COMPULSORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PIC IN MAKING … · PIC - FS Group - Oct. 4-5, 2012 -...

PIC - FS Group - Oct. 4-5, 2012 - Compulsory Factors B-1

COMPULSORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PIC IN MAKING A REPORT

The Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) at Section 175 enumerates the specificfactors that are to be taken into account by a public interest commission when making a reportto the chairperson, as well as giving the Public Interest Commission the discretion to take intoaccount any other factors that it considers relevant.

The section reads as follows:

175 In the conduct of its proceedings and in making a report to the Chairperson, the publicinterest commission must take into account the following factors, in addition to any other factorsthat it considers relevant:

(a) the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, the publicservice in order to meet the needs of Canadians;

(b) the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions of employmentin the public service that are comparable to those of employees in similar occupations inthe private and public sectors, including any geographic, industrial or other variationsthat the public interest commission considers relevant;

(c) the need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to compensation andother terms and conditions of employment as between different classification levelswithin an occupation and as between occupations in the public service;

(d) the need to establish compensation and other terms and conditions of employmentthat are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the workperformed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the services rendered; and

(e) the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada’s fiscalcircumstances.

These are the identical factors found at Section 148 of the Public Service labour Relations Act,which are directed at a Board of Arbitration.

In three (3) recent arbitral awards, two involving the Canadian Association of ProfessionalEmployees and the Treasury Board of Canada, Files 585-02-38 Economic and Social ScienceServices (EC) group and 585-02-40 Translation Group (TR) the arbitration board made similarcomments with respect to the importance or weight given to each of these factors. Atparagraphs 11 of each of these awards the “board” noted:

(11) The Arbitration Board believes that all the factors listed in section 148 of the Actmust be considered in making its award and that none of the factors has moreimportance than the other. Each factor must be looked at and applied to thecircumstances of any given case by an arbitration board on the basis of the evidence


presented to it.”

This same view was expressed in the arbitral award involving the IBEW and the Treasury Boardof Canada, Board file 585-02-37 at paragraph 12 of the award with respect to the weighting ofthe factors identified at Section 148.

With respect to the factor contained in subsection 148(e) dealing with the state of the Canadianeconomy and the Government’s fiscal circumstances, the three arbitration boards have notedthat it is somewhat more problematic since the political voices on this issue give us a mixedmessage.

PAFSO submits that in making a report to the Chairperson, the Public Interest Commission isrequired to take into account these same factors. We would submit that the findings of the threearbitration boards concerning the importance and weight to be given to these factors can andshould be applied equally to the factors identified at Section 175 of the Act.

CRITERIA 175 PSLRA

RETENTION ISSUES

175 (A) THE NECESSITY OF ATTRACTING COMPETENT PERSONS TO, AND RETAININGTHEM IN, THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CANADIANS.

The departments continue to have a serious retention issue among FS officers at the mid rangeof their careers that was first identified by DFAIT in its Human Resources Strategy 1998.

In the Human Resources Strategy for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,Second Consultation Paper October 2, 1998, the department noted that DFAITs rate of attritionfor the FS group was not out of sync with other public service professional groups. The ratesvaried between 1.6% and 5.3% of the total population from 1990 - 1998. But what concerned thedepartment was the demographics of attrition within DFAIT, specifically the attrition rate forofficers with between 5 and 10 years of experience. Beginning at page 18 of the Section 6 - TheHR Function Within DFAIT, the report had this to say about attrition since 1986.

Appendix D: FS Attrition Since 1986

DFAITs annual attrition rates have varied between 1.6% and 5.3% of the total FSpopulation since 1990, and are considered low by comparison with other public serviceprofessional groups. Clearly attrition is a fact of life for all organisations and should befactored into HR management planning. It is the demographics of attrition within DFAITthat are of concern-specifically the attrition rate for officers with between 5 and 10 yearsof experience. The number of officers leaving after their first posting has been risingsteadily since 1986 with approximately 25% resigning within 7 or 8 years of joiningDFAIT. If the upward trend observable in the figures below were to continue or even to bemaintained at the 20 - 30% level, DFAIT would face a serious staffing problem. After fiveor more years of experience, the department’s investment in an officer is considerable,


especially if he or she has taken intensive language training. Equally or more important,these are the officers that should be at the heart of the department’s planning for LaRelève.

We have recently begun to track attrition by recruitment year. Using that measure,attrition is clearly on the rise among those who joined the department between 1986 and1990. By the end of 1997, we had lost the following:

Recruitment year / Percentage Lost by 1997

1986 12%

1987 19%

1988 47%

1989 24.5%

1990 33%

1991 33%

Drawing conclusions after 1991 is difficult since most officers do not resign during theirtraining or during the first posting but already over 20% of those hired in 1992 have left.For the 1986-1991 period, however, there is a clear upward trend.

Factors Leading to Attrition

While they vary from individual to individual, there are some common themes among thereasons given by our departing officers. These include:

1. Low, non-competitive salaries;2. Poor promotion prospects;3. Spousal employment issues (single income, single pension);4. Family related issues (ageing parents/children’s education);5. Devaluation of benefits (ex.FSDs);6. Low morale (perception that the department’s senior management simplydoesn’t care about the plight of overworked and underpaid officers); and7. Decreasing job satisfaction

Over the past several years, the Department’s recruitment criteria have been such thatthe majority of our new FS recruits are now older and more experienced. Thiscombination, while it does provide some advantages to the Department, may also becontributing to our inability to retain these employees: individuals are less flexible andhave shorter time horizons in terms of expected professional pay-offs (i.e. promotions/payscales). At the same time, the combination of education, maturity and skills they possessmake them attractive to the private sector which can offer compensation packages withwhich we cannot compete.


In 2001 the Mercer Report on Foreign Service Retention for the Department of Foreign Affairsand International Trade was released on July 26, 2001. Some of the key findings with respect toreasons for leaving the Foreign Service were summarized at page 11.

“The top three factors that would cause employees to leave the Foreign Service include:

1. Better financial remuneration outside the Foreign Service - 77%2. Potential for career advancement outside the Foreign Service - 54%3. Spousal-related issues (e.g. loss of income, pension, separation - 39%

At page 15

“Between 85% and 90% of participants strongly agreed or agreed that they would receivebetter remuneration for the same job in another government department or agency, aninternational organization, or in the private sector.”

The report also highlighted that the FS group is a highly motivated and competitive group whoare recruited with very high academic credentials. The Mercer Report revealed that 64% of thegroup who responded to the survey indicated they have a Masters Degree or higher. 15% of thegroup who responded indicated they had a professional degree most notably LLB.

In 2002 there were two papers written on this subject:

1. A Comparative Study on the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Foreign ServiceOfficers. Foreign Service Retention Data and,

2. The Problem of Retention in the Foreign Service Task Force on Modernizing theForeign Service, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 2002

The first paper looked at retention rates for the FS group in comparison with other comparablegroups, AS, CO, ES (now EC) LA, PE and the PM groups were chosen. This paper looked atthe traditional means of measuring retention statistics and came to the conclusion the FSgroup did not have a retention problem. This is the same conclusion reported for attrition forthe period 1990-1998. The paper followed a Foreign Service Retention Survey Report onFindings, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade July 26, 2001 prepared byWilliam M. Mercer Limited.

The second of these two reports The Problem of Retention in the Foreign Service Task Forceon Modernizing the Foreign Service, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade2002 was a DFAIT paper produced by the Task Force on Modernizing the Foreign Service. Itwas very critical of the methodology used by the Treasury Board to determine retention issuesin the TBS study Foreign Service Retention Data referred to earlier. By looking at the samedata through a different lens, (the demographics of attrition), it showed a totally different resultthan what is produced by looking at year to year statistics to determine separation rates. Onpage one it drew the following conclusions:


Summary

The following is an assessment of the problem of retention in the Foreign Service. Theassessment draws entirely on the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Foreign ServiceRetention Data study (September, 2001) prepared for the Comparative Study on theTerms and Conditions of Employment of Foreign Service Officers (April, 2002). TheTBS data is current to March 2000.

The conclusions to be drawn are the following:

• The Foreign Service has a serious retention problem. It is not in the aggregatebut specific to a large and critically important group - experienced middle-levelofficers.

• Relatively low rates of separation in early and later years, predictable for acareer service whose members are indeterminate employees, masks acalamitous hemorrhaging in the middle years.

• Of the 358 Foreign Service officers recruited between 1987 and 1993, 122 ofthem had left by March 2000 - approximately one third (34.1%). The class of1980 alone lost almost half of its members (47%).

• The future is not improving. Every group of recruits hired in the last six yearshas sustained year-over-year losses, with the cumulative losses by March 2000rising from 5% of the total for 1999 recruits to 14% of those recruited in 1994.”

The study showed that between 1987 and 1993 the Foreign Service recruited 358 FS officers.By March 2000 only 236 remained, a loss of 122 (34%).

The findings of this study are consistent with the methodology used by DFAIT in the 1998Human Resources Strategy For the Department of Foreign Affairs and International TradeSecond Consultation Paper (FS Attrition Since 1986 - See link: http://intranet.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/spd/Hrd/HRstra98/strattoc-e.htm.) This study confirmed what theDFAIT HR Strategy in 1998 had determined. There was a serious retention issue.

PAFSO used the recruitment data from these reports for the number of FS employees recruitedfrom 1992 to 1998 and the demographic data provided by the TBS as of December 31, 2010 todetermine if the retention issues identified by DFAIT continued during this period.

YEAR NO. OF RECRUITS LEFT MARCH 2000 LEFT DEC. 31, 2010

(18) 1992 55 (8) 15 (27.3) 28 (50.91)

(17) 1993 53 (7) 15 (28.9) 33 (62.26)


(16) 1994 43 (6) 6 (14) 23 (53.4)

(15) 1995 30 (5) 4 (13.3) 16 (53)

(14) 1996 27 (4) 3 (11.1) 13 (48.1)

* (13) 1997 28

(12) 1998 49 3 (6.1) 7 (14.2)

* (11) 1999 41

( ) Represents years of continuous service* The TBS demographics show more employees with (11) and (13) years of service than

the number of recruits (for that year).

The table continues to show a serious retention issue among the FS group between the 14 - 18years of employment as opposed to earlier reports which saw the retention problem betweenthe 7 - 18 years of service. As the data shows the departments have lost, as of December 2010,more than 50% of the FS officers recruited between 1992 and 1996. This poses a seriousproblem for the employer as these are the experienced officers that were recruited as part of theleadership of Canada’s future Foreign Service and their reasons for leaving should not beignored. According to all of the previous reports on retention they all identify three major factors:

1. Poor wages.2. Not enough opportunity fro advancement.3. Spousal issues.

The wage issue will be addressed in our wage proposal.

It is worth noting that there have been very few promotional opportunities for the FS group sincethe new FS classification standard was introduced in 2005. It is also worth noting that thedepartments have done very little with respect to the spousal issues dating back to the RoyalCommission on Conditions of Foreign Service by Pamela McDougall (1981) (see link at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/g6/f2/xx012599.pdf) and repeated in every task forcesince, including the Auditor General’s audit on DFAIT staff relations. The prime reason for losingtheir investment has not addressed.

Conclusion

Looking at the demographics of attrition/retention it is very clear that measuring retention issuesthrough demographics is much more meaningful and relevant as the 1998 Human ResourcesStrategy pointed out. If attrition figures continued to show experienced officers were leaving atthe 20% - 30% level DFAIT would face a serious staffing problem. “After five or more years ofexperience, the department’s investment in an officer is considerable, especially if he or she hastaken intensive language training. Equally or more important, there are the officers that shouldbe at the heart of the department’s planning for La Relève.”

The demographic attrition experience reported in 1998 continued into the new millennium and


as our brief has shown continues until the present. DFAIT has a chronic problem of keeping FSofficers for a number of reasons, compensation being among them.

SECTION 175 (B) COMPARABILITY WITH SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS IN THE PRIVATE ANDPUBLIC SECTORS INCLUDING ANY GEOGRAPHIC INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER RELEVANTVARIATIONS

According to the occupational group definition for the FS group, it comprises positions that areprimarily involved in the planning, development, delivery and promotion of Canada’s diplomatic,commercial, human rights, cultural, promotional and international development policies andinterests in other countries and in international organizations through a career rotational foreignservice.

Within the broader group definition there are six components that describe the work in moredetail. In order to be included in the definition of FS work these components need, as theirprimary purpose, the activities described in the following components.

1. Commercial and economic relations and trade policy - the planning,development, delivery or management of policies, programs, services or otheractivities directed at Canada’s economic or trade relations with foreign countries,including the development, promotion or strengthening of Canada’s economic ortrade interests in bilateral or multilateral forums;

2. Political and economic relations - the planning, development, delivery ormanagement of policies, programs, services or other activities directed atCanada’s political relationships with foreign countries;

3. Immigration affairs - the delivery of management of immigration policies,programs, services or other activities in support of the Canadian immigrationprogram abroad;

4. Legal affairs - the provision of legal advice to the federal government onCanada’s international rights and obligations; the interpretation and application ofinternational legal obligations; the negotiation of various bilateral and multilateralagreements, treaties and conventions; and the defence of Canada’s positionrespecting those obligations and agreements including dispute settlement;

5. Communications and culture - the planning, development, delivery ormanagement of communications and cultural policies, programs, services orother activities in Canada and abroad to promote Canada’s foreign service role toCanadians and to promote Canada in the world; and

6. The provision of related advice.

Also included are positions occupied by members of the group on assignments in Canada.


Exclusions

Positions excluded from the Foreign Service Group are those whose primary purpose isincluded in the definition of any other group or those in which one or more of the followingactivities is of primary importance:

1. the provision of administrative or information services as described in the Program andAdministrative Service Group; and

2. the represenation in other countries of Canadian interests in a specialized field when theincumbent is not a career rotational foreign service officer.

What separates the FS group from other Public Service occupational groups is the notion of“rotationality” which requires the FS officer to work both at Headquarters assignments andassignments abroad as a condition of employment. Employees in the FS group are appointed tolevel “B” as opposed to a “substantive position”. These FS officers spend their careerscompeting for one assignment after another at the same level. Promotional opportunities are atlevel and the FS officer competes for assignments at level within their own stream ie Politicaland Economic, Trade and Immigration. These officers can be assigned anywhere that Canadahas a mission and this take its toll on the FS officers family.

What Does the Expression “Career Rotational Foreign Service” Mean?

The following description of rotationality and the inherent problems associated with it was takenfrom the Human Resources Strategy for the Department of Foreign Affairs and InternationalTrade Second Consultation Paper October 2, 1998, beginning at page 10.

4.2.1.2 Managing Rotationality

Rotationality is the keystone of DFAITs HR policy framework. The flexibility it provides is criticalto our ability to meet current and emerging business needs swiftly and effectively. By movingcompetent people around the globe on a regular basis, it ensures that our representatives neverbecome captives of the special interests they deal with on Canada’s behalf or the foreigncommunities they join from time to time - the integrity of their advice is thereby secured. Bybringing our people home at regular intervals, we renew their understanding of our evolvingculture so that the Canada they next represent abroad is the one Canadians currently live in,not a dated and distant memory. We also have the opportunity to refresh their skills andknowledge through training and to use their fresh front-line intelligence to improve our policydevelopment. Rotationality is a high-maintenance system whose cost is justified by its benefits.Our challenge is to understand and manage this system as the essential corporate tool that it is,for both organisational effectiveness and optimal administrative efficiency.

4.2.1.2.1 Rotational Staff

As described in more detail in Appendix A, the rotational workforce is divided into fourcategories, along broad functional lines: Executives, Foreign Service (FS) Officers,Management/Consular Officers, and Administrative and Technical Support. Within the FS


category, there is a further subdivision into three distinct streams, focussed severally onpolitical/economic, trade, and immigration business lines (this last is managed separately for themost part by Citizenship and Immigration). Each of these categories and streams is manageddiscretely as a pool through an appointment-to-level staffing system. To meet organisationalrequirements in the near term and to develop the required functional and rotationalcompetencies of individuals over time through long-term career-pathing, employees areassigned by pool managers at regular intervals from within their category/stream pools topositions at home or abroad.

It is currently normal policy for a rotational employee to have a balance of assignments atheadquarters and abroad. A sufficient stock of home positions is required to provide places forall rotational staff returning after their tours of duty abroad. The size of that home stock inrelation to the community dictates the length of each posting and the duration of the homeassignment.

4.2.1.2.3 A Delicate Balance

The pools of rotational positions and the pools of rotational staff must be kept in fine balance forthis system to work. A variety of pressures can threaten that balance. For example:

- If there is insufficient recruitment to replace rotational staff lost to a rotational poolthrough attrition or to meet the demand for new rotational positions which has beencreated by expanded business requirements, some managers will find that positionsowned by that pool will remain vacant, and their unit understaffed. If this isunacceptable, they must take extraordinary measures to reclassify the position,temporarily on a term basis or permanently, to non-rotational and then to fill the positionswith a non-rotational employee.

-If for cost-reduction reasons a stock of rotational positions is eliminated in aHeadquarters unit, the pool may be unable to find spots for all of their returningemployees. In this case, alternative assignments outside of the pool, and perhapsoutside of the department, must be found for them.

-If CBS positions are converted to LES positions at a mission to meet imposed costreductions, the number of rotational positions abroad for rotational staff is reduced.

-Sometimes when positions are reclassified and staffed as non-rotational because aspecial skill set not found within the relevant pool is required, the business need for thatspecial skill fades over time, but the position is never recaptured by the rotational pool.

-In general, the desired balance suffers when individual and managerial event-levelpreferences drive the annual assignment process rather than the principles of systemsmanagement for DFAIT’s long-term corporate interest.

4.2.102.40 Problems

When the pools of positions and people get out of sync, business imperatives can driveclassification and staffing decisions that offend the rotationality policy. These undermine the


integrity of the system and departmental effectiveness and create internal pay inequity, securityand other serious HR issues. To the extent that these aberrations proliferate and persist overtime, a number of problems can be created. Here are some examples:

- A chronic insufficiency in rotational group (largely FS) recruitment over the years hasdriven the move to resourcing from non-rotational groups, increasing the volume oftemporary classification and staffing activity within DFAIT, and causing serious HRsystem overloads that delay service and impair operational effectiveness.

- Morale is damaged by glaring examples of internal pay inequity (in some cases FSswork in Headquarters side-by-side with LAs, COs and ESs (now ECs) who are doingexactly the same work for substantially more money).

- Although we will always need specialised non-rotational employees, there is noconcerted management of career development opportunities for this group.

-While there will always be valid operational reasons for lateral entry of non-rotationalemployees into rotational pools, we do not have a simple, transparent and regularprocess to deal with such staffing actions.

-Non-rotational employees who succeed in joining rotational pools often enter at levelsthat take considerably longer to attain for those who were recruited into the bottom of thepool in the normal manner. This is seen as “jumping the queue”, limits promotionalopportunities and engenders a sense of injustice within the pool.

-Serious security issues can arise at a post where a rotational position has beenconverted to an LES position to save money, but the confidentiality of its duties requiresa Canadian to fulfil them.

Essentially the difference between the employment status of a Foreign Service officer, aCommerce officer, an EC employee or a lawyer, aside from rates of pay, is the Foreign Serviceofficer commits, as a condition of employment, to go anywhere in Canada or abroad to fill arotational position. THERE ARE NO CO, EC OR LA POSITIONS ABROAD. POSITIONSABROAD IN THE OFFICER CATEGORY ARE ALL FS POSITIONS. The FS officers spendtheir entire careers competing for positions “at level” anywhere in the world, the majority ofwhich are hardship postings. The FS counterparts at DFAIT Headquarters - the CO, EC and LAgroups - are non rotational employees and cannot be forced to go anywhere in Canada orabroad. CO, EC and LA employees are appointed indeterminately to the positions they occupy.The FS officer is assigned to a position either in Headquarters or elsewhere in Canada orabroad for a specific term that ranges anywhere from two to four years depending on theassignment and the hardship level of the posting. When that assignment ends the FS officermust compete with other FS officers for the next assignment.

Another major difference between the FS group and other comparable groups like theCO, EC and LA groups is these comparisons only hold true for assignments inHeadquarters. There are no comparable groups in the federal public service that do thework Foreign Service officers are assigned to do abroad. In light of this, PAFSO’s pay


proposal will show salary comparisons for comparable work done by other occupational groupsin headquarters as one part of the salary data used to support our pay proposal and a separatecomparison looking at the work done on assignments abroad.

FS AND COMPARABLE OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AT HEADQUARTERS (TRADE)

Occupational groups that perform work that is comparable to the work assigned to the FS groupat Headquarters are the CO, EC and LA groups. These comparables have been recognized byDFAIT itself dating back to the 1998 Human Resources Strategy where it discussed the delicatebalance needed to maintain a rotational work force and the problems that occur that threatenthat balance. One of the examples used by DFAIT was:

- Morale is damaged by glaring examples of internal pay inequity (in some cases FSswork in Headquarters side-by-side with LAs, COs, and ESs who are doing exactly thesame work for substantially more money).

In the PwC study all the stakeholders, TBS / CIC / DFAIT / PAFSO, included the LA, CO and ESgroups as the major comparables. The DFAIT internet website “Career” portal confirms that thework performed by employees in the CO, EC and LAW groups is comparable to the FS workperformed by FS officers in the Trade Stream. (See: http://www.international.gc.ca/jobs-emplois/index.aspx?view=d). International Trade Work

Work performed by FS officers who are in the “Trade” stream of the FS group as defined in thegroup definition is work assignments having as their primary purpose:

“Commercial and economic relations and trade policy - the planning development,delivery or management of policies, programs, services or other activities directed atCanada’s economic or trade relations with foreign countries, including the development,promotion or strengthening of Canada’s economic or trade interests in bilateral ormultilateral forums”

Commerce officers and employees in the Economics and Social Services group (EC) performvery similar work. The following description of International Trade positions was taken directlyfrom the DFAIT internet website under the careers portal.

“International trade positions

There are three occupational groups:

- Foreign Service Officer, Commercial/Economic Stream (FS),- Policy Officer (EC), and- Commerce Officer (CO).

Foreign Service Officer, Commercial/Economic Stream (FS)


Foreign Service Officers (FS) in the Commercial/Economic stream work on trade policyand the promotion of trade, investment and innovation. Foreign Service Officers arebased in Ottawa and agree, as a condition of employment, to be assigned to regionaloffices in Canada or to diplomatic missions abroad according to operational needs.

Policy Officer (EC)

Policy Officers (EC) work on bilateral, multilateral or sectoral trade policy - relatedissues. Policy Officers are based at headquarters in Ottawa, and move periodicallybetween different positions at headquarters.

Commerce Officer (C)

Commerce Officers (C)) work on a broad range of issues, including the promotion oftrade, investment and innovation. Commerce Officers are based at headquarters inOttawa or in regional offices across Canada. Those who are based in Ottawa moveperiodically between different positions at headquarters.”

Areas of work in international trade

Officers in all three occupational groups - Foreign Service Officer (FS), Policy Officer(EC), and Commerce Officer (CO) - have an opportunity to work in a number ofcomplementary fields in Canada and abroad such as:

PAFSO Note: CO and EC officers are not rotational employees but can apply for FS positionsabroad on a single assignment basis.

Client service delivery

Our raison d’être is to support the Canadian business community and deliver world-classclient service. Trade Commissioners offer services to help Canadian businesses in theinternational marketplace. Officers help Canadian companies prepare for internationalmarkets, assess companies’ potential in foreign markets, find qualified contacts and helpsolve trade-related problems.

Business sectors group

Sector specialists play a vital role liaising with our regional offices, overseas offices andsector associations in Canada. They analyze Canada’s industry sector capabilities,interests and growth potential, and advise trade commissioners at Canadian embassiesand consulates abroad and senior management on priority sectors and regions.

Investment promotion

Investment Promotion Officers attract foreign direct investment to Canada, inform foreigncompanies about establishing their operations in Canada, compile investment briefs,organize visits fo foreign companies, chair meetings, and provide guidance to Canadianprovinces and municipalities.


Innovation

Officers in this area work with the Trade Commissioner Service in Canada and abroad topromote research and development and the commercialization of new technologiesthrough private, academic and public sector partnerships with leading researchinstitutions and companies in key markets around the world.

Bilateral commercial relations

Officers who work in the area of bilateral commercial relations develop trade knowledge,provide analysis and advice, and liaise between other government departments inOttawa, DFAIT’s regional offices and offices abroad, and foreign missions. They alsoprepare briefs, coordinate briefing books, draft ministerial correspondence and organizeministerial trade missions.

Trade negotiations and dispute settlement

Officers in the Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch develop Canada’s trade policiesand positions related to, and participate directly in, the negotiation and implementation ofbilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. They also advise and engage indispute settlement procedures under these agreements, and prepare the ground workfor high-level international meetings and ministerial statements.

Market access barrier resolution

Officers in this area of work develop strategies and participate in engagement withforeign governments to protect and enhance international market access for Canadianbusiness clients, including exporters of goods and services, as well as investors whoencounter barriers and problems in foreign markets.

Trade policy development

Policy Officers and Advisors develop, analyze, and present strategies to seniormanagement on a range of issues such as trade and investment issues, barriers, andnegotiations, and their linkages to other policy areas (e.g., sustainable development).

Import and export controls

Officers working in the area of import and export controls develop policies, regulationsand recommendations to the Ministers of International Trade and Foreign Affairs, andwork to ensure the effective operation of Canada’s systems for import and exportcontrols, in compliance with Canada’s domestic and international trade obligations.

International law

Officers who work in the Trade Law Bureau are practising lawyers. The Trade LawBureau advises the Government of Canada of its rights and obligations underinternational trade law. It also provides advice on the negotiation and implementation of


multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements, and represents Canada in disputesunder those agreements.

Communications

Officers who work in communications provide advice and prepare material incollaboration with other divisions for consideration and use by the Minister ofInternational Trade and departmental officials. They ensure that communications acrossthe department are well coordinated and effectively managed, and respond to inquiriesfrom domestic and international media.

International trade portfolio coordination

Officers in this area work closely with Export Development Canada (EDC) and theCanadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), Canadian crown corporations, as well as withcentral agencies, to help ensure that Canadian companies have access to trade supporttools such as financing, insurance, risk mitigation and contracting services.


COMPARABLE OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AT HEADQUARTERS (POLITICAL ANDECONOMIC RELATIONS)

According to the FS occupational group definition FS officers who are assigned to positions inthe Political and Economic relations stream perform work that has as its primary purpose “theplanning, development, delivery or management of policies, programs, services or otheractivities directed at Canada’s political relationships with foreign countries”.

A review of the careers portal on the DFAIT internet website identifies the occupational groupsthat perform this work, FS and EC. The work described on the DFAIT website iincludes:

Advancing Canada’s Priorities in the World

Build a career promoting and defending Canada’s foreign policy agenda on issues suchas human rights, the environment, peace building and disarmament.

As a Political Economic Officer, you play an important role in advancing Canada’snational interests through our relations with other countries and international institutions,and in shaping Canada’s foreign policy development and direction.

Your chance to:

- Advocate our priorities in bilateral relations with countries such as the United States,China, or Russia and in multilateral relations with institutions such as the United nationsor the Organization of American States (OAS)

- Seek approaches that benefit Canada and the world on global issues such as peacebuilding, democratic development, human rights, the environment, disarmament, orinternational crime and terrorism

- Witness and contribute to the management of international crises

- Build people-to-people links through academic, scientific, sport and cultural exchanges

- Apply professional training and skills to the international landscape, for example, ininternational law

We work in...

- Headquarters in Ottawa- regional offices across Canada- 150 + offices worldwide

You can work with us as a...

Foreign Service Officer (FS), Political Economic, on foreign policy issues, includingrelations with specific institutions or countries, or on issues such as security,disarmament or human rights. Foreign Service Officers are based in Ottawa and agree


to be assigned to diplomatic missions abroad according to operational needs and theirown professional interests and personal circumstances.

Policy Officer (EC), on bilateral, multilateral or sectoral foreign policy issues. PolicyOfficers are based in Ottawa, but may apply for postings to regional offices in Canada orto diplomatic missions abroad.

We perform the following tasks:

- Analyze international trends and developments through the lens of Canadian priorities

- Develop policy recommendations

- Integrate Canada’s international affairs policies

- Identify and build relations with stakeholders to promote Canada’s internationalobjectives

- Manage and deliver a range of programs internationally

A comparison of the work described for FS officers in the Political and Economic stream andofficers in the EC occupation group confirms that the EC group is a comparator group with theFS for this work.


COMPARABLE OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AT HEADQUARTERS (LAW)

FS officers have included in their work assignments, work that has as its “primary purpose” responsibility for one or more of the following activities;”

Legal affairs - the provision of legal advice to the federal government on Canada’sinternational rights and obligations; the interpretation and application of international legalobligations; the negotiation of various bilateral and multilateral agreements, treaties andconventions; the defence of Canada’s position respecting those obligations andagreements including dispute settlement;

The DFAIT website makes reference to this component of FS work when it refers to“International Law” for work assignments in the Trade Commissioners Service. It also makes areference to this component of FS work on its website when it discusses careers in the Politicaland Economic Relations Sections at DFAIT. We have referred to both of these earlier.

Assignments to positions that have as their primary purpose “legal affairs” are restricted to the15% of the group that are lawyers. FS officers, who are lawyers, work in the following sections ofthe legal bureau together with lawyers from the Department of Justice.

TRADE LAW (JLT)JUSTICE LEGAL SERVICES (JUS)LEGAL AFFAIRS (JLD)MARKET ACCESS AND TRADEREMEDIES LAW (JLTA)INVESTMENT AND SERVICES (JLTB)TREATY LAW (JLI)CONTINENTAL SHELF (JLC)CRIMINAL SECURITY AND DIPLOMATIC LAW (JLA)UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC LAW (JLH)OCEANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (JLO)

While assigned to positions in the legal department the FS lawyers’ bar fees are paid by thedepartment.

According to statistics provided by DFAIT, it has recruited 232 employees at the FSDP level inthe 4-year period beginning 1998. 53 of these employees are lawyers who had been called to thecommon law bar and 15 who are members of the Quebec Bar B.C.L. and L.L.L., whichrepresents 29% of the new hires. According to DFAIT, it has at least 149 lawyers on strengthemployed as Foreign Service officers and they indicate that their records may not be up to date.These Foreign Service officers work in the Legal Bureau of DFAIT as well as at posts abroadand in the operational divisions at Headquarters. According to the department, in 2002 DFAIThad approximately 900 employees employed as FS officers. The number of lawyers - 149 plusas a percentage of the FS employees represents almost 17% of the FS population. Thatpercentage would be considerably higher if you deducted the number of non FS employeesacting in FS positions. The Treasury Board in the past has not accepted that the LAW group is aproper comparable for the FS’s. Its position is posed on these points:• the Foreign Service officers are not hired as specialists eg. lawyers, they are hired as


generalists;• they work in the Legal Bureau as part of the assignment process and their bar fees are

only paid by the department during this assignment;• they do not work alongside justice lawyers in that Bureau and there are no legal

assignments outside the bureau except for single assignments offered to Justice lawyersin FS officer positions;

• the number of employees that are lawyers is insignificant when compared with the FSgroup as a whole.

In our view these points are simply not well founded. • Foreign Service officers are hired as specialists e.g. lawyers.

• The provision for “Legal Affairs” is recognized in the FS group definition.

• TBS, DFAIT & CIC all recognized the LAW group as a comparator group for FS in thePwC study, the Mercer study, the TBS retention study, and the DFAIT retention study - soit is difficult to understand any opposition to this occupational group comparator.

• As part of the assignment process, FS employees who are lawyers are assigned toDFAIT’s Legal Bureau. There are three major divisions - JLO, JLA and JLT. In order to beassigned to this bureau you must be a lawyer. In the JLO and JLA sections the positionsinvolve international law and are all staffed by DFAIT FS employees who are lawyers. Infact, they are so important they are being proposed as part of an essential servicesagreement ( .

• The department at different times and depending on their needs (i.e. when the pool isdepleted) has in fact directly targeted lawyers and other professional groups in theirrecruitment campaigns. The latest example of this happening was in the recruitmentyears 1996, 1997, and 1998. In those years the requirements were: l) a law degree andwho have been called to the bar; 2) two degrees, one of which had to be in businessadministration, commerce, economics or law; 3) candidates were required to havesignificant experience in international commerce; and 4) candidates were required tospeak a third language in addition to Canada’s two official languages - for example, inone of the years it was Mandarin, Arabic, Japanese, Russian or Korean.

• In other years 1998-2000 for example, the department does not specifically target specificprofessional groups but as the statistics show in those years it hired 68 lawyers and morethan half had a Masters degree in economics, commerce, etc.

FS recruitment from 2005-2012 was 291 employees. The department only had data on thenumber of degrees completed for 254 of the recruits. 190 of these had more than one degreeand 36 were lawyers (14% of new hired) which is consistent with their hiring practices in the past.

An unclassified memo dated September 21, 1999, titled Lawyers Assignments Next Summer( ) identified the missions where FS lawyersshould be placed and where the needs were in the coming posting season. These requirementsstill exist but the vacancies are not as easily identified by references to internal memos.


A more detailed comparison between FS and CO and EC and LA positions is made in our payproposal.

OCCUPATION GROUP COMPARATORS FS OFFICERS WORK ASSIGNMENTS ABROAD

There are no public service occupational group comparators in the federal public servicefor FS work performed abroad. The only occupational groups that have positions abroad arethe FS, PA (eg MCO) and MD. None of these groups are comparable with one another.

There was anecdotal evidence to suggest that both within Canada and certainly for assignmentsabroad the Foreign Service salaries were trailing their counterparts in work assignments both inCanada and abroad. This led to a study commissioned by the TBS / DFAIT / CIC / PAFSO todetermine with some degree of certainty what the comparables should be.PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was contracted to complete this study (PwC - ComparativeTerms and Conditions of Employment of Foreign Service Officers - Final Report - April 23,2002). PwC in agreement with all the stakeholders, TBS / DFAIT / CIC and PAFSO, agreed thatthe occupational group comparables for the FS group for work assignments performed inCanada were the ES (now EC), CO, PM, LA, AS, CA and MM occupational groups. In the firstpart of this presentation we looked at occupational group comparables for headquartersassignments. In our pay presentation we go into more detail about how the work of theseoccupational groups interplay with the FS group at the various levels. However, withoutoverstating our case for internal comparisons for work assignments in Canada in 2002 theinternal comparisons showed the FS salaries at the highest level FS-2 - a two level FSstructure, trailed their PS counterparts by a significant margin.

Occupational Group Level Maximum FS-2 Maximum

ES (now EC) 8 99,749 75,423

CO 4 89,453 75,423

PM 7 85,239 75,423

LA 2(11) 107,025 75,423

LA 3C 151,400 75,423

AS 08 85,239 75,423

CA 02 81,957 75,423

MM 3 57,421 51,937

While the new FS classification standard introduced July 1, 2005 addressed some of theseanomalies, the most recent comparisons show wage gaps and structural differences that need tobe addressed.


COMPARABLES FOR WORK ASSIGNMENTS ABROAD

The PwC report was able to measure the work assignments for FS work abroad against otherforeign governments, international organizations and private sector companies. Of particularimportance was the fact that PwC made follow-up calls with each survey respondent to confirmand clarify responses.

“In the course of these calls, we confirmed that participants understood the job matchexercises and were indeed comparing their jobs to the right levels of Canadian jobsindicated in the surveys.”

A list of the countries, international organizations and private companies that participated in thesurvey were listed at page 3 of the report which follows:

Survey Participants

Countries International Organizations Private Companies

CanadaAustraliaAustriaBelgiumDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyIrelandNew ZealandNetherlandsNorwaySpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUnited States

Inter-American DevelopmentBankInternational Committee forthe Red CrossWorld BankUnited Nations

Several Canadian financialservices and manufacturingcompanies with internationaloperations

We developed the survey questions in consultation with the four stakeholders. AppendixA contains our survey questionnaire sent out to the comparator organizations above.Certain questions were omitted on the versions of the questionnaire sent to internationalorganizations and private sector companies because they were not applicable.

We identified contact points in each organization and elicited participation. Thequestionnaire was sent to each organization by e-mail and faxed or e-mailed back. Wereceived responses from the participants indicated above (including DFAIT/CIC). Onecountry, which was not on the stakeholders’ original list, and several private companies,declined to participate. Despite considerable efforts, not all respondents competed everyquestion.


After receiving competed surveys, we conducted follow-up calls with each surveyrespondent to confirm and clarify responses. In the course of these calls, we confirmedthat participants understood the job match exercise and were indeed comparing their jobsto the right levels of Canadian jobs indicated in the surveys.

The job matches referred to in this survey are reproduced below:

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSurvey of Terms and Conditions of Employment

on Behalf of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Tradeand Citizenship and Immigration Canada

SECTION II - COMPENSATION

The objective of this section is to gather information on the base salary of comparablepositions as well as other aspects of compensation, including bonuses, pension plans,benefits and perquisites.

In order to produce valid comparisons, we have provided brief descriptions of thequalifications and work of Canadian Foreign Service Officers below. We request that youprovide descriptions of comparable jobs in your Foreign Service and the relevantcompensation and benefits data for these jobs.

Job Matching

In this part of the survey we ask you to match certain Canadian Foreign Service Officerpositions with similar positions in your Foreign Service. This will enable us to compare thecompensation of similar positions.

Below you will find short descriptions of four levels of Canadian Foreign Service Officerpositions. The job descriptions encompass activity in the following main subject areas,and related programs and services:

– foreign policy (political, economic, international security)1. trade policy2. international business development3. investment, science and technology promotion4. social and immigration policy and operations5. public diplomacy6. international cultural relations

Job A

This is an early career position. Individuals at this level would participate in acombination of formal training and on-the-job assignments. The incumbent wouldtypically carry the designation of Second Secretary after one year on assignmentabroad, reporting to a head of section at a mission.


Responsibilities might include:

1. Analyzing and reporting on issues and developments in assigned subjectareas

2. Researching and compiling information3. Doing field work on particular aspects of bilateral or multilateral matters

affecting national positions internationally4. Assisting in planning and implementing particular programs, policies and

initiatives5. Processing an assigned caseload

Job B

This is an analyst position. Individuals at this level might also manage acomponent of a program. The incumbent would typically carry the designation ofFirst Secretary, reporting to a head of section at a mission or act as head ofsection at a small mission.


1. Analyzing and reporting on issues and developments in assigned subjectareas

2. Distilling the results of research and providing policy advice andrecommendations

3. Actively promoting national positions on bilateral or multilateral matterswith foreign governments, international organizations, non-governmentalorganizations, the media, and private corporations

4. Taking the lead on projects or working groups to advocate or promotenational positions internationally

5. Preparing plans and implementing particular programs, policies andinitiatives

6. Managing a component of a program

Job C

This is an operational or program manager position. Individuals at this level wouldmanage an operation or program. The incumbent would typically carry thedesignation Counsellor, reporting to the Head of Mission.


1. Formulating strategic responses to developments affecting nationalinterests in assigned subject areas

2. Directing and overseeing policy in assigned subject areas3. Managing, coordinating and implementing programs, including managing

related operational budgets and supervising and directing both nationaland locally-engaged officers and support staff


4. Providing leadership in promoting, advocating and negotiating nationalpolicies and positions

5. Monitoring control and enforcement activities, and liasing with domesticand international organizations on security-related issues

6. Managing an operation or program.

Job D

This is an executive-level position. Individuals at this level would typically carrythe designation of Minister-Counsellor at a larger mission or Ambassador at asmaller mission.


1. Overseeing the management of bilateral relations with another country ornational representation at an international organization.

2. Developing, coordinating, and managing national policies and programson specific issues and developments

3. Providing authoritative policy advice and briefings to Ministers and seniormanagers on policy priorities and objectives

4. Developing and implementing operational policies, guidelines, andprocedures to ensure cost-effective pursuit of national objectives anddelivery of services to priority clients.

The PwC salary report summarizes the salary comparisons with other for foreign governments,international organizations and private sector companies.

.

It should be noted that effective July 1, 2005 a new FS classification plan was introduced. TheFS group went from a two level classification system to a four level system. The FS-4 level wasintended to provide a choice for FS officers to pursue a career in the EX group or remain in theFS group at the FS-4 level which was intended as an EX-1 equivalent. PAFSO does not believethat this equivalency is in dispute. We would refer you to an administrative notice advertising foran opening with the World Bank as well as with the Interactive Industries Transparency Initiative(EITI) International Secretariat to illustrate that the positions are equivalent to an FS-4/EX-1level. Bearing this in mind the job matches for the PwC survey would now line up with the fourlevels in the new FS classification plan. The results of the PwC survey show that in the majorityof cases the FS group in Canada trails other governments’ foreign service employees by aconsiderable margin. It also shows that the difference in wages for the FS group in Canada forcomparable work in international organizations and private companies is critically undervalued.This can only be addressed incrementally over more than one round of negotiations.

175 (C) THE NEED TO MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH RESPECT TOCOMPENSATION AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ASBETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION LEVELS WITHIN AN OCCUPATION AND ASBETWEEN OCCUPATIONS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.


Section 175 (c), the third factor requires that in making recommendations the committee alsolook at the compensation as between different classification levels within the FS group and asbetween comparable occupations in the public service. In other words, this section requires theCommission to look at comparative group pay structures to determine how the FS group alignswith these pay structures.

In our pay proposal we show the current percentage differences between levels in the FS groupand how the FS structure measures against the three major comparator groups the CO, EC andLA groups. It is very clear that the FS group trails the LA rates of pay by a considerable margin atall levels. Our proposal is not intended to match their rates in one round of bargaining. Nor doesour proposal try to accomplish a rate of pay that is comparable to what similar jobs in the privatesector pay as the wage gaps are too wide to accomplish in one round of negotiations. In thisround of negotiations our intent is to address the wage gaps created between the FS group andthe CO and EC groups and the proposed larger economic increases and address some of theanomalies that have been created over time, particularly, in comparison to the LA group internalcomparator group and the value for work done in overseas work assignments.

175 (D) THE NEED TO ESTABLISH COMPENSATION AND OTHER TERMS ANDCONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE IN RELATION TOTHE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED, THE WORK PERFORMED, THE RESPONSIBILITYASSUMED AND THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED.

There are a number of points that should be considered under this factor.

1. The FS group is a professional group of employees who, as a condition of employment,can be posted anywhere that Canada has missions in the world or anywhere in Canada.No other professional group of employees, including employees in the CO, EC or LAgroups, have such a condition of employment.

2. FS officers who are recruited each year are intended to represent all of the regions inCanada through the Post-Secondary Recruitment Campaign.

3. The minimum education level for consideration is an undergraduate degree. Canadiancitizens who have completed a university degree or will have done so by September 30,2012 can apply. “The department is looking for people from diverse backgrounds withsound judgement and excellent problem-solving, interpersonal and communicationsskills”. In reality and as supported by the Foreign Service Retention Survey conducted byWilliam M Mercer Ltd. July 26, 2001, 64% of respondents to the survey in the FS grouphad a Masters Degree or higher and 15% reported they had an LLB. According to morerecent numbers FS officers recruited between 2005-2006 and 2011-2012, DFAIThas hired 291 new Foreign Service officers. According to the data provided, 36 ofthe new hires (15%) had LLBs and 136 (75%) had more than one degree.

4. The FS officer is highly educated and motivated. Careers in the Foreign Service areadvertised at the missions abroad as well as in Canada and many Canadians working


abroad write the exams each year while abroad. This ensures a very competitive processfor the few FS positions available each year.

5. Prior to being hired the FS officers must be proficient in both of Canada’s officiallanguages at the highest level of any other group in the public service including the EXcategory. The language proficiency for FS officers is CCC while the EX group is CBC.

6. AS part of the FS recruitment the major employers look for candidates who are proficientin other foreign languages such as Arabic, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin(Chinese), Portuguese, Russian, Spanish. Potential employees who have a workingability in these languages may be given preference in the hiring process.

7. The ability to speak a foreign language is not compensated as either an allowance or aspart of the FS Classification Plan because this ability is common to the group and it is notrated in the FS Standard unlike the UCS classification exercise where a comparisonbetween occupational groups produced a very favourable result for the FS.

8. The work performed at Missions abroad is very different than the assignments inHeadquarters in terms of the job content. (See Job Matches in PwC study referred toearlier). The cultural differences in business practices, their interlocutors, languages andreporting relationships, as well as supervision of LES staff are totally different from anassignment in Headquarters. The cultural difference in business practices and languageare not part of the rating factors in the FS classification plan because this work iscommon to the FS group. The fact that other countries that employ Foreign Serviceofficers and organizations and private companies pay much higher salaries for similarwork should be a factor in establishing compensation that is fair and reasonable. As thePwC report noted at least twice in the report, “PwC confirmed that participantsunderstood the job match descriptions and the job match exercise and were indeedcomparing their jobs to the right levels of job indicated in the surveys”.

175 (E) THE STATE OF THE CANADIAN ECONOMY AND THE GOVERNMENT’S FISCALCIRCUMSTANCES

If press reports are to be believed, according to the Finance Minister of Canada, Canada is inbetter shape fiscally than most countries in the European Union and the USA. Just recentlyTreasury Board has voluntarily signed a tentative agreement with the Association of JusticeCouncil (AJC) providing a 10% one (1) year pay increase in addition to an economic increase of2% that was intended to partially address the wage disparity between Federal lawyers in the LAgroup and their provincial government counterparts.

According to an earlier study commissioned by the TBS / CIC / DFAIT on FS compensation (thePwC), that study showed the FS group was behind their LA counterparts working in the legalbureau and even further behind their FS counterparts in other countries and private sectoremployers.

It is hard to make a state of the economy defence for the FS group when viewed in light of the LAtentative agreement especially when the FS group suffers from extremely large wage gaps in


comparison to this group and outside matches.

SECTION 175 ALSO HAS A PROVISION THAT GIVES THE PUBLIC INTERESTCOMMISSION THE DISCRETION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER FACTORSTHAT IT CONSIDERS RELEVANT.

PAFSO would respectfully ask that the Public Interest Commission consider the following factorsin making its report to the Chairperson.

1. Today’s economy is fuelled by two income families as the norm. In many cases thespouses or partners of FS officers who accompany them in a posting are unable to findwork because of cultural barriers or local employment laws and those that are able to findwork in the host country are often unable to work in their profession. Thesecircumstances severely restrict the family income for FS officers who are required toaccept a posting anywhere in the world. The following observations were made by theRoyal Commission on Conditions of Foreign Service with respect to the role and situationof Foreign Service spouses:

“Quite justifiably, the Royal Commission devoted a great deal of attention to therole and situation of foreign service spouses and their influence on foreign servicemorale and effectiveness. The government appreciates the special difficultiesfaced by foreign service spouses and values greatly the contribution they makeindividually and collectively to the pursuit of Canadian objectives abroad. Itrecognizes that one of the most positive influences on the performance of amarried employee overseas is a supportive spouse, and that spouses carry a greatdeal of the burden of organizing repeated moves, of maintaining the cohesion ofthe family unit and of helping family members adapt to strange, often difficult andsometimes hostile environments. As the Royal Commission has underlined, theforeign service spouses are more fully involved with and affected by their partner’semployment responsibilities than the great majority of their counterparts livingpermanently in Canada”.

Aside from a reduction in income, a public service employee who accompanies their FSofficer spouse on a posting abroad will be limited to the number of times she/he can dothis. According to CRA rules an employee who exceeds five years of leave without pay oreight years of it includes child care responsibilities can no longer contribute to thegovernment’s pension plan. The CRA severly restricts a Public Service employee’s abilityto accompany their spouse on a posting to most likely one or two postings maximum.

2 Some of the other factors that should be considered; spouses of FS officers who qualifiedfor an EI benefit before they left on a posting would have to re-qualify for an EI benefitbecause they were not available for work in Canada while living abroad.

3. The grandchildren of FS officers may not qualify for Canadian citizenship. If an FS officerhas a child abroad while serving his/her country and that child continues the tradition ofserving their country abroad and has a child while in the service of their country, that childis not entitled to Canadian citizenship.


4. FS officers who are posted to an area in the world where serious conflict exists such asAfghanistan where the FS officer accompanies the military “outside the wire” as part of aPRT do not receive the same income tax exemption described at Section 110 of theFederal Income Tax Act for military personnel. The FS officer assumes the same risks asthe military personnel they accompany “outside the wire” but are not entitled to the samerules with respect to income tax.

5. The last additional factor we would ask the Public Interest Commission to consider hasnothing to do with the FS group. However we would submit that it is very relevant indetermining the compensation component of a public service employees terms andconditions of employment to consider how the renumeration for Members of Parliamentare adjusted.

According to the Parliament of Canada Act beginning at Part IV Renumeration ofMembers of parliament and in particular Article 67.1, the allowances and salaries paid toMembers of Parliament are adjusted annually by the average percentage increase inbase-rate wages for the calendar year resulting from major settlements negotiated withbargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector in Canada as publishedby HRSDC. (See Section 67.1 Parliament of Canada Act RSC, 1985, C.P.I)

A reference to HRSDC publications on major settlements in the private sector for 2011and the first six months of 2012, the average annual percentage wage increase for 2011was 2.1% versus the TBS proposal of 1.5% with an additional .25% in that year ascompensation for removing the severance entitlement for employees who retire or resign.Clearly the 1.5% proposed increase is less than the formula used to adjust MP’sallowances and salaries.

According to that publication the first six months of 2012 show average wage increases at2.4%.

Looking at the data on a quarterly basis, which would reflect the period July 1, 2011 toJune 30, 2012 the quarterly increases for the private sector were:

Q3 2011 2.0%Q4 2011 2.1%Q1 2012 2.7%Q2 2012 2.1%

Using this index as a factor in establishing a fair and reasonable adjustment to wagesstrongly suggests that a wage increase above 2% would be more appropriate than the1.5% proposed by the TBS.


ANNEXCOMPULSORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PIC IN MAKING A REPORT

Annex

1. Arbitral Awards

2. Mercer Graph

3. A Comparative Study on the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Foreign ServiceOfficers. Foreign Service Retention Data

4. The Problem of Retention in the Foreign Service Task Force on Modernizing the ForeignService, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 2002

5. Graph - The Problem of Retention in the FS.

6. FS lawyers essential services proposals

7. Memo dated September 21, 1999, titled Lawyers Assignments Next Summer

8. Page 18 of the PwC salary report summarizes the salary comparisons with other forforeign governments, international organizations and private sector companies.

9. Recruitment charts 2005-2012

10. HRSDC data - major settlements - 500 plus employees, private sector

COMPULSORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PIC IN MAKING … · PIC - FS Group - Oct. 4-5, 2012 -...

Documents

Transcript of COMPULSORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PIC IN MAKING … · PIC - FS Group - Oct. 4-5, 2012 -...