal public service collective agreements. 37 Furthermore, the 

proposed Article was awarded by Arbitrator Picher in his 2008 arbitral decision between 

the parties, but was never implemented as a result of the Expenditure Restraint Act. 

The Employer continues to refuse to consider this minor issue and, in the absence of an 

agreement at the negotiating table, the Union has had little alternative but to bring this 

issue to arbitration. 

37 Agreement Between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (Technical 

Services Group) at Article 62.01; Agreement Between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance 

of Canada (Operational Services Group) at Article 63.01; Agreement between the Treasury Board and 

the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (Health Services Group) at Article 50.01 – Tab 

14 of the IBEW Book of Documents 

57


ARTICLE 43 – TRAINING 



43.XX (New) An employee assigned to a training course at the Canadian Coast 

Guard college in Sydney, NS shall be compensated the amount equal to Note 6 of 

Appendix B for each complete weekend he/she is required to remain at the college. 


Rationale 

The Canadian Coast Guard College (“CCGC”) is situated in Westmount, Nova Scotia, 

on the western side of Sydney Harbour, near Sydney, which is located on Cape Breton 

Island. Among other activities, the CCGC offers learning opportunities for public service 

employees involved in marine safety and environmental protection. 

The CCGC is secluded and, consequently, isolated. It is not on a bus route and has 

very few retail and entertainment establishments nearby. For example, the College is 

approximately 5.7km from the nearest mall, restaurants, bank, etc. As employees 

attending training courses are not entitled to a rental car, accessing such amenities 

require employees to walk approximately a 1 hour and 10 minutes. Similarly, the 

College is approximately 10.7km away from the nearest theatre. While there is a 

minivan shuttle operating between the College and the nearby town, it is operated by 

CCGC cadets and, as such, subject to their schedules and availability. Furthermore, 

access to the nearest major metropolitan area, being Halifax, would involve either a 

58


round trip bus trip or car rental at a cost of between $130 and $140 to be paid by the 

employee. 

At the College, entertainment on weekends is very limited. Furthermore, on the 

weekends, the menu is significantly reduced; Friday evening and Saturday meals, for 

example, consist mostly of "snack-type" foods, and at times contain some re-used food 

portions. Not surprisingly, there have been many complaints about the quality of the 

food. 38 Moreover, as training courses are often scheduled over a one-week period, 

employees are essentially trapped in the College’s facilities over the weekend. 

The difficult conditions at the CCGC have essentially created a disincentive for 

employees to attend training courses, negatively impacting both employees and the 

Employer. The Union proposes that employees required to remain at the College over 

a complete weekend be compensated in an amount equal to three (3) hours pay, in 

accordance with Note 6 of Appendix B of the Collective Agreement. 

38 Email from Superintendent of MMET Brian Leblanc, dated November 31, 2011, Tab 15 of the IBEW 

Book of Documents 

59


Amend Article 60 as follows: 

ARTICLE 60 – DURATION AND RENEWAL 

62.02 This Agreement shall expire on August 31, 2013. 


Subsection 156(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act requires the arbitration 

board to determine the term of the award, in this case, the Collective Agreement. 

Subsection 156(3) further proscribes the panel’s jurisdiction, in that the term of the 

award cannot be for less than one year, or more than two years, unless the panel can 

look to the term of an existing collective agreement, if one is in force, or the term of the 

previous collective agreement that applied between the parties: 

156. (1) The arbitration board must determine the term of the arbitral 

award and set it out in the arbitral award. 

Factors 

(2) In determining the term of an arbitral award, the arbitration board must 

take the following into account: 

(a) if a collective agreement applicable to the bargaining unit is in 

force or has been entered into but is not yet in force, the term of 

that collective agreement; or 

(b) if no collective agreement applying to the bargaining unit has 

been entered into, 

(i) the term of any previous collective agreement that applied 

to the bargaining unit, or 

(ii) the term of any other collective agreement that it 

considers relevant. 

60


Limitation on term 

(3) An arbitral award may not be for a term of less than one year or more 

than two years from the day on which it becomes binding on the parties, 

unless the arbitration board determines otherwise in any case where 

paragraph (2)(a) or (b) applies. 

The previous Collective Agreement between the parties, which expired August 31, 

2010, was for a term of three years. In such circumstances, the panel is limited by 

statute to awarding a term of no more than three years. 39 

39 Federal Government Dockyards Trade and Labour Council East v. Treasury Board (2005), Board File 

No. 185–02–411, where the Employer sought a 4-year term, arguing that 4 years was common in the 

core public service. The Board recognized that it was constrained by s.156(3) of the PSLRA, and 

awarded a 3-year term, consistent with the previous collective agreement. Tab 19 of the IBEW Book of 

Authorities. 

61


ARTICLE 61 – NO DISCRIMINATION OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT 


Add new Article 61: 

61.01 There shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction, coercion, 

harassment, intimidation, or any disciplinary action exercised or practiced with 

respect to an employee by reason of age, race, creed, colour, national or ethnic 

origin, religious affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, family status, mental or physical 

disability, membership or activity in a Union, marital status or a conviction for which a 

pardon has been granted. 

The Union and the Employer recognize the right of employees to work in an 

environment free from sexual harassment, and agree that sexual harassment will not 

be tolerated in the workplace. 

61.02 

(a) 

Any level in the grievance procedure shall be waived if a person hearing the 

grievance is the subject of the complaint. 

(b) 

If, by reason of paragraph (a), a level in the grievance procedure is waived, no 

other level shall be waived except by mutual agreement. 

61.03 By mutual agreement, the parties may use a mediator in an attempt to settle 

a grievance dealing with discrimination or sexual harassment. The selection of the 

mediator will be by mutual agreement. 

61.04 Upon request by the complainant(s) and/or respondent(s), an official copy of 

the investigation report shall be provided to them by the Employer, subject to the 

Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated, the 

provisions of this Agreement shall become effective on the date it is signed. 

62


Rationale 

The IBEW is committed to ensuring that workplaces are equitable and fair. This means 

that we view human rights in the workplace as an essential element in our mandate to 

represent our members. As bargaining agent, the IBEW believes it has a duty to bargain 

over the elimination of discriminatory practices. A non-discrimination clause, for 

example, can often provide the fastest remedy for a worker who has been discriminated 

against. Resolving such conflicts in the workplace benefits all employees and the 

Employer, and is conducive to good labour relations. 

Similarly, it is trite to state that as Employer, the Treasury Board has a duty to provide a 

workplace free from discrimination. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, it is 

important to be clear about what discrimination is — and what it is not — so that 

employers know their duties and employees know their rights. 40 Indeed, employers are 

required, by virtue of the duty to accommodate, to proactively eliminate employment 

standards, practices, policies, requirements, procedures or rules that discriminate 

against individuals or groups on the basis of a prohibited ground, such as race, sex, 

disability, age, family status, and others. 

Human rights considerations must be inherent in the workplace and in the collective 

bargaining context. Arbitrators have been cautioned to interpret collective agreements 

with human rights statutes in mind. For example, substantive rights and obligations 

under human rights and other employment statutes are incorporated by implication into 

each collective agreement over which an arbitrator has jurisdiction. They constitute 

"floors" below which neither the employer nor the union can contract. 41 Indeed, nondiscrimination 

and/or duty to accommodate clauses are found in almost all collective 

40 Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal v. Sexton, 2007 CarswellQue 110 (SCC) at 

para. 40, Tab 20 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

41 Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. OPSEU, Local 324, 2003 CarswellOnt 

3500 (SCC), Tab 21 of the IBEW Book of Authorities 

63


agreements. It goes without saying that a worker’s right to be accommodated ought to 

be a collective agreement right. 

Simply put, there is no valid reason why the Employer, in good faith, would refuse to 

include a clause such as that proposed by the Union in the Collective Agreement. 

64


5 RATES OF PAY 

Increase all rates of pay and premiums as follows: 

• Effective September 1, 2010 – 1.50% 




All compensation and adjustments to benefits to be retroactive to September 1, 2010. 

Rationale 

In keeping with the IBEW’s good faith approach to collective bargaining, the Union 

proposed the above-noted pay increases for a four-year period in its comprehensive 

package as submitted to the Employer. However, given the constraints imposed by 

section 156 of the PSLRA, the Union recognizes that the maximum duration of this 

panel’s award may be for a period of three years. As such, the proposed pay increases 

would effectively be limited to the periods effective September 1, 2010 at 1.50%, 

September 1, 2011 at 2.00% and September 1, 2012 at 2.25%. 

The Union’s proposed salary increases are founded on conservative and sound 

principles. 

Retroactivity 

The Union submits that all compensation and adjustments to benefits be made 

retroactive to September 1, 2010. The Union consistently worked diligently and in good 

faith to come to a negotiated and timely agreement, regularly making itself available to 

65


meet with the Employer. For its part, the Employer’s position has remained unchanged 

since October 2010. 

Wage Proposal During the Restraint Period 

The Expenditure Restraint Act (“ERA”), enacted by section 393 of the Budget 

Implementation Act, 2009, SC 2009, c.2, sets maximum rates of pay for employees at 

prescribed percentages for any 12-month period beginning during any fiscal year 

between 2006-2007 and 2010-2011. Section 23 of the ERA prohibits restructuring of 

rates of pay for any period that begins during the restraint period, which is defined by 

the ERA as beginning on April 1, 2006 and ending on March 31, 2011. 

The Union’s wage proposal during the restraint period is well below the recent wage 

trends and current economic circumstances. Nevertheless, given the very specific 

language of the ERA, the Union has no choice but to propose a pay increase of 1.50% 

for the period commencing September 1, 2010. 

Remaining Periods 

The principle of fair comparison has historically been the dominant standard applied in 

interest arbitration. As Arbitrator Kenneth Swan has noted, fairness is “an essentially 

relative concept, and…therefore depends directly upon the identification of fair 

comparisons…to be meaningful; indeed, all…pleas for fairness inevitably come around 

to a comparability study.” 42 

For the remaining periods, the Union’s wage proposal is based upon principles of 

fairness and equity, which are rooted in reasonable and appropriate comparisons, 

taking into account both internal and external comparators and circumstances. 

42 Kenneth P. Swan, The Search for Meaningful Criteria In Interest Arbitration: The Canadian Experience 

(Kingston: Queen’s University Industrial Relations Centre, 1978) at 11-12 

66


Although the unique nature of this bargaining unit and the range of work performed 

make direct comparisons challenging, the Union has based its proposal on a number of 

factors, including wage trends and the realities of the Canadian economy. 

Ability to Pay 

The Union wishes to mention the Employer’s ability to pay. In the early 1980s, several 

Canadian jurisdictions enacted legislation that required public sector arbitrators to take 

into consideration the government’s ability to pay. In effect, these jurisdictions, in 

attempting to make public sector bargaining resemble the private sector, imposed a 

form of wage controls on public sector employees. The result is a dispute resolution 

process that inherently favours the public sector employer, or government. The 

imbalance is even greater where, for reasons of public safety, employees are prohibited 

from withholding their services. As one British Columbia arbitrator has stated, the “ability 

to pay” in public sector disputes is a factor that is both “elusive and subjective.” 43 

Furthermore, it is clear that “public sector employers always have the ability to pay 

through the use of the taxing power directly or indirectly. In the public sector, ‘ability to 

pay’ means simply that the employer, for reasons which are often political, does not 

want to pay.” 44 The Union is of course cognizant of the importance of applying relevant 

factors, such as the true state of the Canadian economy as well as outside 

comparators. But there is a difference between the ability to pay and an arbitrary 

limitation of wage increases based on the decision of the public sector employer. The 

ability of the Employer to pay the reasonable proposals of the Union is entirely within its 

control. 

43 Willowhaven Private Hospital, unreported, December 28, 1983 (Hope), at 7 of the award, summary at 


44 Teplitsky, Martin “Ability to Pay in the Public Sector: An Arbitrator’s Viewpoint” (1991) 2 Lab. Arb. 

Yearbook 277 at 280, fn. 8 

67


Wage Trends 

Several economic indicators support an increase which is significantly greater than the 

position put forward by the employer. Moreover, these same economic indicators amply 

demonstrate the reasonableness of the Union’s proposals. One such indicator is the 

Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). Using the most recent data available at the time of 

writing, the Union notes that the CPI jumped by 2.92% from 2010 to 2011. This is a 

substantial increase, and a cause for concern among the members of the bargaining 

unit. 

These numbers closely resemble collective bargaining settlement reports from Human 

Resources and Skills Development Canada (“HRSDC”). Major collective bargaining 

settlements across the public and private sectors reached in January 2012 provided 

wage adjustments averaging 2.5% annually over the term of the collective agreement, 

with an average duration of 52.2 months. 45 Information published by HRSDC reports 

that these wage adjustments were comparable to the rate of inflation for the same 

period. 

In the federal private sector, two recent major agreements each reported wage 

adjustments averaging 3.0% over the term of the agreement: Canadian National 

Railway Company and NAV CANADA. 

The comparison to NAV CANADA is particularly apt in the present circumstances. For 

salary purposes, with electronics technologists employed at NAV CANADA being the 

closest comparator group to the EL Group in the federal public service. The nature and 

complexity of work and the level of responsibility are similar. The Union submits that 

45 Source: Strategic Policy, Analysis, and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Human 

Resources and Skills Development Canada 

68


this bargaining unit should receive wage increases that keep pace with the private 

sector and broader public service. 

Additionally, in a 2010 Salary Survey, the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering 

Technicians and Technologists (“OACETT”) reported that Electronics Technologists in 

Ontario are compensated at an average of $88,645 in total cash compensation. In 

comparison, in 2009, Electronics Technologists in the federal public service at the EL- 

05 level, being the most common working level, were compensated with a salary of 

$71,251, plus a 20% factor for benefits (pension, health benefits, etc.), for a total of 

$85,501. This represents a discrepancy of approximately 3.6%. By all indications, the 

gap between Electronics Technologists employed by the Federal Government and 

those employed in the private sector in Ontario continues to expand. The Union’s 

proposal for wage increases would bring our members closer, but not equal to, our 

comparator groups. 

The Union submits that the facts presented in this Brief support the wage increase 

proposed. Our proposal will not only allow us to keep pace with inflation, but provide 

increases that are comparable to others in the private and public sectors. 

All of which is respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 2012. 

_______________________________ 

Daniel J. Boulet 

Business Manager / Financial Secretary 

Local 2228, IBEW 

69

union's submission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?