RCMP category of employee project
Fight for your rights

PRESENTATION TO THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RCMP CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES PROJECT

MAY 15, 2002

OTTAWA, ONTARIO.

Presented By:

Nycole Turmel, National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Lynn Ray, National President
Union of Solicitor General Employees.

Good day Commissioner Zaccardelli and other members of the Senior Executive Committee. As you are aware, I am Lynn Ray, National President of the Union of Solicitor General Employees.

My workplace career was spent within the RCMP. I am an "old hand". I have seen the grand projects, the internal reorganizations and the management fads come and go. I am here today because I believe the Category of Employees Project is potentially the most damaging human resources undertaking ever considered by the Force.

Category of Employees has serious – and irreparable – implications. Not only for Public Service Workers, but for the overall RCMP itself.

I am very pleased to have Nycole Turmel – National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada – with me today. As you may be aware, the USGE is but one of 17 Component unions belonging to the PSAC.

The USGE is responsible for the day-to-day union-management relationship with the Force. However, the Alliance is the union – the umbrella union that negotiates and administers collective agreements with Treasury Board on behalf of USGE members employed by the RCMP.

Nycole’s presence here today speaks to the great importance the PSAC itself attaches to the Category of Employees Project.

As USGE National President, I have met twice in recent weeks with Commissioner Zaccardelli to clearly express our difficulties with the Deloitte and Touché consultants’ recommendations on COE. I believe the Commissioner has heard my position loud and clear.

You will, I trust, also have seen the comprehensive written submission that USGE presented to SEC, expressing our reservations and concerns with the shape and direction of the consultants’ COE report.

Therefore, I want, without further ado, to ask Nycole to address the Category of Employees issue from the PSAC perspective. I think it extremely important that the Senior Executive Committee hear what the National President of the largest union in the federal public sector has to say.

The PSAC has an expertise that, quite frankly, is not to be found within either the RCMP or Deloitte and Touché. And, regardless of the outcome of the Category of Employees Project, the RCMP will have to deal one way or another with the PSAC. The Alliance’s views matter.

Having said that, Nycole and I will of course be pleased to respond to any and all questions you might have during the question and answer portion of this presentation. As Commissioner Zaccardelli knows, silence is not one of my stronger personality traits!

Nycole… 

Thank you, Lynn. And thank you Commissioner Zaccardelli and members of your Senior Executive Committee for the opportunity, however brief, to be with you today.

Lynn is correct when she says that the Category of Employee issue is very important to the PSAC. In fact, in all the years that the PSAC has represented members employed by the RCMP, this is the first time that we have felt the need to address an issue at this level.

Commissioner Zaccardelli wrote Lynn just last month on the issue of COE. He stated, and I quote: "We must look at the full impact of any decision to ensure that the organization and its employees emerge stronger." We could not agree more.

Last January 24th, Deloitte and Touché, the consultants hired to study the Category of Employees Project, formally recommended ‘Option 3’ to the RCMP Senior Executive Committee. That option would see federal public service workers lumped in with civilian members under the RCMP Act, with an entirely new labour relations and staff relations regime imposed.

We are convinced that the recommendation of this outside consultant will not achieve the stated goal and, in the long run, will undermine the stability and efficiency of the Force. The Force does not need its workers leaving the organization to remain a part of the public service. Neither does the Force need to replace the services provided by the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. The raison d’etre of the RCMP is and should be "law enforcement" not human resource management. Under Option 3 as recommended by the consultants, neither the Force, nor its workforce would emerge with the strength the Commissioner seeks.

Category of Employees is a blind alley that even the most hardened law enforcement officer should fear to enter. You don’t know how Option 3 will pan out. There are many uncertainties. Option 3, in particular, is a recipe for turmoil. It is categorically unacceptable to the PSAC, the USGE and the RCMP’s Public Service Workers. There is no labour relations stability. The consultants have not been able to answer such basic questions as how collective bargaining will work, or with whom we will bargain. Option 3 will ensure that the RCMP is internally weakened at a time when all its energies and scarce resources should be focused on external issues and challenges, not human resources management.

How can I make such a bold claim? Well, as the current slang goes: ‘Been there. Done that.’ 

As a union, the PSAC has, in recent years, seen numerous human resources initiatives undertaken within the federal public sector. Public Service 2000, the Universal Classification Standard, La Relève and Service Canada come immediately to mind. All were launched in a burst of bureaucratic energy and blue-sky optimism.

All consumed immeasurable human and financial resources. All either stalled, or crashed and burned. And, while outside consultants laughed all the way to the bank, the morale of workers plummeted, with drastic and dramatic impacts on organizational efficiency. These attempts at major systemic change were counter-productive – to managers, to workers and to taxpayers.

Option 3 exhibits disturbing similarities to these above-mentioned counter-productive undertakings. Here again, an outside consultancy firm has brought forward a recommendation seemingly logical on paper. Unfortunately for its supporters, Option 3’s appeal fades in the harsh light of reality.

Option 3 reveals little understanding of how federal public service staffing operates. More alarmingly, it shows even less concern for the welfare of the RCMP’s loyal federal public service employees.

The process undertaken by Deloitte and Touché – a typical top-down process – has frightened and embittered PSAC/USGE members. Category of Employees as executed and presented has convinced USGE members that they are neither valued nor even considered by senior management. Many questions posed by our members were left either unaddressed or, worse yet, minimized or dismissed.

Should Option 3 be embraced, public sector workers stand to lose…lose benefits and entitlements…lose mobility into the rest of the federal public service…lose existing union representation and protection.

Obviously, we have our own perspective. Our role is to protect the interests of the Force’s public sector workers. But, that being said, we are not opposed to change. In fact, the PSAC and its Component unions have lobbied for sensible, progressive changes to bring the federal labour relations regime into a new millennium. Ultimately, we believe that all federal workers should be covered by the Canada Labour Code.

I want to stress one more point before outlining our position on the various Options considered by the consultants. It is not one of content, but rather one of timing.

The Category of Employees Project is in danger of being overtaken by an imminent overhaul of the legal framework governing labour relations in the federal public service.

Hardly a week goes by without a major media story, reinforcing the government’s intent to dramatically reform the federal staffing regime. The former Clerk of the Privy Council, Mel Cappe, has made it clear that both he and the government want major changes. Systemic changes; not cosmetic changes.

The government has promised to introduce these major reforms by this autumn. It would indeed be a waste of time and money to reach a conclusive decision on COE before knowing the contents of this impending labour relations legislation.

Why do I say this? Because, whichever Option is chosen, COE will involve a massive expenditure of money…money that the RCMP desperately needs to fulfill its mandate to police and protect the populace. The Force cannot afford to make mistakes. And Option 3 would be a mistake.

Certainly, public sector workers of the RCMP will not yield to Option 3 without a fight. A fight that we in the PSAC and USGE are prepared to support to the fullest extent possible. However, this is a battle that need not happen. Fortunately, we have an alternative.

We believe that Option 1, rather than Option 3, makes the most sense for the Force and all its workers. There should be two employee groups: regular members and public sector workers covered under federal public service labour legislation.

The RCMP is unique in having a civilian employee group that carries out work that should rightfully be performed by public sector workers. National Defence is the Federal Department that most closely resembles the RCMP. At DND, virtually all non-uniformed workers are organized as public sector workers.

The CM group is an historical aberration that should never have existed as a separate group in the first place, and certainly not to the extent that it exists today.

I appreciate that the appeal of Option 3 lies in its providing a supposed escape from the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. However, if you believe that Option 3 will free you from the grasp of Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, then I fear that Deloitte and Touch have sold you a bill of goods.

In recent years, the federal government has been carving out large portions of the public sector into Separate Employer Agencies and non-profit organizations. Three high-profile examples of these are the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Nav Canada and Parks Canada Agency.

The PSAC has a wealth of experience in dealing with these Agencies and organizations. They operate at considerably more arms length from Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission than does the RCMP.

Setting up your own labour relations and human resources regime under the RCMP Act may seem a highly attractive proposition. But may I remind you, that it is expensive and disruptive.

Think of the time and money involved in formulating and piloting changes to the RCMP Act through the legislative, bureaucratic and political minefields. To think that COE can meet its desired goal of (and I quote) "minimal legislative change" is beyond belief. Legislative change takes time - lots of time and lots of human resources. Time for your workers to mount an effective lobby against the ill-conceived logic behind Option 3. The PSAC has a proven track record of representing our membership both prior to and after transition. We will be there for our RCMP membership as well.

Think of the cost in setting up your own internal staffing regime, all to duplicate services already provided by Treasury Board at no cost to the RCMP. Think of the cost of training and retraining RCMP staff to implement its own staffing and staff relations regime under the RCMP Act.

Do not think for a moment that, should COE be implemented, Treasury Board will happily ride into the sunset. Treasury Board is not likely to give the Force a blank cheque and abandon its oversight role. The RCMP has far too large a budget for Treasury Board not to want a big say in the Force’s future collective bargaining expenditures. I can say this categorically because we have followed our membership in many transfers and we know the road blocks faced by those newly created agencies. And, let me tell you, there were many.

Please, don’t take my word for this. The PSAC also negotiates for USGE members at CSIS. While CSIS is covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, that agency theoretically has its own human resources and labour relations regime, independent from Treasury Board. But, as I speak, CSIS management has yet to approve a collective agreement it negotiated with the PSAC months ago.

Why? Because Treasury Board has yet to give that contract its blessing. So much for independence! There is no proof that, even were staffing to fall under the RCMP Act, that Treasury Board would not continue to intrude into the funding decisions associated with bargaining staff relations.

Under COE, the RCMP may find itself saddled – no pun intended – with the massive extra cost of its own staffing and staff relations regime without being able to cut Treasury Board’s apron strings.

Deloitte and Touché are leading you to believe that public sector workers can have reciprocity with the broader public service. This is untrue. Deloitte and Touché didn’t tell you this because they didn’t know what they were talking about. They are outsiders, and, strategically speaking, we are insiders. It’s as simple as that.

On top of all this, remember that none of us in this room know the final shape of the impending changes to the federal labour relations regime.

With all this in mind, why would the RCMP even want to assume an enlarged responsibility for labour relations?

Yet another point. As I mentioned earlier, COE will deny public sector workers within the RCMP mobility into the federal public service. But there is another side of that coin. Having your own separate staffing regime makes it immeasurably more difficult to recruit bright and talented staff from that broader public service. This, too, must be a cost consideration.

Along with the rest of the federal government employers, the RCMP faces an imminent staffing crisis as thousands of ‘baby boomers’ reach retirement age. Upheavals caused by COE, including the erection of barriers to recruitment from within the broader public service, will make this task infinitely more difficult.

Both the PSAC and USGE are convinced that the RCMP’s staffing problems are largely solvable within the current legislative framework. Indeed, if the time, money and energy that now goes into trying to avoid the present system was devoted to making it work, the COE Project could have been avoided altogether.

The Force’s existing human resources and staffing functions are understaffed and under-trained. Reliability clearances take forever to complete, these are the root causes of much of the RCMP’s current staffing woes. The money and energy put into COE could and should have been devoted to staffing, strengthening and training the Force’s capacity to make the current regime function the way it was intended.

Before concluding my remarks, I should touch on Option 4 – separate employer status. The consultants introduced Option 4 late in the game, and gave it short shrift. However, you on the Senior Executive Committee should take the time to give Option 4 the consideration it deserves.

You should do this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the separate agency model has been adopted numerous times in the past by government.

Category of Employees is not, as the criteria demand, a "fit with public policy". It breaks new ground. It is revolutionary. And we all know what happens to public order during revolutions!

To restate our position, if you are determined to proceed with COE, we believe Option 1 best meets the needs of both RCMP management and its non-uniformed workers. It is consistent with the criteria and factors identified by the consultants. It accords with current public policy and meets the need for minimal legislative fit.

There is no reason for an artificial division between public service employees and civilian member employees. All non-uniformed employees should enjoy the basic existing right recognized throughout the federal public service – to be covered by one set of labour and human resources laws. It is what happens at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It’s what happens within the Parliamentary Precinct, it’s what happens at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and it’s what should happen within the RCMP.

I began my remarks with a quote from Commissioner Zaccardelli. I would like to close with another quote from the same letter to Lynn Ray. The Commissioner said: "As I have stated on numerous occasions, all employees must be treated fairly and equitably".

As matters now stand, Public Service Employees within the RCMP look to become the great losers under the Category of Employee Project. It is within your power to ensure this does not happen.The Senior Executive Committee has the power. We ask that you use it wisely, with due consideration for all the risks at hand. With careful consideration and common sense, we firmly believe that the RCMP can have change that benefits all its employees, be they regular, public service or civilian.

Lynn and I would now be pleased to elaborate on these comments or answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your attention.