Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 297, March 1995

Case No 1758 (Canada) - Complaint date: 10-FEB-94 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
A. The complainant's allegations
B. The Government's reply
C. The Committee's conclusions
The Committee's recommendations
Annex

190. In a communication dated 10 February 1994, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) presented, on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a complaint of violation of freedom of association against the Government of Canada. The Public Services International (PSI) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) supported the complaint in communications dated 16 February and 18 April 1994 respectively.
191. The federal Government sent its observations in communications dated 3 October and 3 November 1994.
192. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It has not ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), or the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant's allegations

193. In its communication of 10 February 1994, the complainant organization alleges that the Government violated Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154 by adopting on 2 April 1993 Bill C-113 which became the Government Expenditure Restraint Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The main provisions of the Act referred to by the complainant organization and the Government may be found in the annex to this case.
194. The complainant organization recalls that it has already lodged a complaint with the Committee, on behalf of the PSAC, to challenge the federal Government's adoption of the Public Sector Compensation Act (also known as Bill C-29) in 1991 which extended all collective agreements for two years as of different dates in 1991 and 1992, restricting to a certain degree collective bargaining for federal public service employees and limiting pay increases to 0 and 3 per cent respectively for the two years covered by the legislation. The Committee considered this matter at its November 1992 meeting (184th Report, Case No. 1616, paras. 595 to 641).
195. The complainant organization indicates that the Act referred to in this complaint effectively extends the Public Sector Compensation Act for a further two years. The decision to adopt the Act was taken less than two weeks after the Committee's consideration of Case No. 1616 and without any effort on the part of government officials to communicate with the complainant organization. The President of the Treasury Board was the first, in December 1992, to explain before the House of Commons why the Government was obliged to adopt the Act, to wit:
- The Government carefully considered whether it would be in the public interest to try to negotiate wage levels that were affordable. In light of the experience in the last round of bargaining, which culminated in a strike by the largest public service union, in September 1991, it has decided that it was not in the public interest nor in the interest of civil servants to enter into negotiations while facing a fiscal situation that virtually guaranteed the Government would be unable to meet union demands. This decision, Madame Speaker, was not taken lightly.
196. The complainant organization believed that with the election of a new government in October 1993, the Act might be repealed. However, the policy of the new authorities in this regard has mirrored that of their predecessors.
197. The complainant organization maintains that the Act violates various aspects of the principles of freedom of association. It alleges, first and foremost, that the Act is not an exceptional measure. Not only does it extend the Public Sector Compensation Act, it is also simply one more example in the long list of federal statutory measures designed to suspend collective bargaining. The combined effect of the two Acts will be to place the effects of a four-year wage control programme under which wages will be frozen for three years, with a very modest rise over one year, on the shoulders of federal public sector workers. This is in fact the longest wage restraint programme in the history of Canada.
198. The complainant organization recalls that over the last 13 years, PSAC members and other federal employees have endured three rounds of wage controls. In 1982, federal employees were subject to a programme limiting pay increases to 6 and 5 per cent for 1982 and 1983. Subsequent restraint programmes were adopted in the form of the Public Sector Compensation Act and the Act referred to in this complaint. Furthermore, according to the complainant organization, it appears that the federal Government may have adopted back-to-work legislation, ending strikes on 25 occasions between 1950 and 1991.
199. In addition to the fact that the Act is no more than the end-product of what is common practice by the Government now, the complainant organization maintains that because it has been unable to engage in collective bargaining for a long period, the Government has prevented public employees from adjusting its collective agreements to emerging situations, even in cases where these changes did not imply additional expenditure, inter alia with regard to the organization of leave and tele-work, with the latter completely ignored during the most recent collective bargaining because it has emerged so recently. Public employees are also denied the opportunity to negotiate minimal provisions concerning health and safety matters.
200. The complainant organization adds that federal public sector wage control has a negligible impact on the planned reduction in public debt, but entails dire consequences for the public employees concerned. According to the complainant organization, in autumn 1992 the Government announced a deficit of some 30 billion dollars. Furthermore, the State's wage bill for federal public sector workers as a whole amounts to more or less 10 billion dollars, approximately half of which is paid to PSAC members, which is in effect 3 per cent of total federal expenditure. In addition, public service staff costs have fallen constantly throughout almost all of the last decade, from 16.9 per cent of total expenditure in 1981 to a mere 11.7 per cent in 1993-94.
201. It would have cost the federal Government some 150 million dollars to raise the 1993 wages of all public service workers by an amount equivalent to inflation, that is 1.5 per cent, not taking into account government revenue from taxes. Against this backdrop, the complainant organization alleges that the Act does not protect or guarantee employees' living standards in any of its provisions, but rather that there is no doubt that these measures have affected their living standards, the economic standing of these workers and in particular that of PSAC members who rank among the least well paid workers.
202. The complainant organization believes that legislative measures to control pay increases, as in 1982, 1991 and 1993, are now part and parcel of government practice and merely symbolic as they have no significant effect at the economic level.
203. Finally, the complainant organization can find no justification for the sanctions provided for in the Public Sector Compensation Act, and which were designed primarily to end the strike being held at the time, to remain in force.

B. The Government's reply

204. In its communication dated 3 October 1994, the Government refutes the allegations made by the complainant organization. Firstly, with regard to the particular nature of the situation, the Government insists that the Committee must recognize the difficult economic situation facing the Government when it decided to renew the exceptional measures provided for in the Public Sector Compensation Act for a further two years.
205. For the Government, the situation is particularly difficult: revenues continue to be lower than expected; the federal deficit reached 40.5 billion dollars for the 1992-93 financial year; the net debt/gross domestic product ratio continues to rise, and is now over 70 per cent; and interest payments on the public debt stood at 39.4 billion dollars in the 1992-93 financial year, representing one-third of total revenues. Furthermore, the Government is convinced that it cannot raise taxes without seriously damaging the economy's competitiveness. These budgetary restraints have therefore forced it into reducing expenditure across the board, following an Expenditure Control Plan presented by the Finance Minister in the 1990 Budget and continued in the 1991, 1991 and 1993 Budgets.
206. The plan covers a broad range of federal governmental programmes, including grants and contributions, regional development funding, unemployment insurance benefits, National Defence, international assistance, university research councils, social housing, and involves a reduction in transfer payments to Canadian provinces. The Expenditure Control Plan has also intensified efforts to reduce the Government's operating costs, thus affecting the operating budgets of all Departments. In addition, the burden of reducing operating costs has been shared equitably throughout the Government. Public service employees were not singled out for restraint. For example, in the 1992 Budget, departmental non-salary operating budgets, were permanently cut by 3 per cent from expected levels (150 million dollars per year) for the period from the 1991-92 financial year until 1996-97. In the December 1992 Economic Statement they were further reduced by 2 per cent for the 1992-93 financial year and by 5 per cent thereafter; as a result of governmental streamlining contained in the 1992 and 1993 Budgets, the number of executives (including Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers) in Government was reduced; following the 1992 Budget, salaries for Cabinet Ministers were cut.
207. The federal Government, together with the Bank of Canada, had announced inflation-reduction targets which are a key component of its economic policy. In the 1993 budget, the Government expected the level of inflation to reach 2.5 per cent in 1993 and to fall below 2 per cent in 1994. As a major employer in Canada, the federal Government should lead from the front by ensuring that pay agreements in the public sector are consistent with these targets. The consistency of pay settlements resulting from the adoption of the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991, as extended by the Act referred to in this complaint, has influenced inflation expectations and appears to have accelerated a downward movement in private sector pay settlements. Since the introduction of the inflation-reduction targets, significant progress has been achieved in reducing inflation. In 1993, the annual average increase in the consumer price index stood at 1.8 per cent. After July 1994, it stood at 0.3 per cent.
208. Therefore, the pay restraints for federal public sector workers provided for in the Act are among the many facets of the Expenditure Control Plan, and the extension of the pay freeze is not overly onerous. It compares favourably with major pay settlements in Canadian industries as a whole.
209. As regards the allegations of the violation of free collective bargaining, the Government recognizes that the Act does impose restrictions on collective bargaining with respect to compensation. In other respects, the Act does not relate only to employees represented by the PSAC, it extends also to some 345,000 public servants, including the Governor-General, the Lieutenant Governor, the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, judges, members of the Canadian Forces and employees of non-commercial crown corporations. Approximately 110,000 of these do not belong to a trade union.
210. ILO supervisory bodies have recognized that, in certain circumstances, bargaining on conditions of compensation may be restricted (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 641; 222nd Report, Case No. 1147, para. 117). In this case, the Government maintains that the Act meets these conditions: it is an exceptional measure to address the financial difficulties described above; although pay restrictions have been introduced, other positive measures are currently in force; the restrictions established are limited to the extent necessitated by the deficit. Since the Act permits negotiations on a wide range of matters which are not related to "compensation", it also contains safeguards to maintain certain terms and conditions that protect workers' living standards.
211. Contrary to the PSAC's allegations, the Act did not terminate collective bargaining with respect either to all pay-related matters or to any "non-monetary" matters. Pursuant to section 8 of the 1991 Public Sector Compensation Act, as amended by the Act referred to in this complaint, the conditions of employment not related to compensation may be amended by written agreement of the parties. Among the benefits provided in collective agreements which are exempted from the definition of "compensation" are benefits provided on the recommendation of the National Joint Council, a body comprising representatives of the State in its capacity as employer and representatives of the public service unions. Some of the benefits provided under the auspices of the National Joint Council include workforce adjustment benefits, foreign and isolated post allowances and travel and commuting assistance. These are considered "monetary in nature". In practice, since the 1991 Public Sector Compensation Act has been in force, directives relating to travel, foreign service and relocation have been revised and amended with the help of the National Joint Council. Since section 8 permits amendments to conditions of employment not related to "compensation", employees may negotiate on matters of a "non-monetary" nature.
212. The fact that the Acts of 1991 and 1993 do not terminate collective bargaining in the federal public service is also evidenced by the various agreements the Government of Canada has renegotiated or is in the process of negotiating with public service unions.
213. Moreover, the smooth functioning of collective bargaining has been confirmed, even by union sources, inter alia with respect to the negotiations which led to the Workforce Adjustment Directive in December 1991 which guarantees, in practice, that alternative employment for an indeterminate length of time will be offered to the employee, at the same salary if his or her post becomes redundant. The Government maintains that the measures provided for in this directive are exceptional measures which testify to its commitment to treat its employees fairly. Moreover, the Government is involved in renegotiating the directive. In recognition of the importance of employment security, it will continue to work with unions to find the right balance between employees' needs and those of the Government in running the country's affairs.
214. The Government also refutes the allegations made by the complainant organization that by freezing conditions of employment for a further period the Government has prevented collective agreements from being modified to reflect new situations, even though the changes sought had no monetary implications. In this regard, the Government recalls that section 8 of the Act provides for the amendment of conditions of employment which are not related to compensation. Collective agreements, inter alia, currently make generous provision for leave. With regard to tele-work, whereby an employer may authorize an employee to work at home rather than on the employer's premises if the employee so desires, the Government stresses that although the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSR Board) has already ruled that tele-work policies are the management's prerogative, the Government has entered into extensive consultations with trade unions on the assessment and implementation of such policies.
215. With regard to the PSAC's allegation that the Act has prevented the Union from negotiating "even minimal provisions protecting such things as health and safety", the Government maintains that in addition to the provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code covering various rights, the Master Collective Agreement reached between the employer and the PSAC includes provisions dealing with safety and health matters. For example, article M-35 obliges the employer, following consultation with the PSAC, to make reasonable provisions for the occupational safety and health of employees. At present, standards on dangerous substances, storage and the use of motorized vehicles are under review by the Occupational Safety and Health Committee of the National Joint Council. Once again, the PSAC is actively involved in this process.
216. Finally, the benefits provided for in collective agreements and which do not come under the definition of "compensation" in the 1991 and 1993 Acts include benefits granted on the recommendation of the National Joint Council. As a result, as explained above, these benefits could presently be the subject of negotiation.
217. The Government emphasizes the need to establish new relations with trade unions and their members despite fiscal and economic restraints. Since it came to power, the Government has held several discussions with trade unions to try to improve labour relations. Over the year, the employer and the trade unions have held a series of meetings in the framework of "Forum 1994". The aim of this ongoing, annual event is to provide an opportunity for discussion and to share information on major issues which are not included in collective bargaining or discussions within the National Joint Council, including initiatives which are currently under review relevant to Public Service bargaining agents or the renegotiation of the Workforce Adjustment Directive.
218. Finally, the Government maintains that the Act was required by particular circumstances and that although it does extend certain financial restrictions, it is in no way inconsistent with Canada's commitment to respect ILO Conventions.

C. The Committee's conclusions

219. The Committee notes that the case concerns certain restrictions on collective bargaining for employees of the Canadian federal public service, under an Act which has frozen their salaries for two years.
220. Before examining the substance of the complaint, the Committee wishes to describe the circumstances in which it was received. Since October 1991, the Committee has been seized of 20 complaints against the federal Government and the governments of various provinces, including 12 lodged by the present complainant organization (Federal Canada, Cases Nos. 1616, 1758, 1800; British Columbia, Case No. 1603; Manitoba, Cases Nos. 1604 and 1715; New Brunswick, Case No. 1605; Nova Scotia, Cases Nos. 1606, 1624 and 1802; Newfoundland, Case No. 1607; Ontario, Case No. 1722; Quebec, Cases Nos. 1733, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750; Prince Edward Island, Cases Nos. 1779, 1801; Yukon, Case No. 1806). All these complaints relate to the postponement of increases, the freezing or reduction of public service wages, and restrictions on the right of employees to bargain collectively within these various jurisdictions. These measures are sometimes accompanied by a ban on strikes.
221. In the present case, the Committee notes that the legislation in question is the extension of another Act to the same effect which had come into force two years previously and was about to expire. Having examined the provisions of the first Act at its November 1992 meeting (284th Report, Case No. 1616, paras. 595-641), the Committee refers back to the comments it made on this case as they are pertinent here. It believes that it is expedient to recall, in this regard, the recommendations it had made then, namely:
- (a) The Committee regrets that the Government has not given priority to collective bargaining as a means of regulating the conditions of employment of its public servants, but rather that it felt compelled to adopt the 1991 Public Sector Compensation Act.
- (b) Noting, however, that the federal Government has severely restricted collective bargaining in the public service and prohibited strike action on pain of severe financial sanctions, and noting further that it has resorted to such laws on many occasions, especially during recent years, the Committee trusts that the Government will in future refrain from adopting measures of this kind.
- (c) The Committee urges the Government to revert to the normal system of free collective bargaining established by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and in particular to a truly independent arbitration system in which the arbitrators are not bound by prior statutory criteria, and asks the Government to keep it informed of developments in labour relations in the federal public sector.
222. In view of what has gone before, the Committee deeply regrets, first and foremost, that the Government has not implemented the recommendations it had made, but rather has once again placed serious restrictions on collective bargaining in the public service by renewing a unilateral freeze on pay.
223. In the present case, the Government is justifying its actions by maintaining, in effect, the same line of argument as in Case No. 1616, namely that the Act is needed because of the difficult economic situation and that the measures taken are consistent with ILO principles.
224. The Committee has examined in detail the observations and arguments put forward by the two parties. In particular, it has closely examined the explanations and documentation supplied by the Government on the country's fiscal and economic difficulties. There can be no doubt of the Government's conviction that the situation could only be improved by implementing legislation to curb pay increases. The complainants on the other hand are convinced that the Government's methods for solving the country's economic problems were inappropriate. As has already been mentioned in previous cases concerning various restrictive laws in Canada (241st Report, Cases Nos. 1172, 1234, 1247 and 1260, para. 113; and 284th Report, Case No. 1616, para. 633), it is not for the Committee to express a view on the soundness of the economic arguments used by the Government to justify its position or on the measures it has adopted; see also the general remarks given in the Study and Information Mission Report concerning this case (241st Report, paras. 9-13 of the Annex). It is, however, for the Committee to express its views on the question whether, in taking such action, the Government went beyond what the Committee has considered to be acceptable limits that might be placed temporarily on free collective bargaining (241st Report, Case No. 1172, para. 114).
225. In similar cases concerning limitations on the right to collective bargaining related to economic stabilization measures, the Committee has recognized that when, for urgent reasons relating to national economic interests and, in the framework of a stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected. (Digest, op. cit., para. 641; 222nd Report, Case No. 1147, para. 117; 230th Report, Cases Nos. 1171 and 1173, paras. 162 and 573; 284th Report, Cases Nos. 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607 and 1616, paras. 78, 321, 500, 542, 587 and 635; 286th Report, Case No. 1624, para. 223; and 292th Report, Cases Nos. 1715 and 1722, paras. 187 and 547.) The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations adopted the same approach in this respect. (General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1994, para. 260.)
226. In the present case, the Committee considers that the extension of the 1991 Act for a further two years cannot be classed as an exceptional measure. As the complainant organization emphasizes, the combined effect of the two Acts will place the effects of a four-year wage control programme, under which wages will be frozen for three years with a very modest rise over one year, on the shoulders of federal public sector workers. The Committee cannot but regret that this will have a negative impact on the living standards of the workers concerned and that the legislation contains no adequate safeguards in this respect. As this is the longest wage-restriction programme ever adopted in Canada, it clearly goes beyond what the Committee has considered to be permissible restrictions on collective bargaining.
227. The Committee also observes that the Government has, on many occasions, resorted to this kind of Act over the last decade. The Committee expresses its serious concern at the frequent recourse had by the Government to statutory limitations on collective bargaining and even more so given the fact that the Committee has been seized with a new complaint, presented by the same complainant organization, relating to a further extension of the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991. The Committee points out that repeated recourse to such statutory restrictions on collective bargaining can, in the long term, only prove harmful and destabilize labour relations, as it deprives workers of a fundamental right and means of defending and promoting their economic and social interests.
228. In view of the scope of the problem thus facing Canada, the Committee considers it necessary to refer to the developments included by the Committee of Experts in its most recent General Survey as concerns collective bargaining for workers in the public and semi-public sectors:
- While the principle of autonomy of the parties to collective bargaining is valid as regards public servants covered by the Convention, the special characteristics of the public service described above require some flexibility in its application. Thus, in the view of the Committee, legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall "budgetary package" within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses (for example: reduction of working hours or other arrangements, varying wage increases according to levels of remuneration, fixing a timetable for readjustment provisions) or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts.
- This is not the case of legislative provisions which, on the grounds of the economic situation of a country, impose unilaterally, for example, a specific percentage increase and rule out any possibility of bargaining, in particular by prohibiting the exercise of means of pressure subject to the application of severe sanctions. The Committee is aware that collective bargaining in the public sector "... calls for verification of the available resources in the various public bodies or undertakings, that such resources are dependent on state budgets and that the period of duration of collective agreements in the public sector does not always coincide with the duration of budgetary laws - a situation which can give rise to difficulties." The Committee therefore takes full account of the serious financial and budgetary difficulties facing governments, particularly during periods of prolonged and widespread economic stagnation. However, it considers that the authorities should give preference as far as possible to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants; where the circumstances rule this out, measures of this kind should be limited in time and protect the standard of living of the workers who are the most affected. In other words, a fair and reasonable compromise should be sought between the need to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the parties to bargaining, on the one hand, and measures which must be taken by governments to overcome their budgetary difficulties, on the other. (General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1994, paras. 263 and 264.)
229. The Committee endorses the observations made by the Committee of Experts and concludes that the action taken by the Government in no sense corresponds to the fair and reasonable compromise required by them. It urges the Government to take these observations into consideration in the future. The Committee expresses the strong hope that the Government will allow a full return to normal free collective bargaining in the public service. In this context, it urges the Government to take the necessary measures, through consultation with the trade union organizations involved, to strengthen dialogue and exchanges with a view to finding suitable machinery for settling disputes which could help to prevent the unilateral and statutory imposition of conditions of employment and re-establish a negotiating system which enjoys the utmost confidence of the parties.

The Committee's recommendations

230. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not implemented the recommendations it had made, but rather has once again placed serious restrictions on collective bargaining in the public service by renewing a unilateral freeze on pay.
- (b) The Committee expresses its serious concern at the frequent recourse had by the Government to statutory limitations on collective bargaining and considers that such limitations go beyond what it has considered to be permissible restrictions on collective bargaining.
- (c) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, through consultation with the trade union organizations involved, to strengthen dialogue and exchanges with a view to finding suitable machinery for settling disputes which could help to prevent the unilateral and statutory imposition of conditions of employment and re-establish a negotiating system which enjoys the utmost confidence of the parties.
- (d) The Committee urges the Government to take its observations into consideration in the future and expresses the strong hope that the Government will allow a full return to normal free collective bargaining in the public service. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

Annex

Extracts of the Public Sector Compensation Act, 1991
Interpretation
2. (1) In this Act - "compensation" means all forms of pay, benefits and
prerequisites paid or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of an
employer to or for the benefit of an employee, except those paid or provided:
...
(c) In one lump-sum payment that may be may be made payable: on or after the
coming into force of this Act, to or for the benefit of an employee whose rate
of pay does not exceed $27,500 and that is an amount equal to:
(i) where the lump sum is payable to or for the benefit of an employee whose
rate of pay does not exceed $27,000 to $500; or
(ii) where the lump sum is payable to or for the benefit of an employee whose
rate of pay exceeds $27,000 but does not exceed $27,500, that portion of $500
that the rate of pay for that employee exceeds $27,000:
- "compensation plan" means the provisions, however established, for the
determination and administration of compensation, and includes such provisions
contained in collective agreements or arbitral awards or established
bilaterally between an employer and an employee, unilaterally by an employer
or by or pursuant to any Act of Parliament.
...
3. (1) This Act applies to employees employed in or by:
(a) the departments of the Government of Canada or other portions of the
public service of Canada, set out in Schedule I;
(b) the agencies, boards, commissions or corporations set out in Schedule II;
and
(c) the Senate, House of Commons or Library of Parliament.
(2) This Act applies to:
(a) the staff of ministers of the Crown and of members of the Senate and the
House of Commons;
(b) directors of corporations set out in Schedule II;
(c) the members and officers of the Canadian forces; and
(d) the members and officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
...
5. (1) Subject to section 11, every compensation plan for employees to whom
this Act applies that was in effect on February 26, 1991, including every
compensation plan extended under section 6, shall be extended for a period of
24 months beginning on the day immediately following the day on which the
compensation plan would, but for this section, expire.
...
7. (1) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament except the Canadian Human
Rights Act but subject to this Act, the terms and conditions of:
(a) every compensation plan that is extended under section 5 or 6; and
(b) every collective agreement or arbitral award that includes a compensation
plan referred to in paragraph (a);
shall continue in force without change for the period for which the
compensation plan is so extended.
(2) the Treasury Board may change any terms and conditions of a compensation
plan that is extended under section 5 or 6 or in respect of which section 11
applies, or of a collective agreement or arbitral award that includes such a
compensation plan, if those terms and conditions are, in the opinion of the
Treasury Board, in respect of a conversion or reclassification that is
required to implement or new or revised classification standard.
...
9. (1) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament but subject to section 11,
every compensation plan for employees to whom this Act applies shall be deemed
to include a provision to the effect that the wage rates in effect under the
plan on the day on which the plan would, but for section 5, expire shall not
be increased for the 12-month period immediately following that day.
(2) The wage rates in effect under subsection (1) shall be increased for the
12-month period following the period referred to in that subsection by 3 per
cent.
...
13. A provision of a compensation plan for employees to whom this Act applies
that is entered into or established at any time is of no force or effect to
the extent that it provides for an increase in wage rates that would bring
wage rates to a level that they would, but for this Act, have reached.
...
14. (1) During the period beginning on the day on which this Act comes into
force in which a compensation plan, as extended under section 5 or 6, or in
respect of which section 11 applies, is in force:
(a) no bargaining agent shall declare, authorize or direct, or condone or
acquiesce in the continuation of a strike of employees to whom the
compensation plan applies;
(b) no representative or officer of a bargaining agent shall counsel or
procure the declaration, authorization or direction of, or condone, or
acquiesce in the continuation of, a strike of these employees; and
(c) no employee to whom the compensation plan applies shall participate in a
strike.
...
15. Every bargaining agent that contravenes section 14 is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction and is liable for each day or part of a day
during which the offence continues, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
16. Every representative or officer of a bargaining agent that contravenes
section 14 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is
liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a
fine not exceeding $50,000.
17. Every employee who contravenes section 14 is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part of a day
during which the offence continues, to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
...
20. (1) Any fine imposed on a bargaining agent or a representative or officer
of a bargaining agent under section 15 or 16 constitutes a debt payable to Her
Majesty in right of Canada and may, without prejudice to any other recourse
available to Her Majesty with respect to the recovery thereof, be recovered by
Her Majesty by a deduction of the amount of the fine or any portion thereof
from the amount of the membership dues that the employer of the employees
represented by the bargaining agent is or may be required, pursuant to any
collective agreement that is or may be entered into between the employer and
the bargaining agent, to deduct from the pay of the employees and to remit to
the bargaining agent.
...
22. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board,
by order, terminate the application of this Act in respect of any employee or
group of employees to which this Act applies.
Extracts of the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, 1993
4. (1) Subsection 5(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
5. (1) Subject to section 11, every compensation plan for employees to whom
this Act applies that was in effect on 26 February 1991, including every
compensation plan extended under section 6, shall be extended for a period of
four to eight months beginning on the day immediately following the day on
which the compensation plan would, but for this section, expire.
(2) Section 5 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the
following subsection:
(3) Each of the compensation plans for the persons mentioned in subsection
3(3.1) that was in effect on the coming into force of this subsection shall be
extended for a period of twenty-four months beginning on the day immediately
following the day on which the compensation plan would, but for this
subsection, expire.
5. Section 7 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after
subsection (2) thereof, the following subsection:
(2.1) Where, before the coming into force of this subsection, the Treasury
Board has, pursuant to subsection (2), changed any of the terms and conditions
of a compensation plan to implement a new or revised classification standard,
the new or revised compensation plan that is in effect as a result of that
implementation shall be:
(a) extended for a period of twenty-four months beginning on the day
immediately following the day on which the compensation plan would, but for
this subsection, expire; and
(b) deemed to include a provision to the effect that the wage rates in effect
under the plan on the day on which the plan would, but for this subsection,
expire shall not be increased for the twenty-four-month period immediately
following that day.
6. Section 8 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
8. The parties to a collective agreement, or the persons bound by an arbitral
award, that includes a compensation plan that is extended under section 5 or
6, or in respect of which section 11 applies may, by agreement in writing,
amend any terms and conditions of the collective agreement or arbitral award,
other than wage rates or other terms and conditions of the compensation plan.
7. Section 9 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following
subsections:
(3) The wage rates in effect under subsection (2) shall not be increased for
the twenty-four-month period immediately following the period referred to in
that subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, each of the compensation
plans for the persons mentioned in subsection 3(3.1) shall be deemed to
include a provision to the effect that the wage rates in effect under the plan
on the day on which the plan would, but for subsection 5(3), expire shall not
be increased for the twenty-four-month period immediately following that day.
8. (1) All that portion of subsection 11(1) of the said Act following
paragraph (b) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Sections 5 and 6 do not apply in respect of the previous compensation plan and
the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, may
adjust wage rates under the new compensation plan to such amounts and for such
periods as the Governor in Council considers to be consistent with the wage
policy of the Government of Canada arriving from the February 26,1991 budget
or the economic and fiscal statement and any wage rates so adjusted shall be
deemed to be embodied in the new compensation plan.
(2) Section 11 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the
following subsection:
(3) Every new compensation plan in respect of which this section applies shall
be:
(a) extended for a period of twenty-four months beginning on the day
immediately following the day on which the compensation plan would, but for
this subsection, expire; and
(b) deemed to include a provision to the effect that the wage rates in effect
under the plan on the day on which the plan would, but for this subsection,
expire shall not be increased for the twenty-four-month period immediately
following that day.