All 17 federal unions refuse to discuss PS sick leave

Settle big issue at bargaining only, labour leaders insist

All 17 federal unions have refused to have any part in “consultations” about the Conservatives’ proposed short-term disability plan, saying such a massive overhaul in managing public servants’ sick leave should be hammered out at the bargaining table.

The unions formally declined Treasury Board’s offer to take part in a series of discussions about the new short-term disability plan at the heart of the government’s “wellness and productivity” strategy to reduce sick leave in the public service by getting employees better and back to work faster.

The unions argue the consultations show the government is bent on introducing a new short-term disability plan to replace the exist- ing accumulated sick leave system and has no intention of negotiating the plan in upcoming contract talks, leaving only details to be sorted out, such as the number of annual sick days public servants will be entitled to.

Sick leave is the big issue in this round of bargaining that has been slowly grinding into gear over the past several months.

This week, the giant Public Service Alliance of Canada has its first meeting with Treasury Board negotiators for about 100,000 of the employees it represents.

As lawmaker, the government can introduce a short-term disability plan but has to negotiate the terms and conditions of sick leave, which are enshrined in the contracts of all public servants.

The unions want the government’s short-term disability plan to be brought to the bargaining table to be negotiated during contract talks and not introduced as a fait accompli with only details to be worked out.

“To be honest, they (the government) know exactly what they want but have to give the impression that they consulted with us for appearances only,” said Claude Poirier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees.

“We believe we can fix the problems they have identified in a cheaper way than changing everything and replacing it with a more expensive system.”

Treasury Board President Tony Clement claims he’s open to negotiate ways to better manage ill and injured public servants but they would have to fit with his “commitment” to a new short-term disability plan.

The government announced the overhaul as a priority in the last budget.

“Our government is committed to introducing short- and longterm disability plans that will help public servants get healthy and get back to work,” he said in an email.

“We will work with the bargaining agents to find ways to reduce the incidence and duration of disability in the public service and to improve workplace wellness.”

The unions are in a tough spot. The Conservatives introduced sweeping new rules for this round of bargaining that will strengthen the government’s hand at the table while diminishing the unions’ bargaining clout.

Despite the changes, the unions argue the government is still obliged to bargain in good faith and that approaching sick leave reform with a “predetermined outcome” could be tantamount to flouting those rights.

The unions participated in the disability management initiative that Treasury Board launched several years ago to get a handle on the problems with the system.

The unions acknowledged there were weaknesses but have maintained those gaps can be fixed without scrapping the existing regime and introducing a new scheme.

Public servants now accumulate 15 days of sick leave annually that they can carry over from year to year.

Banked sick leave is estimated at about $5.2 billion.

Public servants typically aim to bank 13 weeks of sick leave in case they fall ill to cover the waiting period before they can go on longterm disability.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, said a new short-term disability plan that affects the terms and working conditions of employees should be negotiated and not “worked out in some backroom with you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours kind of dealings.

“We can’t take something like this out of the hands of our members and say this is a leadership decision and negotiate outside the collective agreement and then turn around and pay lip service at the bargaining table. That is unethical.”

Daviau said taking part in consultations could be construed as accepting the new plan. Also, engaging in consultations could pose a legal dilemma in the event of an impasse if the government can successfully argue those discussions satisfied its legal obligation to consult with unions.

She said unions want to see the business plan, data and evidence of why a new plan is justified, and that should be done at the bargaining table.

“Let’s talk about what the real problems are and then be in a position to solve them in a way fair to taxpayers and employees at the same time. They have reversed this by wanting to decide outside the negotiating table and circumvent the established process afforded by the law.”