News

How did you come to agree to 3% per year for two years?

                This is the pattern currently emerging in NAV CANADA.  Air traffic controllers are the largest group to have settled to date.  The following groups have also agreed to a 2-year agreement at 3% per year: CFPA and CAW-1016.  In a multi-union single employer environment, agreements will generally follow a pattern set by larger groups.

Why did the negotiating team choose to make concessions?

                Every group that has reached an agreement with NAV CANADA to date has had to give up something in exchange for the 3% per year pensionable increase.  So at the outset, the negotiating team was faced with a stark choice: either accept some form of concessions in this round of bargaining or accept wage increases less than other groups.  NAV CANADA was very clear on this point and there was no way around it.  I know some of you feel we shouldn\'t have had to trade away anything but that was simply not an option available to us.

                Faced with this, the negotiating team made a difficult decision: we decided that a wage increase matching other groups (even with some concessions) would be more acceptable to the members than wage increase lower than other groups.  We all know that the Local has been severely criticised in the past for bringing home less than other groups (even if it wasn\'t true).  The team was fully aware that whatever path we chose would result in a significant number of unhappy members and we were prepared for that.  In spite of this difficultly, your team made a well reasoned decision.

Why did the negotiating team choose to trade away severance in particular?

                We have a very \"efficient\" collective agreement in that it doesn?t cost the employer money unless a benefit is provided to the employee.

                Given this, there are only two things in the collective agreement sufficiently valuable to make the gains we needed to make: severance on retirement or pensionable earnings through premiums (TCP and Competency).  To be fair, there are other savings in areas such as ad-hoc leave, eliminating ability to carry-over time in lieu or banked vacation, an outright reduction in other areas such as overtime and premiums or even sick-leave.  But none of these other benefits alone would have been sufficient to achieve the kinds of gains we wanted to make and multiple concessions in these areas would have only angered the members.  Faced with the decision to choose between pensionable premiums and severance, the team chose to trade away severance.  Here?s why:

• The time was right for this deal.  With every retiree and new hire, the collective value of this benefit to the group decreases.  At some point in time, NAV CANADA would no longer have any incentive to make this deal - it simply wouldn\'t be worth the effort.  It is at the highest value it will ever be.  We made our move.
• Trading away severance allows us to correct an inequity created by binding arbitration in 2006 when severance disappeared completely for anyone hired after April 26, 2006. 
• Trading away severance clearly affects those about to retire in the next five to ten years.  However, converting the TCP and Competency premiums to non-pensionable premiums would have affected this group even more seriously and for a much longer period of time.  Maintaining their current pensionable income (and allowing it to grow with the wages) was a key priority.

                We know that some of you will have difficulty accepting this ? it wasn?t easy for your negotiating team either.  But we also know for the reasons outlined above that it was the right decision.

Why did you favour the TEC-2\'s in this agreement?  Why not spread the value to the other levels?

                We didn?t ?favour? the TEC-2?s in this negotiation.  The bargaining team worked towards a goal set more than a year ago as part of the reclassification exercise.

                This round of bargaining was essentially an extension of the previous round so your negotiating team set out to complete some unfinished business.  As part of the reclassification exercise launched a few years ago, the Local set out to increase the wages of the group.  We got part way there with the arbitral award on classification rendered in the spring of 2010.  Ploughing some of the collective value of the severance back into the TEC-2 salary permitted us to complete this work to a great extent.

Why is the TEC-2 increment non-pensionable?

                NAV CANADA began this round of bargaining with the goal of reducing pension expenses.  This was clear in their proposals.  Moreover, the 3% pensionable increase could only have been achieved with an exchange of some kind.  Although we successfully added value to the agreement by adding a 3% to the TEC-2 level, the company was not prepared to add to their pension costs any further than they already had.  In order for the 3% increment to become pensionable, further concessions would have been required.  Your team was not prepared to go any further.

What happened to the other proposals?

                In every kind of negotiation the negotiators must decide at what point they have reached a satisfactory agreement without prolonging negotiations longer than necessary.  This is always a judgement call and a difficult one too.

                With respect to the specific proposals that did not make their way into the tentative agreement, they remain problems to be solved in future rounds of bargaining.  Moreover, had your team stayed at the table longer to solve these relatively minor issues it would have been at the cost of the whole package.  Like it or not, NAV CANADA negotiates with a fixed mandate set by the Human Resource Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  There was no compelling reason for NAV CANADA to increase their mandate.  It\'s just not enough to say we deserve more.

Why did you extend the agreement by 4-months?

                Members have frequently complained about the union\'s inability to settle collective agreements in advance of their expiry date.  This was also raised at meetings during my cross-country tour with the company earlier this year.  Part of the problem was the expiry date itself: August 31.  The current expiry date forces the parties to negotiate during the summer months when demand for annual leave is at its highest.  This makes it difficult to schedule meetings with the employer at a time convenient to everyone.

                The new expiry date permits the union to serve notice on September 1, bargain during the fall then ratify the agreement before the end of the calendar year.  Moreover, we will use the extra time to prepare even more thoroughly for future rounds of bargaining.

Why only a lump-sum for the first 4 months of the contract?

                This option was selected to deliver a (roughly) equivalent amount in lieu of retro pay more quickly without any risk of errors induced by the payroll department.  It saves the employees from having to verify all their overtime and premium records to confirm the accuracy of the payment.  Given the number of complaints directed towards the union this past winter following the last round of bargaining, we felt this was the best choice for the group especially since the amount of time elapsed since the expiry of the agreement was relatively short.  Had it been any longer, we probably would not have agreed to this.

What happens if the members do not ratify this agreement?

                If this agreement is rejected by the members, the employer will also withdraw from the tentative agreement.  NAV CANADA is committed to this agreement only if the members are committed to it.

                Following that, the union would follow the dispute resolution process requested by the majority of members. If the majority of members choose \"Binding Arbitration\" as their preferred dispute resolution process we would immediately request that NAV CANADA and the IBEW proceed to binding arbitration to settle the collective agreement.

                If NAV CANADA refuses binding arbitration or the majority of members choose \"Conciliation / Strike\" then the Local would file a notice of dispute with the Minister of Labour advising them that we have been unable to conclude a collective agreement with NAV CANADA.  This process including a negotiation on ?Maintenance of Activities? puts the final settlement of the collective agreement months into the future.

                A \"no\" vote in the hopes of something better is a high-risk strategy especially in this highly uncertain economic climate.  There is no guarantee that anything better will come of it.  Even if there is a small chance of something ?better? (depending on how one defines it), is it likely to be ?better? enough to justify the risk?  Your negotiating team doesn\'t think so.

Why can\'t the union simply go ask for more if the ratification fails?

                First, NAV CANADA made it clear that this is all there is.  In other words, this is the best deal we could achieve in face-to-face bargaining with NAV CANADA.

                Second, the suggestion that the negotiating team could simply go ask for more implies that we didn\'t do our job effectively in the first place.  I?m convinced your team did all it could to extract the maximum value from these negotiations.  Your negotiating team was competent, worked as a team, prepared for the discussions and flushed out all the issues before coming to any decisions. They did everything anyone could reasonably ask of them.

                Third, at some point the members have to make a decision with real consequences.  It would be unfair to the negotiating team to allow the members to continually vote down tentative agreements and expect the negotiating team to go back to the employer for more.  Not only would the team\'s credibility suffer, the whole union\'s credibility would suffer as well.  This is not the path to effective collective bargaining.