PSAC Pay Equity Bulletin

One more pay equity win for PSAC

As PSAC members have learned, nothing happens quickly when it comes to pay equity.  Way, way back in 1984 the PSAC filed a pay equity complaint on behalf of the Clerical and Regulatory (CR) group.  This complaint led to the joint pay equity study, years of hearings before a Tribunal and eventually a very, very large settlement in 1999 affecting over 200,000 current and former members. 

Part of the original complaint included allegations under Sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that there was discrimination in the CR classification standard.  These aspects of the complaint were put on hold while the allegations under section 11 (equal pay for work of equal value) were dealt with and while the government worked on, and later abandoned, the Universal Classification Standard (UCS). 

Twenty years later, in May 2004, the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed these parts of the original complaint.  The CHRC didn’t provide any reasons for dismissing the complaint but relied on a recommendation from a Commision Investigator. 

PSAC asked that the Federal Court (Trial Division) review the Commission’s decision. The case has been heard and the Court agrees with the union.  Justice de Montigny has found that the Commission’s investigation was not thorough and neutral.

Treasury Board, the Respondent in the case, based its case largely on the fact that the CR and PM groups are now in one new group – Program Administration.  (PSAC had compared the female-dominated CR group to the male-dominated PM group in its 1984 complaint.) 

Here’s some of what Justice de Montigny had to say about that: 

“In its Report, the Investigator focused exclusively on the fact that the CR and PM groups were no longer segregated but were subsumed in one group – the PA group.  However, the Report failed to acknowledge the crucial fact that the classification system was never actually modified or changed in order to eliminate the discrminatory aspects which clearly existed.  It was for the purpose of the UCS initiative, but it was abandoned by the Respondent [Treasury Board] because it was apparently “unworkable”.  As a result, and even if the CR and PM groups have formally been subsumed in one larger group, the fact remains that the old classification standards continue to be applied, as evidenced by the pay schedules from the most recent PSAC/Treasury Board collective agreement.”

Justice de Montigny noted that this piece of crucial information had been totally ignored by the Commission.  In the meantime, the jobs held by members in the CR group are still being measured by standards PSAC contends are discriminatory.  The Commission indicated it would be available to provide advice and input into the development of a gender neutral classification plan.  While the Justice found this interesting, he failed to see how it would address a complaint made more than 20 years ago and noted there was no assurance that a new classification system in line with the requirements of the Human Rights Act would be implemented anytime soon.

In summary, Justice de Montigny ruled that “the Commission failed to address these issues and essentially ignored the position of PSAC”.  “I come to the conclusion that the decision of the Commission is unreasonable since it was not supported by an adequate investigation and could not accordingly be said to be based on a cogent line of reasoning.”

What happens next?  The outstanding portions of our complaint now go back to the CHRC.  One of the Commission’s options is to refer these aspects of the complaint to a Tribunal.  In fact, Justice de Montigny suggests that it might prove helpful for a Tribunal to review the matter.  If the Tribunal were to determine that the current classification standard is discriminatory, it could provide information that would help build a new classification system.  We’ll see what the Commission has to say.

While Justice de Montigny awarded costs to the union, it doesn’t compensate for the fact that these cases drag on for decades.  This is just one more example – as if more were needed – that there needs to be a new, proactive pay equity law.

More pay equity news

Taxation of interest payments

Back in January, the Tax Court judge hearing our challenge against the government for taxing the interest payments received as part of our federal pay equity complaint settlement, warned PSAC that it might be some time before a decision was issued.  The latest word from the Court is that a judgement will be issued “shortly”.  No one is telling us what “shortly” actually means.  Stay tuned.

Pay equity for separate employer units

In March this year we believed that the Discovery phase of our statement of claim had been completed.  However, long after the deadline, the government released hundreds of additional documents from the Privy Council Office. This has resulted in additional examination of their witnesses and additional undertakings to provide yet more information.  That process is still ongoing and we do not yet have a Court date scheduled. 

In addition to addressing the government’s discrimination against former employees of Treasury Board who became employed by separate agencies, the information being gathered in this case could finally tell us just who controls the federal purse strings when it comes to bargaining, regardless of the employer.