Pay Equity Committee on April 18th, 2016

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

Perhaps I could comment on pay equity and collective bargaining and the maintenance.

Pay equity is a non-negotiable human right, whether in achieving or maintaining pay equity. It's a fundamental human right both domestically and internationally. Making pay equity subject to collective bargaining is making it conditional upon bargaining power, even in the maintenance stage. To allow pay equity to be subject to collective bargaining, which involves compromises and concessions, really undermines the quasi-constitutional nature and status. It does carry serious consequences for women and all those who work in female-dominated jobs.

I do want to draw a distinction between equitable compensation and pay equity. Generally, fair or equitable compensation is negotiated in conjunction with other bargaining terms and conditions of employment. It's a tenet of collective bargaining for regular pay increases. It's determined based on comparators that assume all factors are equal. Pay equity speaks to systemic undervaluation of work traditionally done by women. It is a fundamental human right that can't be bargained away.

In that sense, there is a distinction between equitable compensation and pay equity and incorporating pay equity into collective bargaining.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

On the matter of your dispute resolution mechanism, what type of proactive role does that mechanism play, in your view, in either maintaining or adjudicating pay equity situations in the workplace?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

In terms of a proactive model and the requirement for a pay equity plan, this is something we have under the Quebec model, and it's also provided in the 2004 task force recommendations. That is a form of dispute resolution in itself. A mandatory pay equity plan to cover all employees in the federal public service is required to achieve pay equity and to have this pre-emptive collaborative process. Plans should be developed by a pay equity group comprised of bargaining agents, employer representatives, and expert advisers to ensure that there is equal pay for work of equal value. For employees across bargaining units, across departments, and where wage inequity is detected for female-predominant groups following assessment by a gender-neutral job evaluation system, the employer is legally required to adjust the pay of impacted employees within a strict timeline.

Within that context, within having that pay equity committee, where you have all parties at the table to work out the issues, to do the review, to do the assessments, that's where you have part of the dispute resolution that is taking place to prevent from filing a complaint.

What we're proposing in terms of the ADR is this proactive or pre-emptive approach, but also, prior to filing a complaint, having a structure in place where dispute resolution mechanisms are facilitated. Through facilitated discussion, mediation, conciliation, we'd have this body or an existing commission specialize in pay equity or some form of framework that can assist the parties before they even get to filing a complaint. When an impasse is reached, I suppose filing a complaint would be a process, but there would have to be these dispute resolution mechanisms that are part of that complaint-based oversight or body.

[Vicky Smallman]

I would add that section 17 of the commission's report on oversight agencies also gets into detail about establishing an oversight agency or pay equity commission and also having a tribunal that would handle the dispute resolution process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you. That's time.

We'll go to Mr. Albas for seven minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you again to our witnesses for the work you do for your members and also for Canadians.

I think I'll start specifically on ACFO's position. You're proposing what sounds like this: we have a case we'd like to present to management or the employer, and rather than go through a long, drawn-out process, which will cost time and money for everyone, we want to have an alternative mechanism to be able to deal with issues of pay equity.

Is that what you're saying?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

We filed our current complaint under the transitional provision of the budget implementation act. We were working under the current legal frameworks that are available to us.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Legal or not, there are ways to handle disputes. What I'm saying is that, right now if you have management that is willing to meet and discuss these kinds of terms, that could happen right away, under the current framework or under any new proactive framework. Is that correct, if there's willingness from both parties?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

Certainly, and ACFO is always open to collaborating and working jointly to try to settle pay equity.

[Dany Richard]

The answer is yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. To me the biggest thing at stake here or the biggest concern I have is that you have legitimate concerns that have not had a proper hearing yet in terms of receptivity from the management.

That being said, I know you've tried through the current system, and I understand the first complaint you made has been dismissed, and that's fine.

I'd like to ask a little bit more about this dual-track system. You said it could be possible for someone to begin this process of engaging with management, with the employer, as well as write a complaint, and then kind of get off or start up either one at either time. Is my understanding correct? Could you maybe explain that a little bit better?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

The option of selecting from a dual-track system would be once a complaint is filed, and there would be a possibility potentially for these complex cases to go through a more traditional route.

In terms of the fast track, if there are pay equity issues that can be dealt with and that are more simple perhaps or that can be expedited so that there is a decision, potentially on a partial component of the complaint or the complaint itself, then that would assist the parties in dealing with those matters and resolving.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

What you're talking about is that right now you file a claim and it begins a process and it's very adversarial.

Instead of your going to the first, second, or third step along that process, immediately this would go to some sort of alternative dispute resolution process. Again, not every issue is suitable for that kind of resolution. There are some things where maybe, again, there are good cases on both sides and maybe there can't be some compromise on that. I would like to think otherwise.

That's basically what you're calling for, to say that there should be within that framework a flexibility for both parties to say, time out, let's step back and let's see if we can resolve this without having to go to a third party in an adversarial process. Is that right?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

Yes. That's correct.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. Good.

I do recognize the statement you said earlier, Ms. Rochon-Perras, that obviously pay equity is a human right and shouldn't be subject to collective bargaining.

I totally respect where that's coming from. If PSECA were in force I would be interested to see. First of all, I think it actually adds transparency and accountability to both the employer and the bargaining agent or the union, simply because a proper assessment of the workplace is done, outlining pay equity issues, and that actually, from my understanding, would be shared with all employees.

Then you enter into a process and, by the way, pay equity is a compensation issue. I understand compensation is discussed at collective bargaining. This is one way where every three, four, or five years you actually force the issue so that people discuss it.

I do recognize your concerns when you say that pay equity is a human right and thus shouldn't be a part of bargaining, but at some point we have to deal with the culture issue, where if an issue isn't in front of us we don't deal with it. Oftentimes it gets shunted to the back.

I'd like your views on the changes with that assessment and the accountability mechanism with employees where they would know that both parties are dealing with that issue.

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

I'm processing some of the information you mentioned. Having a pay equity committee in the workplace with a mandate, and obligating bargaining agents, employees, and all stakeholders to take part in that review, which would be ongoing, would be a process where pay equity is being addressed and it's being reviewed and it's being assessed. That would be taking place outside of the realm of collective bargaining.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

What you're proposing by the committee as well as by having this alternative dispute resolution could fit in with the current framework and probably be seen to be somewhat of an improvement, would it not?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

In the current complaint-based...under the Canadian Human Rights Act currently [Inaudible—Editor] guidelines and the transitional provisions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Whether there's another proactive system put in place, either way, there would be some viability and some improvements, would you say, in either system?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

Yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Is that it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

You still have 45 seconds, if you want to split your time.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Quick, fast, and we'll get to it later, then.

Ms. Byers, I agree with what you're saying, that if we're going to bring legislation we need to get on it. When I look at the 2004 report, although there are a lot of concepts in there, there's no language developed yet for such a bill.

I think you mentioned that you have provincial, different folks all in your organization, so you would have to bring legislation that the provinces could come alongside with.

First, do you have such language? Second, if not, are you willing to be a stakeholder to work with the Minister of Justice?

[Barbara Byers]

I didn't realize that the federal government had now taken over labour legislation in the provinces and territories.