submission of the treasury board to the …ajc-ajj.net/response_to_ajc_brief_2017.doc.pdf ·...

SUBMISSION OF THE TREASURY BOARD TO THE

BINDING CONCILIATION BOARD

IN RESPECT OF THE

LAW PRACTITIONER (LP) GROUP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Serge Brault

MEMBERS: Mr. Jean-Francois Munn

Mr. Paul Cavalluzzo

OTTAWA August 11, 2017

LP Group Binding Conciliation Board ii

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5

PART I ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.0 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS ............................................................................... 7

1.1 Treasury Board of Canada and the Core Public Administration ................. 7

1.2 Law Practitioner (LP) Group ....................................................................... 9

PART II ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.0 EMPLOYER’S RATIONALE AND RESPONSE TO THE AJC’S ECONOMIC PROPOSALS ............................................................................................................. 11

2.1 AJC Economic Proposal ............................................................................11

2.2 Replication Principle ..................................................................................13

2.3 External Comparability ..............................................................................15

2.4 Internal Wage Relativity ............................................................................18

2.5 Recruitment and Retention ........................................................................21

2.6 Response to Association of Justice Counsel Briefing ...............................25

PART III ..................................................................................................................... 28

3.0 EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO THE AJC’S OTHER PROPOSALS .................. 28

3.1 Hours of Work ...........................................................................................28

3.2 Leave Without Pay for Personal Needs .....................................................34

3.3 Registration Fees ........................................................................................35

3.4 Downward Reclassification Provision .......................................................36

PART IV ..................................................................................................................... 37

4.0 EMPLOYER’S OUTSTANDING PROPOSALS ................................................... 37

4.1 Rates of Pay and Duration .........................................................................37

4.2 Performance Pay Plans ..............................................................................38

4.3 Appendix “B” Performance Pay Plan for Lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A

and LA-2B Levels ............................................................................................41

4.4 Appendix C- Performance pay plan applicable to lawyers at the LA-3

levels (LP-04 and LP-05): ................................................................................52

4.5 Memorandum of Agreement on Wellness .................................................53

PART V ...................................................................................................................... 56

5.0 LAW PRACTITIONER (LP) GROUP ................................................................... 56

GENERAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 56

5.1 The LP classification standard ...................................................................56

LP Group Binding Conciliation Board iii

5.2 Delivering legal services ............................................................................57

ANNEX A ................................................................................................................... 59

A1 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE AJC’S ECONOMIC PROPOSALS ................... 59

A1.1 External Comparability ...........................................................................59

A1.2 Deloitte External Comparability Study ...................................................61

A1.3 Secondary Research on External Comparability ....................................67

A1.4 Total Compensation ................................................................................69

A2 Internal Relativity ................................................................................................ 71

A3 Recruitment and Retention ................................................................................ 74

A3.1 Public Service Employee Survey Results for the LP Group ..................78

A3.2 Job Satisfaction (PSES Surveys - 2014 and 2017) .................................78

A3.3 Mobility and Retention (PSES 2014) .....................................................80

A4 Response to Association of Justice Counsel Briefing .................................... 82

A4.1 Best Fit Comparators ..............................................................................82

A4.2 Issues with Best Fit Comparators ...........................................................83

A4.3 Issues with Methodology ........................................................................85

A4.4 Issues with S&A’s Assessing Competitiveness ......................................87

A4.5 Response to S&A Critique of Deloitte Survey .......................................87

A4.6 Specific comments on the AJC Briefing .................................................90

A5 Evaluation of Association of Justice Counsel Pay Proposals ....................... 92

A5.1 AJC Wage Proposal: Single national rate ...............................................93

A5.2 Summary of AJC Pay Proposal ...............................................................95

A5.3 AJC Wage Proposal: Alternative pay proposal ......................................97

A5.4 Summary of AJC Alternate pay proposal ...............................................99

A5.6 Employer’s Economic Proposal ..............................................................99

ANNEX B ................................................................................................................. 100

B1 CHANGES TO THE 2016 DELOITTE STUDY AND RESPONSE TO AJC CONCERNS ............................................................................................................. 100

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 102

A CPA Signed Proposals ...........................................................................102

B Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness ............................102

C Guidelines on Management Leave ........................................................102

D Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management

Category Senior Excluded Levels ..................................................................102

LP Group Binding Conciliation Board iv

E Information bulletin dated of December 16, 2013, Implementation of the

new Law Practitioner (LP) classification standard ........................................102

F Letter to the Public Service Labour Relations Board on January 22, 2014

for the amendment of the LA bargaining certificate. ....................................102

G JUSnet article - April 2015 ....................................................................102

F Wage Comparability Study ....................................................................102

LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 5

INTRODUCTION

The Association of Justice Counsel (AJC) and Treasury Board were engaged in negotiations

between May 2014 and December 2016 to renew the collective agreement for the Law

Practitioner (LP) group, which expired on May 9th

, 2014.

On March 21, 2017, the AJC requested the establishment of a Binding Conciliation Board to deal

with the items in dispute between the parties. The Board met with the AJC and Treasury Board

officials on July 5, 2017, and Mr. Serge Brault, the Chair of the Board, provided the parties a

path forward to bring them toward a negotiated settlement. Mr. Brault also imposed a

confidentiality requirement on the proceedings.

As requested by the Chair of the Board, this document is the Employer’s response to the AJC

brief received July 5, 2017 at mediation, and it includes the Employer’s position on the five

issues identified by the Chair for resolution, based on the AJC proposals:

Economic proposal;

Hours of work;

Leave Without Pay;

Registration fees; and

Downward reclassification provision.

This document also provides relevant contextual information pertaining to the current round of

bargaining, it outlines the Employer’s outstanding proposals, and it provides general information

on the LP Group.

The Employer brief is organized as follows:

Part I provides a status update on the current round of negotiations for the Core Public

Administration (CPA) as a whole and for the LP group.

Part II presents the Employer’s position on the AJC’s economic proposals and the market

analysis conducted by the firms Salopek & Associates (S&A), on behalf of the AJC, and


Deloitte, on behalf of the Employer. The section also outlines the Employer proposal and

associated rationale.

Part III presents the Employer’s position on the AJC’s other proposals: hours of work, Leave

Without Pay; registration fees; and downward reclassification provision.

Part IV presents the Employer’s outstanding proposals.

Part V provides information on the LP group, including an overview on the delivery of legal

services, and details on the LP Group classification conversion agreed to by the parties in

January 2014.

This brief also contains more detailed analysis in Annex A.


PART I

1.0 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS

1.1 Treasury Board of Canada and the Core Public Administration

As the Employer of the CPA, the Treasury Board, through its President and its administrative

arm, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), is responsible for negotiating 27 collective

agreements with 15 bargaining agents, representing approximately 178,979 unionized employees

as of March 2014.1,2

The Government of Canada is committed to bargaining in good faith with all federal public

sector bargaining agents. Through meaningful negotiations, the Employer has concluded

collective agreements for 19 of the 27 occupational groups in the CPA in this round of collective

bargaining. These agreements cover 87% of represented employees in the CPA, represented by 9

different bargaining agents, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and the

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC).

These settlements represent established patterns of bargaining in this round of negotiations. By

appealing to the replication principal of interest arbitration, which seeks to finish the agreement

that the parties were unable to conclude by attempting to replicate the likely results if collective

bargaining had produced a complete negotiated settlement, the Employer submits that an LP

group settlement should contain increases similar to what has been achieved in the rest of the

CPA. Table 1 below lists the bargaining units with new collective agreements, their union

affiliation and population as of March 2014.

1 The Treasury Board of Canada negotiates the collective agreements for more than 80 departments and agencies

named in Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act 2 Population figures as of March 2014.


Table 1: Bargaining Units with New Collective Agreements

CPA BARGAINING UNIT BARGAINING AGENT EMPLOYEES

PA - Program & Administrative Services PSAC 77,956

CS - Computer Systems PIPSC 13,703

EC - Economics and Social Science Services CAPE 12,413

SV - Operational Services PSAC 10,929

TC - Technical Services PSAC 10,044

SP - Applied Science and Patent Examination PIPSC 7,006

AV - Audit, Commerce and Purchasing PIPSC 5,629

FI - Financial Management ACFO 4,398

SH - Health Services PIPSC 3,324

NR - Architecture, Engineering & Land Survey PIPSC 3,290

RE - Research PIPSC 2,445

EL - Electronics IBEW 1,071

EB - Education & Library Science PSAC 1,063

TR - Translation CAPE 921

SR(W) - Ship Repair West FGDTLCW 740

SR(E) - Ship Repair East FGDTLCE 683

RO - Radio Operations UNIFOR 314

SR(C) - Ship Repair Chargehands FGDCA 72

PR (NS) - Non-Supervisory Printing Services UNIFOR 9

Total Population 156,010

All the settlements above are based on annual economic increases of 1.25% over four years. In

addition to the base economic increases, various group-specific measures have been introduced

in the third year of agreements. Typically, the value of these extra measures would be linked to a

group’s internal and external wage comparability assessment as well as recruitment and retention

metrics. For example, close to 78,000 employees in the PA group (representing 50% of

employees that have reached agreements to date) received an additional 0.5% wage adjustment

as well as a $650 signing bonus in the third year of their agreement in addition to the pattern

1.25% increases. Other professional groups like the Economics and Social Science Services

(EC), Financial Management (FI) and Computer Systems (CS) groups, which represent an

additional 30,514 employees, received a 1% wage adjustment.

Any groups that negotiated third year specific increases above CPA established patterns, like the

Operational Services (SV) and Health Services (SH) groups, were experiencing serious issues

with external wage comparability and / or recruitment and retention pressures. Looking at the

CPA as a whole and combining groups that received special adjustments along with the majority


of groups receiving standard increases, the CPA average for third year improvements (inclusive

of non-monetary leave provisions) is 1.5%.

All new agreements also include a Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness.

1.2 Law Practitioner (LP) Group

In this round of bargaining, AJC and TBS officials were engaged in 11 negotiation sessions

between May 2014 and December 2016. As noted in table 2 below, six items were agreed to in

November and December 2016; these common CPA proposals, signed off December 20, 2016,

as confirmed by the parties in mediation July 5, 2017. (Copies are included in Appendix A.)

Table 2: Status of Proposals Agreed to by the Parties

Article

Title References

Description Status

2 Interpretation and

Definitions

Paragraph 2.03 (b)

Deletion of obsolete language referring to

LA- 2(i) and LA-2(ii)

Agreed to and signed

November 9, 2016

19 Other leave with

or without pay

Clause 19.02

Bereavement Leave with pay

Agreed to on December

20

19 Other leave with

or without pay

Clause 19.10

Leave Without Pay for the Care of

Immediate Family


20

19 Other leave with

or without pay

Clause 19.13

Leave With Pay for Family-Related

Responsibilities


20

21 Leave general Clause 21.06

Added language under paragraph

21.06 a) for reasons other than illness


20

36 No Discrimination Clause 36.01

Added language gender identity and

gender expression,


20

On March 21, 2017, the AJC declared impasse and requested the establishment of a Binding

Conciliation Board to resolve items in dispute between the parties, namely economics, hours of

work, leave and performance pay. In advance of the meeting of July 5, 2017 between the Board,


the AJC and TBS, the AJC submitted a written brief outlining their proposals, which are outlined

in Part II.

During the July 5, 2017 meeting, AJC officials indicated their agreement in principle to

additional proposals:

Contract duration of four years;

and

Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness that was included in the collective

agreements for PSAC-represented groups (a copy is included in Appendix B).

Following the submission of the Employer brief by August 11, 2017, the AJC will be instructed

to respond in writing to the Employer’s submission by September 15, 2017. The parties will then

reconvene with the board on October 16, 2017. If no settlement can be reached, the parties will

provide final submissions by October 25, 2017.


PART II

2.0 EMPLOYER’S RATIONALE AND RESPONSE TO THE AJC’S

ECONOMIC PROPOSALS

In their brief prepared in July 2017, the AJC identified rates of pay as one of their key priorities.

This section provides an assessment of the economic proposals submitted by the AJC as well as

their supporting wage comparability study completed by Salopek and Associates. The

assessment incudes an analysis of the group’s internal and external market comparability as well

as recruitment and retention data.

In its approach to collective bargaining and the renewal of collective agreements, the Employer’s

goal is to ensure fair compensation for employees and, at the same time, to deliver on its overall

fiscal responsibility and commitment to the priorities of the government and Canadians. Section

148 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) outlines four principles for

consideration when setting compensation through a binding third party process: external

comparability, internal relativity, recruitment and retention and the government’s fiscal situation.

In addition, the Employer appeals to replication as a guiding principle in interest arbitration to set

compensation. This would include an assessment of agreements reached in the CPA as well as an

analysis of broader Canadian public sector trends.

2.1 AJC Economic Proposal

The AJC provided two four-year proposals. Both proposals include 2.0% annual economic

increases to all pay rates. Over four years, this equals an 8.2% cumulative increase. In contrast,

87% of the represented CPA population in 19 separate groups received 1.25% annual economic

increases or 5.1% cumulatively.

The bulk of the costs for the two AJC proposals are contained in their associated salary grid

restructures. In the first, the AJC proposes to extend the regional rates of pay provided to federal

government lawyers working in Toronto to all federal government lawyers3 , and then apply

3 The 8% Toronto Market Competitiveness Allowance was rolled into pay in 2006 for Toronto Lawyers.


2.0% annual economic increases for four years. This pay proposal represents a 37.3% increase to

the LP wage base, and would provide lawyers with an average annual increase of 7.8%.

The second proposal removes the request to harmonize national and Toronto pay rates. It

maintains the request for new maximum steps per level and 2.0% annual economic increases. It

carries a substantial financial burden for departments as it represents an estimated 27.0%

increase in the LP wage bill.

These requests are unjustifiable in comparison to the wage increase trends within the CPA, and

across the Canadian public and private sectors, both within the period under review and

historically. As noted in table 3 below, the AJC is seeking significant increases to wages that

largely exceed the pattern established within the CPA. Detailed costing tables are outlined in

Annex A.

Table 3: Four-Year Trend in the Core Public Administration vs. AJC Proposals4

Year Annual Increase

(%)

AJC Proposal 1 AJC Alternate

Proposal CPA Trend

20

14-15 5.6% to 9.4% 5.6% to 6.8% 1.25%

20

15-16 5.6% to 9.4% 5.6% to 6.8% 1.25%

20

16-17 5.6% to 9.4% 5.6% to 6.8%

1.25%+ various third year

improvements. 5

20

17-18 5.6% to 9.4% 5.6% to 6.8% 1.25%

The Employers position on these proposals is that they violate the replication principal of interest

arbitration. Additionally, they are completely unsubstantiated based on all available data and

4 The AJC provided two four-year proposals. Both proposals include 2.0% annual economic increases to all pay

rates 5 The trend in the third year reflects the pattern economic increase of 1.25% plus the average of group specific items

negotiated in each of the 19 agreements thus far, which equals 1.5%. This trend includes various improvements to

leave, or other non-wage improvements. By stripping out non-wage items, the average increase for group specific

measures in the third year drops to 1.03%. This would make the third year total 2.28% for strictly wage

improvements. 70% of CPA settlements to date (PA, EC, FI, CS) have included either a 0.5% wage adjustment and

a $650 signing bonus or a single 1% adjustment in the third year.


associated metrics in relation to internal and external comparability as well as recruitment and

retention.

The Employer’s economic offer submitted in the binding conciliation documentation, which

includes a wage increase of 1.25% annually, and a 1.0% market adjustment in the third year, is

deemed significantly more fair and equitable. Full costing of this economic proposal is in Part

IV: Employers Outstanding Proposals as well as Annex A. A review of the patterns in the

external and internal markets provides no evidence justifying annual increases to all LPs that

exceed the increases provided to 87% of the represented population the CPA. They key factors

are outlined below and explained in further detail in Annex A.

2.2 Replication Principle

2.2.1 CPA Settlements to Date

In its briefing, the AJC rightly assert the principle of replication in interest arbitration. The

Employer agrees with the importance of the principle and that in applying it, it is “particularly

relevant to consider settlements freely achieved between similar employers and bargaining

agents”.6 The prevailing principle is to finish the agreement that the parties were unable to

conclude by attempting to replicate the likely results if collective bargaining had produced a

complete negotiated settlement. As seen in Part 1 of this brief, 19 collective agreements have

been completed in the CPA to date, representing 87% of the represented employee population.

These agreements all contained base economic increases of 1.25%. Agreements also contained

specific targeted measures in the third year. For the vast majority of employees, these third year

targeted increases consisted of minor wage adjustments or a signing bonus. The PA group, which

is the largest group in the CPA and represents close to 78,000 employees, received an additional

0.5% wage adjustment and a $650 signing bonus in the third year. An additional 30,514

professional employees from the Computer Systems (CS), Economics and Social Science

Services (EC) and Financial Management (FI) groups received a 1% wage adjustment in addition

to base economic increases. In total, these 4 agreements cover 70% of all represented employees

that have recently settled collective agreements or 61% of the CPA as a whole.

6 Sunnybrook Health Science Centre v. SSEU, Local 2 (2012) O.L.A.A. No. 74 at para. 27


2.2.2 Provincial and Territorial Government Compensation

In addition to being completely out of step with strongly established trends reached in the CPA,

The LP economic proposals are also out of line with broader public sector trends across Canada.

Wage increases in provincial and territorial governments have been modest in recent years. This

reflects the fiscal burden on governments following the global recession and Canada’s economic

recovery. For example, the Government of Ontario implemented two years of salary freezes for

2014-15 and 2015-16 and the Government of Nova Scotia legislated 0.75% annual wage

increases for 2015-16 until 2018-19. Covering similar periods, the Government of Canada has

negotiated wage increases of 1.25% annually with 19 bargaining agents that represent over 87%

of the bargained employees in the core federal public administration.


Table 4 presents the average annual compounded increase for the provincial and territorial

governments and for the Government of Canada from 2014-15 to 2018-19. The table includes

the recently ratified agreement between the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Public

Service Employees Union (Unified), which covers four years from 2017-18 to 2021-22.

Provinces where the federal government has a larger proportion of employees contributed more

to the overall weighted average than provinces and territories with fewer federal employees. As

the table shows, the Government of Canada’s pattern (1.25%) exceeds the pattern in the

provinces and territories (1.06%). The trend in the public sector, in recent years, has been to

agree to terms that provide modest wage increases in recognition of the public sector’s

precarious financial situation.


Table 4: Average Annual Wage Increases for Employees of Canadian Governments7

Employer 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2018-19

Average

Annual

Compounded

Increase

Provincial/territorial

governments 1.03% 0.45% 1.41% 1.34% 1.06%

Government of

Canada 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%

In order to consider deviating from established trends in collective bargaining settlements within

the CPA and the Canadian public sector as a whole, there would need to be significant

justification in the form of external or internal wage comparability disparity or significant

recruitment and retention pressures. None of these disparities or pressures is currently being

experienced by the LP group. These factors are explored below.

2.3 External Comparability

An external wage comparability study undertaken by Deloitte in 2016 (Appendix H), on behalf

of the Employer, clearly indicates that LPs are ahead of the overall national market. Being a

national employer, it is important that markets from across Canada are considered in conjunction

with one another.

As shown in table 5 below, the LP rates of pay exceed the average of the pay rates provided to

lawyers working in Canadian provinces/territories by 1.3% to 5%. When the province of Ontario

is excluded from the market, the LP rates are ahead of the national market by 2.7% to 14.7%

depending on the level. It is important to note that pay rates in the Deloitte study are effective as

of July 2015 meaning that they include two years of wage growth that the LPs have not yet

received. If the comparison were adjusted for the first two years of the employer’s proposal (i.e.

2.5%), pay rates would exceed Canadian averages by even wider margins.

7 Wage increases in for provincial governments were calculated based on data obtained from provincial-government

representatives and cross-references with the Labour Program’s Negotech database of collective agreements. The

provincial government rate is a weighted average for all provinces and territories with agreements covering those

years. The Government of Canada’s geographic population distribution was used as the weight.


Table 5: Deloitte Results, LP National Pay Rates compared with External Market

Law Practitioner

(LP) Level

TBS Maximum

Salary ($000), 2013-

14

TBS vs. National

Average (with

Ontario)8

TBS vs. National

Average (without

Ontario)

LP-01 $98.9 +1.3% +2.7%

LP-02 $137.9 +8.4% +8.4%

LP-03 $152.4 +2.3% +6.2%

LP-04 $173.2 +5.0% +14.7%

Excluding the province of Ontario from a Canada-wide comparison is appropriate since the pay

rates provided to Ontario lawyers are meant to address high cost of living (as most work in

Toronto – Table 7 below) and a different work job function than what is performed by most

federal government lawyers. Lawyers hired by the province of Ontario are generally Crown

prosecutors, while most federal government lawyers, outside PPSC, work in departmental legal

services units as solicitors. Moreover, where 77.1% of Ontario Crown prosecutors work within

the GTA, only 12.8% (367) of all federal lawyers work there and only 100 of these preform

similar tasks to those of Ontario crown prosecutors.

Table 6: Federal Government LP population in Ontario excluding the National capital region

(NCR)

Province and City Population

% of total

LP

population

Kitchener 4 0.1%

Toronto 367 12.8%

Brampton 16 0.6%

London 9 0.3%

Newmarket 2 0.1%

Guelph 2 0.1%

Ontario Total (excluding NCR) 400 14.0%

8 The national average for the external market (with and without Ontario) is an average of all job matches and salary

rates by level that the survey participants provided to Deloitte.


Table 7: Government of Ontario Crown Counsel Population, November 2016

Government of Ontario Crown Counsel Population Total % of Total

Greater Toronto Area 1,076 77.1%

Outside Greater Toronto Area 320 22.9%

Grand Total 1,396 100.0%

The Deloitte study also assessed LP Toronto rates of pay in isolation against Ontario

counterparts. As shown in table 8, the study found that the salaries for Toronto LPs are 7.4% to

8.8% behind the salaries for Ontario lawyers using adjusted maximum pay rates for Toronto LPs

that are increased by 1.25% annually for two years (i.e., consistent with the employer’s offer).

However, this disparity falls into competitive norms; Deloitte and other major human resources

consulting firms use +/- 10% for determining whether compensation is competitive with the

external market. Additionally, there is no demonstrated evidence indicating that departments are

facing issues recruiting or retaining federal government lawyers in Toronto.

Table 8: Comparison of LP and Crown Counsel Pay Rates (Adjusted for 2015 Rates)

*LP-01s at the maximum pay rate are eligible for performance payments between 4.6% and

7.0%, while CC1s are not eligible for performance payments. Factoring in performance pay for

LP-01s would virtually eliminate the gap at this level.

The competitive rates of pay outlined above are a direct result of substantial increases included

in the 2012 settlement with the AJC. The AJC itself has publicly recognized that the increases

allowed the LPs to align with their external comparators: “We have achieved an agreement in

principle that will see our members receive a substantial 15.25% raise in the next collective

agreement.” “Almost nowhere in the world of labour will you find a result that matches or

betters the double-digit increases we have gained.” “The 15.25% increase allows us to play some

Law

Practitioner

(LP) Level

LP Maximum Salary

($000)

2015 Adjusted

(Toronto Rates)*

Government of

Ontario Match

Government of

Ontario

($000)

2015 Maximum

Variance

LP-01 101.4 CC1 110.2 -7.9%

LP-03 179.8 CC3 194.3 -7.4%

LP-04 192.9 CC4 211.6 -8.8%


quick catch-up with our provincial comparators. In national rankings, we will catapult from the

bottom half of the table to third place.”9

The Employer’s proposed pattern economic increases would allow LPs across Canada to remain

competitive with the overall national market, while being consistent with the settlements with

other professional occupations. Conversely, extending the pay rates provided to LPs working in

Toronto to all LPs across Canada would bring the salary of federal government lawyers out of

line with their external comparators and have significant and harmful effects on internal wage

relativity in the CPA.

2.4 Internal Wage Relativity

LP salaries are amongst the highest in the CPA. Additionally, they are paid significantly higher

than other professional groups with whom they regularly work and collaborate with. A generous

settlement in the last round of bargaining for the group has created the potential for issues around

morale and has increased the risk around poor working relations amongst employees. A

settlement above established CPA norms would only serve to exacerbate this problem.

When compared internally across the CPA and excluding executives, the LP group is one of the

highest paid occupational groups. As noted in table below, it ranks second overall - trailing only

doctors - based on March 2014 data. The LP group is also the largest of the five highest paid

groups in the CPA.

9 AJC and Treasury Board Reach Tentative Agreement ajc-ajj.nethttp://ajc-ajj.net/news/article/102/AJC-and-

Treasury-Board-Reach-Tentative-Agreement/

http://ajc-ajj.net/news/article/102/AJC-and-Treasury-Board-Reach-Tentative-Agreement/



Table 9: Top Five Occupational Groups and other associated professional groups, Average

salary expenditure per active employee, 2014

Occupational Group Population Average Salary Rank10

Distance

from

CPA

Average

Medicine - Medical Specialist 37 $184,159 1 +149%

Medicine - Medical Officer 228 $150,498 2 +104%

Law Practitioner 2,860 $128,386 3 +74%

Scientific Management 186 $116,597 4 +58%

Air Traffic Control - Non-Operational 9 $116,546 5 +58%

It is important to consider other professionals that work side by side with LPs and the effect that

an agreement out of step with the rest of the CPA would have on internal wage relativities. LPs

work, in large part, in departmental legal services units (DSLU). They regularly engage

employees in other professional occupational streams (such as Auditors (AU), Commercial

Officers (CO), Economists (EC) and Financial Management (FI) ). As table 10 below shows,

they are, on average, compensated significantly more than these groups.

Table 10: LP Average salary expenditure per active employee, 2014 vs. Other Professional

Groups and Executives

Occupational Group Population Average Salary Rank11

Distance

from

CPA

Average

Executive 5,421 $136,025 3 +84%

Law Practitioner 2,860 $128,386 4 +74%

Auditors 130 $93,221 13 +26%

Commercial Officers 2,552 $92,466 14 +25%

Economics and Social Science Services 12,413 $86,299 17 +17%

Financial Management 4,398 $86,220 18 +17%

10

The ranking is based on average salary paid per employee factoring in hours worked (excluding overtime). The

expenditures do not include employee benefit plan payments (which are estimated to add an additional 20.0% to the

expenditure), nor do they include performance management payments, which the LP groups receives, nor terminable

allowances that other groups receive for recruitment and retention issues. 11

The ranking is based on average salary paid per employee factoring in hours worked (excluding overtime). The

expenditures do not include employee benefit plan payments (which are estimated to add an additional 20.0% to the

expenditure), nor do they include performance management payments, which the LP groups receives, nor terminable

allowances that other groups receive for recruitment and retention issues.


As a point of reference illustrating current internal wage disparities in relation to the LP group

vis-à-vis some other professional groups mentioned above, it is instructive to look at Hay point

designations. This assessment takes into account job values as defined by total Hay points and

compares these points with maximum salary steps. A full table showing LP Hay point totals in

conjunction with other professional groups is presented in Annex A.

Table 11: Hay point value and Maximum Salary Step for LPs and other Professional groups

in the CPA

Classification Population Max Salary

Step

Final

average Hay

points value

%

disparity

Hay points

vs. LP-02

% disparity in

Max. salary

LP02 1781 $140,567 571

EC-06 3354 $101,048 556 -2.63% -28.11%

EC-07 2805 $113,016 609 6.65% -19.60%

FI-03 1437 $103,333 498 -12.78% -26.49%

CO-03 665 $108,476 549 -3.85% -22.83%

The associated value of work between LP classifications and some of their professional

counterparts is not sufficiently wide enough to justify (on a value of work basis) an increase to

LP wages that is out of step with established CPA patterns. Table 11 illustrates this issue

particularly at the EC-06 and EC-07 levels. A comparison to the LP-02 level here shows that

despite very similar value of work assignments at the two levels, the EC-06 and EC-07

classifications lag the max salary at the LP-02 by 28.11% and 19.6% respectively. Overall, there

is also significant internal inequality between the LPs and the rest of the CPA. As noted in the

chart below, the annual wage growth of the LP group was significantly higher than the CPA

average in 2013, after the group achieved its last settlement. The 2012 collective agreement

provided a total increase of more than 15.25%, consisting of 4.5% for economic adjustments,

0.75% for the elimination of severance, 8% for market adjustments and 2% for the elimination of

overtime. Providing wage increases similar to those in the AJC proposal (i.e., 37% over a 4 year

contract) would increase the existing internal inequality.


2.5 Recruitment and Retention

Recruitment and retention indicators show that the LP group is healthy when compared to the

rest of the public service. There is little evidence to support increases above the 1.25% pattern

established with 87% of the represented CPA employees that have settled to this point.

TBS relies on a variety of indicators including separation rates as well as departmental and

employee surveys in order to assess recruitment and retention pressures for each of the 27 groups

it employs. A full description of indicators of recruitment and retention for the LP group is

included in Annex A.

It is important to note that TBS regularly conducts recruitment and retention reviews for all of its

27 groups. These analyses are conducted with the same specifications and parameters. One

principle of these reviews is that only current data and evidence is considered. The AJC has

referenced the Jordan decision as potentially having a large impact the ability to retain lawyers.

TBS rejects this view as only lawyers working for PPSC would be affected, or about 23% of the

LP workforce. Moreover, there is no current evidence of recruitment and retention difficulties

anywhere for the group. In fact, most metrics show that LPs are healthier from a recruitment and


retention standpoint than most other groups. In other words, it is far from certain that the Jordan

decision will significantly affect federal lawyers. TBS will continue to monitor recruitment and

retention for the group and will assess the impact of the Jordan decision should it ever be felt.

This assessment should be conducted when the parties get back to bargaining in 2018. Any

issues arising from the Jordan decision (if any) can be addressed at that time.

2.5.1 Separations

At the outset of the current round of bargaining, TBS surveyed departments to identify problems

in recruiting and retaining employees and the impact of such difficulties. Fifteen departments

completed the survey. No departments flagged issues for the LP group, including the Department

of Justice and Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which employ 92.3% of the LP population.

Separation data for LPs in the CPA support these survey results. Tables 12 and 13 below detail

the overall and voluntary separation rates for the LP group. The tables below show that total

separation rates steadily decreased in the last three years of the reference period. Compared to

the CPA, the LP separation rate is notably lower. This is likely due, in part, to the substantial

increases received by the group in the last round.

The rate at which LPs left voluntarily (not after retirement) was higher than the CPA average at

the beginning of the period analyzed (2011-12). This trend reversed after LP employees received

significant pay increases in 2013. This again supports the Employer’s view that the group is

adequately compensated and that the settlement last round has had a positive effect on retention

for the group.

Table 12: Separations12

Separations 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

External separations 132 137 118 103 111

Internal Separations 11 23 15 15 25

Total Separations 143 160 133 118 136

Total separation rate 4.6% 5.4% 4.6% 4.1% 4.9%

CPA separation rate 7.1% 8.3% 8.3% 7.5% 7.9%

12

External separations are separations to outside the CPA. Internal separations are separations from the group to other groups within the CPA.

Total Separations rates are calculated by dividing the number of external and internal separations in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees. The sources of data are the mobility file and Public Service Commission appointment files.


Table 13: Voluntary non-retirement separations13

Voluntary Non-Retirement Separations 2011-

12

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2015-

16

LA/LP voluntary (non-retirement) separation

rate 2.3% 1.9% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3%

CPA voluntary (n-r) separation rate 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%

In terms of retention, the group continues to attract qualified applicants. Table 14 presents job

advertisement figures for the LP group. It is normal for professional groups to attract fewer

applications in total compared to the average due to the time and effort required to attain the

necessary qualifications. However, the number of applications screened-in for LP positions

clearly shows that the number of qualified candidates who are screened in per application

consistently exceeds the CPA average.

Table 14: Job advertisements

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Total Applications

LA/LP 948 789 1,256 1,241 2,518

CPA average 6,003 5,653 6,383 4,391 7,803

Total Applications Screened-In

LA/LP 792 747 1,097 1,144 2,400

CPA average 4,928 5,204 5,483 3,670 6,494

Percentage of Applications Screened-In

LA/LP 84% 95% 87% 92% 95%

CPA average 82% 92% 86% 84% 83%

2.5.2 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results

Part of successful retention is overall job satisfaction. The most recent versions of the PSES are

instructive when assessing the overall health of the LP group from a recruitment and retention

standpoint. Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results were used to assess overall job

satisfaction of LP group relative to the federal public service employees over the three-year

period from 2014 to 2017. Full analysis of the PSES in relation to the LP group is presented in

Annex A.

13

Voluntary non-retirement separations include resignation from the CPA for outside employment, return to school, personal reasons,

abandonment of position. They also include separations to Separate Agencies. Voluntary non-retirement separations rates are calculated by

dividing the number of voluntary non-retirement separations in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees. The sources of data are the mobility file and Public Service Commission appointment files.


Looking at the PSES results for indicators of job satisfaction, the LPs’ responses were in line

with the public service average.

Job Satisfaction (PSES Surveys - 2014 and 2017)

Table 15: Overall Job Satisfaction

Q7 - Overall, I like my job. LP Public Service

Positive (%) Positive (%)

2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 82 82 79 78

LP-02 79 78 79 78

LP-03 78 79 79 78

LP-04 81 82 79 78

LP-05 100 83 79 78

LP Average 80 78 79 78

Additionally, LP’ positive responses on feeling supported to balance work and personal life was

consistent over the three-year period (increasing from 67% to 68%).

Table 16: Support to Balance Work and Personal Life

Q5 - I have support at work to balance my

work and personal life. LP Public Service


2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 72 76 71 72

LP-02 66 70 71 72

LP-03 66 62 71 72

LP-04 55 64 71 72

LP-05 74 67 71 72


The PSES results are consistent with third-party analysis. The Counsel Network publishes

annually an In-House Counsel Compensation and Career Survey Report. The report provides

data and analysis of in-house and corporate counsel compensation and workload within Canada.

The 2016 report summarizes the responses to 962 surveys sent to over 4,800 in-house counsels.

Publicly-quoted companies (i.e. listed on stock markets) were the largest number of respondents

followed by privately-owned companies, crown corporations, governments and not-for-profits.


Government, crown corporations, and not-for-profits had the shortest average workweeks.

Lawyers at privately-owned and publicly-quoted organizations worked longer weeks on average.

Those working in government were less likely to report that their hours per week were on the

rise. This could explain why sectors in which respondents were most likely to report they were

“very satisfied” with their work-life balance were government, crown corporations, and not-for-

profits rather than in privately-owned or publicly-quoted in-house counsels.

On balance, Justice attracts highly qualified lawyers from all Canadian universities, as well as

talented mid-stream career professionals from large law firms. A number of former clerks from

the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts now work at Justice. It is regarded as an attractive

place to work due to the interesting nature of the work, and the work-life balance provided to

them relative to the demanding hours of private practise. Results from the PSES and the overall

satisfaction federal LPs enjoy relative to their private sector counterparts supports this view.

Moreover, generous leave provisions like the attractive parental leave provisions are unmatched

in Canada for lawyers. This has a significant effect on creating a supportive cultural for young

lawyers especially.

The PSES results align with the rest of the public service and are often better. Again, there is

little evidence to support providing increases above and beyond the pattern already established

with 87% of the represented CPA that has settled to date.

2.6 Response to Association of Justice Counsel Briefing

The TBS response to the AJC briefing incudes a critique of the Salopek and Associates (S&A)

wage study as well as specific criticisms of the AJC brief at large.

2.6.1 Association of Justice Counsel Salopek and Associates Wage Study

The Employer has concerns with the methodology used by Salopek & Associates (S&A), the

firm retained by the AJC to conduct the external comparability analysis to support the brief

submitted in July 2017. The detailed critique is described in Annex A.

Most importantly, S&A relied solely on secondary research to complete their assessment of job

matches in the external market. This involved the assessment of publicly available information,


such as job postings and job descriptions, to find comparators for the first three levels of the LP

occupational group. In contrast, the Employer sponsored Deloitte study relied on primary and

secondary research. Deloitte assessed LP job descriptions to develop job capsules that

summarized roles and responsibilities. They developed a survey tool that they sent to

compensation and human-resources experts in all provincial and territorial governments.14

The result of the S&A study’s reliance on secondary data is that there are significant issues with

the comparators in the study. S&A’s market analysis is not transparent in the rationale

supporting its matches. Readers are to accept their judgement at face value. In contrast, the

Deloitte survey is based on the expert opinions of those responsible for designing, developing,

and implementing human resources and compensation management frameworks. Deloitte used

two distinct levels of expertise to arrive at their results: first, human-resources experts from

participating organizations, and second, their own accredited human-resources analysts.

Numerous examples demonstrate the issues with comparability in the study in Annex A.

2.6.2 Deloitte Wage Study

In addition to presenting a methodologically problematic wage study, S&A also misrepresents

the Deloitte study. For instance, their market analysis is replete with assertions that Deloitte’s

only comparison was between TBS maximum pay rates and the median (P50) of the

respondents’. While this comparison is in the Deloitte study, so are many other approaches. The

TBS position is based on the average of the maximum pay rate in the external market compared

to the maximum TBS pay rate.

Further, S&A suggests that a comparison of +/- 10% is appropriate in its comparison with

private-sector in-house counsel. Yet it says this is not appropriate when comparing LPs to

provincial and territorial governments. The threshold in the Deloitte study is consistent with the

threshold used in all other wage studies that the Federal Government receives from human

resources firms with national and international reputations like Deloitte, KornFerryHay, and

Mercer.

14

Eleven of the thirteen provincial and territorial jurisdictions responded to the survey. Deloitte worked with the

respondents to answer questions and to clarify their responses.


A full critique of the S&A comparability study and associated defence of the Employer study is

offered in Annex A.

2.6.3 Specific comments on the AJC briefing

The Employer has noted numerous misrepresentations in the AJC briefing including:

A misunderstanding of performance payments.

A reliance on Robert Half salary survey data various private sector positions that are not

readily comparable to jobs in the public sector.

References to only selective agreements reached in the CPA. For example, the AJC

references the SV group increases. These were based on a joint employer-union wage

study. The AJC is seeking much more generous increases than the SV group received.

The AJC does not acknowledge that the vast majority of groups in the CPA have settled

for 1.25% annual increases and various group specific measures.

A full description of the Employer’s assessment of the AJC brief can be found in Annex A.


PART III

3.0 EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO THE AJC’S OTHER PROPOSALS

In addition to rates of pay, the AJC identified four other issues that needed to be resolved to

conclude an agreement. This section will assess each of the following:

1. Hours of work

2. Leave Without Pay for personal needs

3. Registration fees

4. Downward reclassification provision.

3.1 Hours of Work

The AJC is seeking significant enhancements to provisions pertaining to hours of work. The AJC

wants to make it a requirement to provide six days of management leave to each LP (irrespective

of hours worked), additional compensatory leave for extra hours worked, a stand-alone provision

to recognize time spent on standby, and compensatory leave for work-related travel. The AJC

states that lawyers are not being treated fairly or adequately compensated for excessive hours

worked or for being on standby.

The Employer is of the view that the significant enhancements to the provisions pertaining to

hours of work are not warranted. The AJC appears to be proposing to re-introduce overtime for

LPs, which was specifically eliminated in the 2011 collective agreement in exchange for a 2%

wage increase. Moreover, there is no evidence of increased workload or significant impacts on

the workforce leading to challenges in retaining and recruiting lawyers in the federal public

service.

3.1.1 Compensatory Leave or Management Leave

Currently, management leave is outlined in the collective agreement under paragraphs 13.02 (e),

(f) and (g) and since April 1, 2013 it applies to all lawyers. As indicated at 13.02 (e), the

management leave provision is to provide additional leave to lawyers who have worked

excessive hours or where a lawyer is significantly restricted as a result of being on standby duty.


Article 13 Hours of Work

Current provision

13.02(d) will be of no force or effect after March 31, 2013.

Effective April 1, 2013, 13.02(e), (f) and (g) will apply to all lawyers (Management leave).

13.02 The following applies to lawyers at the LA-2B and LA-3 levels. Effective April 1, 2013,

paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) will apply to all lawyers.

e. Lawyers are eligible for management leave with pay, as the delegated manager considers

appropriate, for a period of up to five (5) days in one (1) fiscal year. Examples of situations

where such leave may be granted are where lawyers are required to work excessive hours or

where a lawyer is significantly restricted as a result of being on standby duty.

f. Under exceptional circumstances, the deputy head may, upon considering the

recommendation of a delegated manager, approve management leave with pay for a period

exceeding the five (5) days referred to above.

g. Management leave with pay granted under (e) and/or (f) above can be carried over into the

next fiscal year, and is to be used within six (6) months of being granted.

AJC Proposal

Replace paragraph 13.02 in its entirety with the following:

13.02 The following applies to all lawyers:

(a) Lawyers are entitled to 45 hours leave with pay per fiscal year due to the nature of the

profession.

(b) Where professional requirements do not allow a lawyer to exercise reasonable flexibility in

the times during which they perform their work, such that the lawyer is required to work in

excess of:

i. 180 hours in a four (4) week period, the lawyer shall be provided with an additional

7.5 hours of leave with pay for that period;

ii. 200 hours in a four (4) week period, the lawyer shall be provided with an additional

15.0 hours of leave with pay for that period;

iii. 215 hours in a four (4) week period, the lawyer shall be provided with an additional

22.5 hours of leave with pay for that period; after which they shall receive 1.5 hours

leave with pay for every additional hour of work above 215 hours.


LPs are currently eligible for up to five days of management leave at management discretion, and

more at the discretion of the Deputy Head, in recognition of extra hours worked.

The AJC seeks to introduce mandatory leave of 45 hours (six days) without any reference to

excessive hours of work. The proposal simply links the leave to the nature of the profession.

With this proposal, a lawyer who does not work excessive hours would get 6 days of leave

simply based on the fact that he is a lawyer.

The AJC also proposes a formula for the calculation of management leave based on additional

hours worked. This proposal equates to re-introducing compensatory leave for overtime which

was deleted last round in exchange for a 2 % wage increase. The AJC indicated that the

Employer has failed to provide any guidance to managers, which has led to inequitable granting

of management leave.

The Employer does not support the AJC’s proposal for compensatory-management leave and

Employer recommends that the Board maintain the provision as it is currently found in the

collective agreement. The proposed changes would create an inequity between lawyers that work

excessive hours and those who don’t, and it would remove the discretion from delegated

managers and the Deputy Head.

However, to address the AJC’s concern, PPSC and DOJ, the two major employing

departments15

, have drafted guidelines to help managers in their approval of management leave

and to help ensure a fair, transparent and consistent granting of management leave. The

Employer will ensure that these guidelines are shared with departments employing lawyers.

A copy of the guidelines is found in Appendix C.

3.1.2 Standby Compensation

As per documentation submitted to the Conciliation board, the AJC is proposing the following

changes to clause 13.01:

15

95 % of lawyers work at DOJ and PPSC, LA- Bargaining agent data, September 30, 2013.



Current provision

13.01 The following applies to lawyers at the LA-1 and LA-2A levels:

a. The normal hours of work for lawyers shall average thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours per

week over each four (4) week period. Subject to the approval of the Employer, the hours of work

shall be arranged to suit a lawyer's individual duties and to permit the lawyer to carry out his or

her professional responsibilities.

b. In making arrangements for hours of work, lawyers will be permitted reasonable flexibility in

the times during which they perform their work, including arrival and departure from the

workplace, to enable them to balance work and family responsibilities.

c. The normal work week shall be Monday through Friday, except where a lawyer is required to

work on what would normally be a day of rest or a paid holiday in order to carry out his or her

professional responsibilities.

AJC Proposal

13.01 The following applies to lawyers at the LA-1 and LA-2A levels:

c. The normal work week shall be Monday through Friday, except where a lawyer is required to

work on what would normally be a day of rest or a paid holiday in order to carry out his or her

professional responsibilities. For greater certainty, the provisions in 13.01 (a) and (b) include

work performed by a lawyer on a day of rest or a paid holiday and work performed by a

lawyer while on standby duty.

The proposed amendments this would be redundant since day of rest and or paid holiday are

already included in 13.01 (c) and standby duties is only one of the professional responsibilities of

a lawyer. Moreover, the Employer argues that the statements of the AJC about the Employer

unilaterally and unfairly placing lawyers on standby are inaccurate: “the employer provides no

compensation or remuneration of any kind for lawyers on standby”.16

Standby duties are

considered when granting the management leave as per the provision under 13.02 (h).

The AJC is also proposing that standby duties be taken into consideration when granting

management leave, as per current paragraph 13.02 (h).

16

Page 3 of the AJC brief



Current provision

13.02(d) will be of no force or effect after March 31, 2013.

Effective April 1, 2013, 13.02(e), (f) and (g) will apply to all lawyers (Management leave).

13.02 The following applies to lawyers at the LA-2B and LA-3 levels. Effective April 1, 2013,

paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) will apply to all lawyers.

h. Lawyers are eligible for management leave with pay, as the delegated manager considers

appropriate, for a period of up to five (5) days in one (1) fiscal year. Examples of situations

where such leave may be granted are where lawyers are required to work excessive hours or

where a lawyer is significantly restricted as a result of being on standby duty.

i. Under exceptional circumstances, the deputy head may, upon considering the

recommendation of a delegated manager, approve management leave with pay for a period

exceeding the five (5) days referred to above.

j. Management leave with pay granted under (e) and/or (f) above can be carried over into the

next fiscal year, and is to be used within six (6) months of being granted.

AJC Proposal

Standby Duty -Add to paragraph 13.02

(e) Where the Employer requires a lawyer to be available on standby while off duty, the lawyer

shall be compensated at the rate of one-half (1/2) hour leave with pay for each four (4) hour

period or part thereof for which the lawyer is required to be on standby duty.

(f) When a lawyer is on standby duty and is required to work, the lawyer is still entitled to the

standby leave indicated above for the period.

(g) Leave under this Article can be carried over but must be used by the end of the next fiscal

year.

Since standby is a contentious issue that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada, the

Employer proposes status quo on the current provision. However, the guidelines drafted by

PPSC and DOJ on the management leave proposal would address some of the AJC’s concerns

since standby duties form part of the factors that are taken into consideration prior to granting

management leave.


3.1.3 Travel Leave

The AJC’s proposal for travel time is twofold:

Ensure that the time spent by lawyers travelling for work during non-business hours

count as part of work.

Address situations where the requirement to travel requires that the employee be

away from home on a day of rest or holiday.

Current provision

Article 14 Travelling Time

As of April 1, 2013, this article is deleted from the collective agreement.

AJC Proposal

Article 2 Interpretation and Definitions

Add to paragraph 2.01, the following definition:

o. “work” (travail) includes time spent travelling to and from a lawyer’s headquarters area

on government business.


Add to paragraph 13.02

(c) When a lawyer is required to travel outside his headquarters area on government business, the

time of departure and the time of return shall be determined by the Employer. When a day(s) of

rest or paid holiday(s) falls between the time of departure and the time of return, the lawyer is

entitled to 7.5 hours of leave with pay for each of those days of rest or paid holidays.

Article 14 on travelling time, was deleted from the LP collective agreement as of April 1, 2013,

and this deletion was clearly identified on the AJC website when the bargaining agent provided

information on the last tentative settlement17

:

“Overtime and travel time entitlements will cease as of April 1, 2013. From that date, all LAs

will be entitled to management leave with pay.”

17

Q&As section from the June 27, 2012 article “AJC and Treasury Board Reach a tentative settlement” : http://ajc-

ajj.net/faq/faq/21/Collective-Agreement/#4ff658b68ff24

http://ajc-ajj.net/faq/faq/21/Collective-Agreement/#4ff658b68ff24

http://ajc-ajj.net/faq/faq/21/Collective-Agreement/#4ff658b68ff24


The deletion of overtime and travel time resulted in the expansion of the admissibility for

management leave. Before April 1, 2013, only LA2-B and LA-3 levels (LP-3 to LP-5) were

entitled to management leave. As of April 1, 2013, all LPs were subject to the provisions of

management leave, under 13.02. The Employer therefore submits that the LPs were compensated

for the deletion of travel time and that simply spending time on travel status cannot be

considered as work time.

3.2 Leave Without Pay for Personal Needs

The AJC proposes that lawyers be eligible for up to five years of unpaid leave. The AJC is

proposing to amend 19.11 (b) in order to expand the leave to 5 years.

Current provision

19.11 Leave Without Pay for Personal Needs

Leave without pay will be granted for personal needs, in the following manner:

a. Subject to operational requirements, leave without pay for a period of up to three (3) months

will be granted to a lawyer for personal needs.

b. Subject to operational requirements, leave without pay of more than three (3) months but not

exceeding one (1) year will be granted to a lawyer for personal needs.

c. A lawyer is entitled to leave without pay for personal needs only once under each of

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause during his total period of employment in the public service.

Leave without pay granted under this clause may not be used in combination with maternity,

paternity or adoption leave without the consent of the Employer.

d. Leave granted under paragraph (a) of this clause shall be counted for the calculation of

"continuous employment" for the purpose of calculating severance pay and "service" for the

purpose of calculating vacation leave. Time spent on such leave shall be counted for pay

increment purposes.

e. Leave without pay granted under paragraph (b) of this clause shall be deducted from the

calculation of "continuous employment" for the purpose of calculating severance pay and

"service" for the purpose of calculating vacation leave for the lawyer involved. Time spent on

such leave shall not be counted for pay increment purposes.19.11 Leave Without Pay for

Personal Needs

AJC Proposal

Paragraph 19.11 (b) shall be amended to read as follows:


Leave Without Pay for Personal Needs

Leave without pay will be granted for personal needs, in the following manner:

a. Subject to operational requirements, leave without pay for a period of up to three (3) months

will be granted to a lawyer for personal needs.

b. Subject to operational requirements, leave without pay of more than three (3) months but not

exceeding one (1) year five (5) years will be granted to a lawyer for personal needs.

Given that the AJC’s request for leave is mostly to deal with aging or ill family members, it is

recommended that the existing provisions not be amended since this type of leave already exists

in their collective agreement. The type of leave referred to by the AJC is already provided in the

collective agreement under clause 19.10, Leave Without Pay for the Care of Immediate

Family, and can be granted for a maximum of 5 years during a lawyer's total period of

employment in the public service.

3.3 Registration Fees

The AJC is requesting that payment to the Law Society be paid directly by the Employer, instead

of reimbursing lawyers on proof of payment. The DOJ and PPSC already have informal

processes in place to pay a lawyer’s law society fees directly to the governing body and as stated

by the AJC, these informal processes work well; however, this practice is not enshrined in the

collective agreement.

Article 28

Registration Fees

Current provision

28.01 The Employer shall reimburse a lawyer for his payment of membership or other fees to a

professional organization or organizations when the payment of such fees is necessary to

maintain a professional qualification required by the Employer for the performance of any duties

and/or responsibilities assigned.

AJC Proposal

28.01 The Employer shall reimburse a lawyer for his remit the payment of membership or other

fees to a professional organization or organizations when the payment of such fees is necessary

to maintain a professional qualification required by the Employer for the performance of any

duties and/or responsibilities assigned.


The current provision for registration fees exists in 17 other collective agreements in the CPA.

With the LP group, this means that approximately 90% of represented employees in the Core

Public Administration are subject to this provision, which covers all types of memberships,

registration and licensing fees. The Employer is opposed to including this practice in the

collective agreement, since it could have a spillover effect on the other 26 collective agreements

in the CPA.

3.4 Downward Reclassification Provision

The AJC is proposing to include a Memorandum of Understanding on Salary Protection -

Reclassification or conversion that would be tailored to the LP collective agreement. The

Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment already provides direction to

departments to ensure the consistent and timely application of this process for all employees

across the CPA. An approach tailored solely to LPs is not warranted nor recommended.

Currently, 14 CPA collective agreements include this provision (five are with the PSAC and 6

are with PIPSC, all of which dates back to 1981). However, the Employer tabled proposals in

this round of bargaining with the PSAC and PIPSC groups about discussing the MOU on Red

circling, with the intent was to delete these MOUs. While this proposal did not form part of the

final settlements, it is unlikely that this proposal would have been bargained. It is therefore

recommended that Board not include this demand in the agreement.


PART IV

4.0 EMPLOYER’S OUTSTANDING PROPOSALS

Employer Outstanding issues

For the Employer, in addition to the Rates of Pay and duration, the outstanding issues are:

1. The Performance Pay Plans in Appendix B and Appendix C; and

2. The introduction on an MOA on Wellness.

4.1 Rates of Pay and Duration

4.1.1 Article 38: Duration

38.01 The duration of this Collective Agreement shall be from the date it is signed to May 9,

2014 2018.

Unless otherwise expressly stipulated the provisions of this Agreement shall become effective on

the date that it is signed.

4.1.2 Annual Rates of Pay

The Employer proposes annual economic increases in line with other Public Service agreements:

- Effective May 10, 2014: 1.25 % salary increase




The Employer also proposes a wage adjustment of 1% effective May 10, 2016, prior to the

economic increase.


Table 17: Costed Employer Proposal

Employer Proposal 2014 /

2015

2015 /

2016

2016 /

2017

2017 /

2018

2018 /

2019

% of

March

2014 Wage

Base

Economic (1.25%) 4.9M 10.5M 16.1M 21.9M 22.4M 5.10%

Market adjustment (1.0%) in

2016/2017 and economic 4.9M 10.5M 20.2M 26.5M 27.1M 6.10%

Performance Management Plan

(PMP) increase 0.2M 0.5M 1.0M 1.3M 1.4M 0.30%

Total cost of Employer proposal 5.1M 11.0M 21.3M 27.8M 28.4M 6.50%

4.2 Performance Pay Plans

Appendix B- Performance pay plan applicable to lawyers at the LA-01 and LA-02 levels

(LP-01 to LP-03):

4.2.1 Background:

On October 23, 2009, an arbitration board issued an arbitral award for the Law (LA) group

which formed the first collective agreement, expiring on May 9, 2011, between the Treasury

Board and the Association of Justice Counsel (AJC). The arbitral award embedded in the

collective agreement the performance pay plans that were previously in place as policies.

The performance pay plan, under Appendix B, applicable to lawyers at the LA-01 and LA-02

levels (LP-01 to LP-03) was directly copied from the Performance Pay Administration Policy for

Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levels. If a lawyer was assessed as eligible

for performance pay he would receive an increase in salary based on performance which would

result in an upward positioning in the salary range. If the lawyer was already at the top of the

salary scale and eligible for performance pay he would receive a performance award (lump sum).

A negotiated settlement was reached for the second collective agreement with the AJC, with an

expiry date of May 9, 2014.


The settlement included changing the salary scale from one where in-range increases moved the

employee’s salary from the minimum to the maximum of the scale (pre-May 2013) to a lock step

salary scale in the 3rd

year of the collective agreement (post-May 2013 language).

Consequently the performance pay regime currently found in Appendix B of the collective

agreement includes the provisions of both performance pay regimes, the pre-May 2013 and the

post-May 2013 language:

Pre-May 2013, if a lawyer was eligible for performance pay:

In range increases: means an increase in salary based on assessed level of

performance, until reaching the maximum of the pay scale. The set percentage

increases were based on rating, which is Exceeds - 7 % and fully meets - 4.6 %.

Lump sum performance awards: lawyers at the top of the salary scale would

receive a set lump sum amount based on rating, which is Exceeds - 7 % and fully

meets - 4.6 %.

Post-May 2013:

Lock step salary scale: lawyers would move up one step in the lockstep scale if

their performance was assessed as “Fully meets” or “Exceeds”.

Lump sum performance awards: lawyers at the top of the salary scale would

receive a lump sum amount based on rating, up to 7 % for Exceeds rating and up

to 4.6 % for Fully Meets.

4.2.2 Employer’s Proposal:

When submitting the Employer’s position for the binding conciliation process, the Employer

indicated that amendments to appendices B & C should reflect key principles that would also

clarify the process to ensure no ambiguity:

Clarifying how increments or performance awards are allocated.

Establishing a reasonable date for payout date;


Addressing administrative issues to clarify the process, such as Promotion within the

review period, Period for eligibility, Anniversary date;

Amending Appendix B and Appendix C to allow the use of the same standard rating

scale as it applies across the Public Service;

Detailed information concerning the first two key principles is provided below and reflected in

the Employer’s proposal for Appendix B with the other key principles.

4.2.3 Clarifying how increments or performance awards are allocated:

In the Pre-May 2013 regime, pay increments were tied to the performance assessment. It is no

longer the case in the Post-May 2013 regime, lawyers’ progress through the steps in the lock step

pay range, one increment at a time. As stated in the 2015 PSLREB 7818

decision “…the lock step

implementation is a quasi-automatic progression at a set date and at a pre-set amount”.

The pay increment period is 12 months and subsequent pay increment periods are calculated

from the date on which the last pay increment in that position became due.

Restrictions in getting pay increments are twofold:

A lawyer whose performance is assessed as "Unsatisfactory" is not eligible for a pay

increment, as per pay note 11; and

The leave general article at clause 21.06 stipulates: “Except as otherwise specified in this

Agreement, where leave without pay for a period in excess of three (3) months is granted

to a lawyer time spent on such leave which is for a period of more than three (3) months

shall not be counted for pay increment purposes. “

Therefore, in Appendix B any references to in-range increases, lock steps or increments should

be deleted from that performance pay regime.

For performance awards, the AJC stated19

that DOJ and PPSC have made a commitment on

granting specific percentages. The “commitment” and its interpretation as to the intent made by

18

Jaworski decision 19

Paragraphs 123 to 125 of AJC brief


the Employer continue to be the subject of policy grievances. The Employer believes that the

rating assigned to a LP’s performance should be based on the demonstrated performance against

the objectives established for the performance cycle rather than provide an “exceed” rating to a

minimum of 20% of LP 1 to LP 3s where the performance does not warrant such a rating.

4.2.4 Establishing a reasonable payout date:

Currently, Appendix B provides for the paying of lump sum performance awards on May 10 of

each year for the performance in the prior fiscal year. The original intention was to make it

simpler by having a payout date matching the lock step increases.

However, this entails that for a performance review period ending on March 31st lawyers have to

be assessed, and if eligible, paid their performance award by the following May 10. This date is

not sustainable.

Since the performance cycle ends on March 31st, i.e. end of fiscal period which is also set for all

other employees in the Federal Public Service, a reasonable pay out date cannot be May 10.

The Employer believes that a payout date within 120 days from the end of the fiscal period, i.e.

end of the performance cycle, is reasonable. This means that the Employer would have 120 days

to assess performance, meet eligible lawyers to provide feedback and ensure payment.

For ease of reference, we provide a side by side (current provision vs proposed amendments) of

Appendix B.

4.3 Appendix “B” Performance Pay Plan for Lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

Levels

Current Provision Employer Proposal

Performance Pay Plan for Lawyers at

the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B Levels

The following performance pay plan

applies to lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A and

LA-2B levels.

Performance Pay Plan for Lawyers at the

LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B LP-01, LP-02

and LP-03 Level

The following performance pay plan applies

to lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

LP-01, LP-02 and LP-03 levels.

Part 1 Part 1


1.0 Policy objective

1.1 To ensure the accurate and consistent

administration of performance pay for

employees at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

levels, including incentives to recognize

and reward individuals in relation to their

peers and subordinates.

1.0 Policy Objective

1.1 To ensure the accurate and consistent

administration of performance pay for

employees at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

LP-01, LP-02 and LP-03 levels, including

incentives to recognize and reward

individuals in relation to their peers and

subordinates.

2.0 Policy statement

2.1 It is government policy to pay certain

senior employees according to their

assessed level of performance. This policy

provides the means to achieve this. Its

chief provisions are the following:

2.1.1 individuals may progress through the

salary range by a series of increases related

to the employee's assessed level of

performance;

2.1.2 performance awards may be awarded

to those whose salaries have reached the

job rate and whose performance is assessed

as "Fully Meets" or "Exceeds" in a given

year;

2.1.3 expenditures on salary administration

must be controlled through a departmental

performance increase budget.

2.0 Policy Statement

2.1 It is government policy to Pay certain

senior employees lawyers according to their

assessed level of performance. This policy

Appendix provides the means to achieve

this. Its chief provisions are the following:

2.1.1 individuals may progress through the

salary range by a series of increases related

to the employee's assessed level of

performance;

2.1.2 performance awards may be awarded

to those whose salaries have reached the job

rate on March 31 of the review period and

whose performance is assessed as "Fully

Meets" or "Exceeds" in a given year;

2.1.3 expenditures on salary administration

must be controlled through a departmental

performance increase budget.

3.0 Application

3.1 This policy applies to lawyers at the

LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B levels.

3.0 Application

3.1 This policy applies to lawyers at the LA-

1, LA-2A and LA-2B levels.

4.0 Exclusions

4.1 Employees affected by the Regulations

respecting pay on reclassification or

conversion whose salary is protected at a

4.0 2.0 Exclusions

4.1 2.1 Employees affected by the

Regulations respecting pay on

reclassification or conversion whose salary

is protected at a group and level not


group and level not mentioned above are

not subject to this plan. The relevant terms

and conditions of employment apply to

determine their appropriate salaries.

4.2 Employees absent on leave without pay

are eligible for in-range performance

increases or performance awards under this

plan.

mentioned above are not subject to this plan.

The relevant terms and conditions of

employment apply to determine their

appropriate salaries.

4.2 Employees absent on leave without pay

are eligible for in-range performance

increases or performance awards under this

plan.

5.0 Policy requirements

5.1 Deputy Ministers/Deputy Heads must

implement and adhere to the performance

pay administration plan in their

departments.

5.2 They must:

5.2.1 ensure that performance pay is

administered according to the plan, based

upon each employee's performance review

and appraisal report;

5.2.2 provide all information, training,

advice and guidance required to implement

and administer the plan.

5.0 Policy Requirements from Departments

5.1 Deputy Ministers/Deputy Heads must

implement and adhere to the performance

pay administration plan in their departments.

5.2 They must:

5.2.1 ensure that performance pay is




5.2.2 provide all information, training,

advice and guidance required to implement

and administer the plan.

6.0 Monitoring

6.1 The following performance indicators

will be used to evaluate departments'

adherence to the plan:

6.1.1 performance awards are granted only

to employees who have attained the job

rate and are rated "Fully Meets" or

"Exceeds";

6.1.2 in-range increases and performance

awards are in accordance with the

percentages for each level of performance;

and

6.1.3 performance increase expenditure

6.0 Monitoring

6.1 The following performance indicators

will be used to evaluate departments'

adherence to the plan:

6.1.1 performance awards are granted only

to employees who have attained the job rate

and are rated "Fully Meets" or "Exceeds";

6.1.2 in-range increases and performance

awards are in accordance with the

percentages for each level of performance;

and

6.1.3 performance increase expenditure does

not exceed the approved target of five per

cent (5%).


does not exceed the approved target of five

per cent (5%).

7.0 References

7.1 Financial Administration Act, Section

11(2) (d).

7.0 References

7.1 Financial Administration Act, Section

11(2)(d).

Part 2

Performance Pay Administration Plan for

LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B Levels

1.0 Purpose

1.1 This appendix contains provisions for

the consistent application of the

performance pay administration plan for

lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

levels.

Part 2

Performance Pay Administration Plan for

LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B Levels

1.0 Purpose

1.1 This appendix contains provisions for

the consistent application of the

performance pay administration plan for

lawyers at the LA-1, LA-2A and LA-2B

levels.

2.0 Definitions

2.1 "Acting pay" (rémunération

d'intérim)means the rate that an employee

should be paid for a temporary assignment

to a higher classification level position.

2.2 "In-range increase" (augmentation à

l'intérieur de l'échelle)means an increase in

salary based on assessed level of

performance, that results in an upward

positioning in the range (not exceeding the

job rate).

2.3 "job rate" (taux normal) means the

maximum rate of pay available to a

qualified employee whose performance in

the job is at least fully satisfactory.

2.4 "payroll" (masse salariale) means the

sum of salaries paid to employees subject

to this plan, in a particular department or

agency.

2.5 "performance award" (prime de

rendement) means a bonus payable to an

2.0 3.0 Definitions

2.1 3.1 "Acting pay" (rémunération

d'intérim) means the rate that an employee

should be paid for a temporary assignment

to a higher classification level position

2.2 "In-range increase " (augmentation à

l'intérieur de l'échelle) means an increase in

salary based on assessed level of

performance, that results in an upward

positioning in the range (not exceeding the

job rate).

2.3 3.2 "job rate" (taux normal) means the

maximum rate of pay available to a qualified

employee whose performance in the job is at

least fully satisfactory for a given

classification level as set out in the lock

step salary scales contained in this

agreement.

2.4 3.3 "payroll" (masse salariale) means the

sum of salaries paid to employees subject to

this plan, in a particular department or

agency, as of March 31.


employee whose salary has reached the job

rate of the applicable salary range (or, as of

May 10, 2013, the maximum of the

lockstep salary range) and whose assessed

level of performance is "Fully Meets" or

"Exceeds". It is payable in a lump sum and

must be re-earned each year.

2.6 "retroactive period" (période de

rétroactivité) means the period

commencing on the effective date of the

retroactive upward revision in

remuneration and ending on the day

approval is given.

2.5 3.4 "performance award" (prime de

rendement) means a bonus lump sum

payable to an employee whose salary has

reached is at the job rate of the applicable

lock-step salary range on March 31 of the

review period (or, as of May 10, 2013, the

maximum of the lockstep salary range) and

whose assessed level of performance is

"Fully Meets" or "Exceeds" “Succeeded”,

“Succeeded plus” or “Surpassed”. It is

payable in a lump sum and must be re-

earned each year.

2.6 "retroactive period" (période de

rétroactivité) means the period commencing

on the effective date of the retroactive

upward revision in remuneration and ending

on the day approval is given.

3.0 Performance Pay Administration

3.1 In-range increases that take effect on

April 1, 2012 are governed by this

performance pay plan. Thereafter, in-range

increases for lawyers at the LA-1, LA 2A

and LA-2B levels will be in accordance

with the lock step salary ranges.

3.2 Lump sum performance awards

payable on April 1, 2012, are governed by

this performance pay plan. Effective May

10, 2013 lawyers at the LA-1, LA 2A and

LA-2B levels whose salary is at the

maximum of the lockstep pay range will

continue to be eligible for lump sum

performance awards under the terms of this

performance pay plan. For performance

during the fiscal year ending March 31,

2013, lump sum performance awards will

be paid on May 10, 2013. Thereafter,

performance awards will be paid on May

10th of each year for performance in the

prior fiscal year. Expenditures on in-range

increases and performance awards are

controlled by a departmental budget, which

3.0 4.0 Performance Pay Administration

3.1 In-range increases that take effect on

April 1, 2012 are governed by this

performance pay plan. Thereafter, in-range

increases for lawyers at the LA-1, LA 2A

and LA-2B levels will be in accordance with

the lock step salary ranges.

3.2 4.1 Lump sum performance awards

payable on April 1, 2012, are governed by

this performance pay plan. Effective May

10, 2013 Lawyers at the LP-01, LP-02 and

LP-03 LA-1, LA 2A and LA-2B levels

whose salary is at the maximum job rate of

the lock step pay salary range on March 31

of the review period will continue to be

eligible for lump sum performance awards

under the terms of this performance pay

plan. For performance during the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2013, lump sum

performance awards will be paid on May 10,

2013. Thereafter, Performance awards will

be paid within 120 days from the end of

the fiscal period on May 10th of each year

for performance in the prior fiscal year.


may not be exceeded.

Expenditures on in-range increases and

performance awards are controlled by a

departmental budget, which may not be

exceeded.

4.0 In-range increases

4.1 In-range increases up to the job rate, as

a percentage of the employee's salary, shall

be granted annually for assessed

performance as follows:

On April 1, 2012 – LA-2A and 2B:

Exceeds - 7%

Fully Meets - 4.6%

Unsatisfactory - 0%

Unable to assess - 0%

On April 1, 2012 and October 1, 2012 –

LA-1:

Exceeds - 7%

Fully Meets - 4.6%

Unsatisfactory - 0%


4.2 Under no circumstances should an in-

range performance increase be authorised

for an employee whose performance has

been assessed as "Did not Meet".

4.3 Global performance ratings should be

used to assist in the decision process for

the determination of individual awards.

4.4 The Departmental performance pay

budget is limited to five per cent (5%) of

the departmental group payroll as at March

31. Only employees on strength March 31

and on April 1 are eligible for the purposes

of this exercise. A lawyer at the LA-1 level

must be in an eligible position on

September 30, 2012 to receive an increase

on October 1, 2012. Employees on leave

without pay or on a maternity leave /

4.0 In-range increases

4.1 In-range increases up to the job rate as a

percentage of the employee's salary, and

shall be granted annually for assessed

performance :

On April 1, 2012 – LA-2A and 2B:

Exceeds - 7%

Fully Meets - 4.6%

Unsatisfactory - 0%


On April 1, 2012 and October 1, 2012 – LA-

1:

Exceeds - 7%

Fully Meets - 4.6%

Unsatisfactory - 0%


4.2 Under no circumstances should an in-

range performance increase be authorised

for an employee whose performance has

been assessed as "Did not Meet".

4.3 4.2 Global performance ratings should

be used to assist in the decision process for

the determination of individual awards.

4.4 4.3 The Departmental performance pay

budget is limited to five per cent (5%) of the

departmental group payroll of those eligible

for performance awards as at of March 31.

Only employees on strength March 31 and

on April 1 of the same calendar year are

eligible for the purposes of this exercise. A

lawyer at the LA-1 LP-01 level must be in

an eligible position on September 30, 2012

to receive an increase on October 1, 2012.

Employees on leave without pay or on a

maternity leave / paternal parental leave

who would not normally be considered to be


paternal leave who would not normally be

considered to be on strength, are, for

purposes of this policy, deemed to be

eligible.

4.5 Performance awards are limited to a

maximum of seven per cent (7%) of an

individual's salary (including a

combination of in-range salary increase

and lump sum payments). Performance

must be at least "Fully Meets" to be

eligible for any lump sum award.

4.6 Performance awards for those paid

below the job rate are to be applied as base

salary increases within the current salary

ranges. When the calculation of a

performance award results in a salary that

would exceed the current job rate, the

difference is to be paid as a one-time lump

sum.

4.7 Employees on full-time language

training are deemed to be on strength and

are eligible for payment under this plan.

on strength, are, for purposes of this policy,

deemed to be eligible.

4.5 Performance awards are limited to a

maximum of seven per cent (7%) of an

individual's salary (including a combination

of in-range salary increase and lump sum

payments). Performance must be at least

"Fully Meets" to be eligible for any lump

sum award.

4.6 Performance awards for those paid

below the job rate are to be applied as base

salary increases within the current salary

ranges. When the calculation of a

performance award results in a salary that

would exceed the current job rate, the

difference is to be paid as a one-time lump

sum.

4.7 4.4 Employees on full-time language

training are deemed to be on strength and

are eligible for payment under this plan.

5.0 Performance awards

5.1 A performance award (bonus) shall be

granted to an employee whose

performance has been assessed as "Fully

Meets" or "Exceeds", and whose salary is

already at the job rate or has just reached

the job rate by the application of an in-

range increase, or, as of May 10, 2013 and

thereafter, whose salary is at the top of the

lock step pay range, and who is on strength

on March 31st and April 1st. These lump

sums must be re-earned each year.

5.2 Lump Sum performance awards shall

be:

On April 1, 2012:

5.0 Performance awards

5.1 4.5 A performance award (bonus) shall

be granted to an employee whose

performance has been assessed as "Fully

Meets" or "Exceeds", “Succeeded”,

“Succeeded plus” or “Surpassed”, and

whose salary is already at the job rate or has

just reached the job rate by the application

of an in-range increase, or, as of May 10,

2013 and thereafter, whose salary is at the

top of the lock step salary pay range on

March 31 of the review period, and who is

on strength on March 31st and April 1st of

the same calendar year. These lump sums

must be re-earned each year.

5.2 4.6 Lump Sum performance awards shall


Exceeds - 7% of salary

Fully Meets - 4.6% of salary

On May 10, 2013 and thereafter:

Exceeds - up to 7% of salary

Fully Meets - up to 4.6% of salary

be granted annually for assessed

performance as follows:

Surpassed: up to 7% of salary

Succeeded + (plus): up to 4.6% of

salary

Succeeded: up to 4% of salary

Succeeded minus: 0%

Did not meet: 0%

On April 1, 2012:

Exceeds - 7% of salary

Fully Meets - 4.6% of salary

On May 10, 2013 and thereafter:

Exceeds - up to 7% of salary

Fully Meets - up to 4.6% of salary

6.0 Exceptions

6.1 Law Group (LA-1)

6.1.1 The performance of legal officers at

the LA-1 level shall be reviewed on a

semi-annual basis and in-range increase for

performance granted consistent with the

rates set out above. Performance awards

(lump sum payments) are only paid out

once a year.

6.0 Exceptions

6.1 Law Group (LA-1)

6.1.1 The performance of legal officers at

the LA-1 level shall be reviewed on a semi-

annual basis and in-range increase for

performance granted consistent with the

rates set out above. Performance awards

(lump sum payments) are only paid out once

a year.

7.0 Combined application of in-range

increase and performance award

7.1 Some employees assessed as "Fully

Meets" or "Exceeds" will reach their job

rate with in-range increases which are less

than the amounts permissible under the

guidelines. In these cases, deputy heads

shall grant a performance award in

addition to the in-range increase. The

combination of the two (2) amounts may

not exceed the amounts permissible: seven

per cent (7%) of salary for "Exceeds" and

four decimal six per cent (4.6%) of salary

7.0 Combined application of in-range

increase and performance award

7.1 Some employees assessed as "Fully

Meets" or "Exceeds" will reach their job rate

with in-range increases which are less than

the amounts permissible under the

guidelines. In these cases, deputy heads shall

grant a performance award in addition to the

in-range increase. The combination of the

two (2) amounts may not exceed the

amounts permissible: seven per cent (7%) of

salary for "Exceeds" and four decimal six


for "Fully Meets". per cent (4.6%) of salary for "Fully Meets".

8.0 Performance Pay for Employees on

Leave without Pay

8.1 Employees who have been absent on

leave without pay for the full fiscal year

and have not returned to work by March 31

of that fiscal year are not eligible for any

performance increase. They are not to be

included in the calculation of the budget.

8.2 Employees who have been on leave

without pay for a part of the fiscal year

may be eligible for a performance increase

if they have been on strength for long

enough to permit a meaningful evaluation

of performance. Any performance pay

should be prorated for the time they have

been back on payroll.

8.0 5.0 Performance Pay for Employees

on Leave without Pay

8.1 5.1 Employees who have been absent on

leave without pay for the full fiscal year and

have not returned to work by March 31 of

that fiscal year are not eligible for any

performance increase. They are not to be

included in the calculation of the budget.

8.2 5.2 Employees who have been on leave

without pay for a part of the fiscal year may

be eligible for a performance award

increase if they have been on strength for

long enough to permit a meaningful

evaluation of performance. Any

performance award pay should be prorated

for the time they have been back on payroll.

9.0 Performance pay while receiving

acting pay

9.1 An employee who is receiving acting

pay for a temporary assignment to a group

and level covered by this plan is eligible

for performance pay at the higher level

when the following criteria are met:

9.1.1 The substantive rate of pay has

reached the range maximum and the

employee is no longer eligible for

increments or in-range performance

increases in the substantive level; or an

increment or in-range performance

increase in the substantive level does not

result in a change to the acting rate of pay

and performance of the higher level duties

is assessed as "Fully Meets" or better.

9.1.2 An employee on strength and in an

acting situation on March 31st, is eligible

for the purposes of this exercise.

Employees on leave without pay or on a

9.0 6.0 Performance pay while receiving

acting pay

9.1 6.1 An employee who is receiving acting

pay for a temporary assignment to a higher

group and level covered by this plan

remains is eligible for prorated

performance awards in their substantive

position, performance pay at the higher

level when the following criteria are met:

exclusive of the time in the acting position

for which they may become eligible for an

increment or performance award. Their

substantive rate of pay must be at the job

rate on March 31 of the review period

and their performance assessed as

“Succeeded”or better.

9.1.1 The substantive rate of pay has

reached the range maximum and the

employee is no longer eligible for

increments or in-range performance

increases in the substantive level; or an

increment or in-range performance increase


maternity leave / paternal leave who would

not normally be considered to be on

strength, are, for purposes of this policy,

deemed to be eligible.

9.2 The commencement date of the acting

assignment will not affect an employee's

eligibility for performance pay when these

conditions are met. Prorating the

performance increase, based on the length

of time in the acting assignment, is an

option.

9.3 Employees in acting status who are

eligible for performance pay are to be

included in the calculation of the

department's budget.

in the substantive level does not result in a

change to the acting rate of pay and

performance of the higher level duties is

assessed as "Fully Meets" or better.

9.1.2 An employee on strength and in an

acting situation on March 31st, is eligible for

the purposes of this exercise. Employees on

leave without pay or on a maternity leave /

paternal leave who would not normally be

considered to be on strength, are, for

purposes of this policy, deemed to be

eligible.

9.2 The commencement date of the acting

assignment will not affect an employee's

eligibility for performance pay when these

conditions are met. Prorating the

performance increase, based on the length of

time in the acting assignment, is an option.

9.3 6.2 Employees in acting status who are

eligible for performance pay are to be

included in the calculation of the

department's budget.

10.0 Ineligible employees

10.1 If within the review period an

increment or an in-range performance

increase in the substantive rate of pay

results in a salary increase on recalculation

of the acting pay, the employee is not

eligible for performance pay under this

plan, and should not be included in the

calculation of the budget.

11.0 Limitations

11.1 Under no circumstances are the in-

range increases and performance awards

paid under this plan to exceed the

percentages in 4.1 and 5.2 above for the

evaluated level of performance. Likewise,

departments may not exceed their

10.0 7.0 Ineligible employees

10.1 7.1 If within the review period an

increment or an in-range performance

increase in the substantive rate of pay results

in a salary increase on recalculation of the

acting pay, the employee is not eligible for

performance pay under this plan, and should

not be included in the calculation of the

budget.

11.0 8.0 Limitations

11.1 8.1 Under no circumstances are the in-

range increases and performance awards

paid under this plan to exceed the

percentages in 4.1 and 5.2 4.6 above for the

evaluated level of performance. Likewise,

departments may not exceed their aggregate


aggregate exceptional performance budget.

12.0 Salary-related benefits

12.1 A performance award will be included

as part of salary for the period in respect of

which it was paid. Any such award paid in

the year of retirement, but related to the

year prior to retirement, will be fully

counted in the calculation of the five-year

average salary for pension purposes.

However, it will not be reflected in the

level of coverage under salary-related

benefits such as Supplementary death

benefit and insurances.

12.2 Performance awards will also not be

considered part of salary for the purposes

of termination benefits such as severance

pay and cash-out of vacation leave, or for

salary calculations related to promotion or

transfer.

13.0 Authorization

13.1 The Deputy Minister / Deputy Head is

authorized to determine increases in salary

and to make performance awards as

prescribed in this plan.

13.2 On those occasions when the

circumstances of an individual case are so

exceptional that a department believes the

salary administration plan guidelines

should be exceeded, the Deputy Minister

must obtain prior written approval from the

Treasury Board Secretariat.

14.0 Confidentiality

14.1 As a matter of government policy,

disclosure is restricted to information on

the salary ranges. The specific salary paid

to an individual in a performance pay plan

may be disclosed only to those public

exceptional performance budget.

12.0 9.0 Salary-related benefits

12.1 9.1 A performance award will be

included as part of salary for the period in

respect of which it was paid. Any such

award paid in the year of retirement, but

related to the year prior to retirement, will

be fully counted in the calculation of the

five-year average salary for pension

purposes. However, it will not be reflected

in the level of coverage under salary-related

benefits such as Supplementary death

benefit and insurances.

12.2 9.2 Performance awards will also not

be considered part of salary for the purposes

of termination benefits such as severance

pay and cash-out of vacation leave, or for

salary calculations related to promotion or

transfer.

13.0 10.0 Authorization

13.1 10.1 The Deputy Minister / Deputy

Head is authorized to determine increases in

salary and to make performance awards as

prescribed in this plan.

13.2 10.2 On those occasions when the

circumstances of an individual case are so

exceptional that a department believes the

salary administration plan guidelines should

be exceeded, the Deputy Minister must

obtain prior written approval from the

Treasury Board Secretariat.

11.0 Policy requirements

5.1 11.1 Deputy Ministers/Deputy Heads

must implement and adhere to the

performance pay administration plan in their

departments.


servants whose work requires access to

such information.

5.2 11.2 They must:

5.2.1 11.2.1 ensure that performance pay is




5.2.2 11.2.2 provide all information,

training, advice and guidance required to

implement and administer the plan.

14.0 12.0 Confidentiality

14.1 12.1 As a matter of government policy,

disclosure is restricted to information on the

salary ranges. The specific salary paid to an

individual in a performance pay plan may be

disclosed only to those public servants

whose work requires access to such

information.

7.0 13.0 References

7.1 13.1 Financial Administration Act,

Section 11(2)(d).

4.4 Appendix C- Performance pay plan applicable to lawyers at the LA-3 levels (LP-04 and

LP-05):

As stated previously in section 4.1, the October 2009 arbitral award embedded in the collective

agreement the performance pay plans that were previously in place as policies.

For lawyers at the LA-3 levels (LP-04 and LP-05), it embedded the Directives for the

Performance Management Program (PMP) for the Executive Group, effective April 1, 2004.

It is important to note that effective December 9, 2010 a new classification standard was created,

the Law management group (LC), and that excluded manager positions within Law (LA) Group

were converted accordingly. Therefore LP-04 and LP-05 that are currently subject to the

performance regime outlined in Appendix C are not managers and should not be subject to a

performance regime for managers.


The Employer proposes to replace the current Appendix C provisions, with the provisions

outlined in the Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category

Senior Excluded Levels with the proviso of removing any references to other groups and using

the same standard rating scale as it applies across the Public Service and which is included in our

proposal for Appendix B: Surpassed, Succeeded + (plus), Succeeded, Succeeded minus, and Did

not meet.

Appendix D provides the current Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-

Management Category Senior Excluded Levels.

4.5 Memorandum of Agreement on Wellness

The Employer proposes a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to modernizing sick leave in

the Federal Government on Employee Wellness.

In their response, dated April 4, 2017, to the documentation submitted by the Employer for the

binding conciliation process, the AJC indicated that they did not agree with the Employer’s

proposal to include a Memorandum of Agreement on Employee wellness.

However at the mediation session of July 5th

, the AJC indicated that they could agree in principle

to the MOA on wellness (PSAC) model.

In fact, records of discussion for the Technical Committee of the Joint Task Force on Employee

Wellness, indicate that Mrs. Sandra Guttmann actively represented the AJC at all the meetings

that were held from March to June. Also, the terms of reference of the Steering Committee

denote Mrs. Ursula Hendel as a representative of the union members.

Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness

Employer Proposal

Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness

This Memorandum of Agreement is to give effect to the understanding reached between the

Employer and the Association of Justice Counsel (hereinafter referred to as “the parties”)

regarding issues of employee wellness.

The parties agree to establish a Task Force, comprised of a Steering Committee and a

Technical Committee, with a long-term focus and commitment from senior leadership of the


parties.

The Task Force will develop recommendations on measures to improve employee wellness

and the reintegration of employees into the workplace after periods of leave due to illness or

injury.

The Steering Committee and Technical Committee will be established by January 31, 2017.

The committees will be comprised of an equal number of Employer representatives and Union

representatives. The Steering Committee is responsible for determining the composition of the

Technical Committee. The Steering Committee shall be co-chaired by the President of the

Alliance and a representative of the Employer.

The Steering Committee shall establish the terms of reference for the Technical Committee,

approve a work plan for the Technical Committee, and timelines for interim reports from the

Technical Committee.

All time spent by employees in support of the Technical Committee shall be deemed to be

leave with pay for union activities. The Employer will grant leave with pay for employees

engaged in these activities, including preparation and travel time.

Dates may be extended by mutual agreement of the Steering Committee members. The

Technical Committee’s terms of reference may be amended from time to time by mutual

consent of the Steering Committee members.

The Technical Committee will develop all agreements and documents needed to support the

consideration of a wellness plan during the next round of collective bargaining. This work shall

be completed by December 1, 2017. The Technical Committee shall provide interim

recommendations for review by the Steering Committee on the following matters through a

series of regular meetings:

Income replacement parameters, the treatment of accumulated sick leave credits and

consequential changes to existing leave provisions within the collective agreements;

Eligibility conditions for a new wellness plan;

Privacy considerations;

Internal assessment as well as approval and denial processes;

Case management and measures to ensure the successful return of employees to the

workplace after a period of leave due to illness or injury;

Joint governance of the wellness plan;

Options for alternative medical treatments;

Other measures that would support an integrated approach to the management of

employee wellness for Federal Public Service employees, including but not limited to

ways to reduce and eliminate threats to workplace wellness, including discrimination,

harassment, workplace violence, bullying, and abuse of authority.


The Technical Committee shall respect the related work of the Mental Health Task Force and

the Service Wide Occupational Health and Safety Committee in its deliberations.

The Technical Committee shall also review practices from other Canadian jurisdictions and

employers that might be instructive for the Public Service, recognizing that not all workplaces

are the same. The Service Wide Occupational Health and Safety Committee shall be consulted

as required. Leading Canadian experts in the health and disability management field shall also

be consulted.

Key Principles

A new wellness plan shall:

Contribute to a healthy workforce, through a holistic consideration of physical and

mental health issues.

Include case management and timely return to work protocols, based on best practices.

Investigate integration with other public service benefit plans.

Address a wide range of medical conditions, work situations and personal circumstances

facing employees, including chronic and episodic illnesses and travel time from northern

and remote communities for diagnosis and treatment (subject to the NJC Directives, such

the Isolated Post and Government Housing Directive) and wait times for medical

clearances to return home.

Be contained in the collective agreements. The final level of adjudication associated with

the plan will be the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (PSLREB).

Be administered internally within the Federal Public Service, rather than by third-party

service provider.

Have common terms which will apply to all employees.

Provide for full income replacement for periods covered by the plan.

Ensure that new measures provide at least the same income support protection as that

provided by earned sick leave banks in the current regime.

Current sick leave banks would be grand-fathered/protected and their value appropriately

recognized.

If an agreement is not reached within 18 months from the establishment of the Technical

Committee, or should the parties reach impasse before then, the parties agree to jointly

appoint a mediator within 30 days.

If the parties are unsuccessful in reaching an agreement, after mediation, the current terms and

conditions of employment related to the sick leave regime for AJC members remain unchanged.

Both parties agree to recommend these proposals to their respective principals.


PART V

5.0 LAW PRACTITIONER (LP) GROUP

GENERAL INFORMATION

5.1 The LP classification standard

A new classification standard for Law Practitioners (LP) came into effect on January 6, 2014.

This resulted in the elimination of the LA Classification Standard effective on the date of the

conversion January 6, 2014.

An information bulletin, dated of December 16, 2013, which provided information and direction

on the implementation of the new Law Practitioner (LP) classification standard, has a detailed

crosswalk table from LA to LP (refer to Appendix E).

On January 8th

, 2014, the AJC’s website announcement provided a table of concordance from

LA to LP.

On January 22, 2014, a letter was sent to the Public Service Labour Relations Board requesting

that the LA bargaining certificate, issued on September 12, 2007, be amended to reflect the new

group name and that the new bargaining unit was comprised of all employees in the LP group,

LP-00 to LP-05. The letter was co-signed by representatives of both Treasury Board and the

Association of Justice Counsel. A copy of this letter, as well as the announcement made by the

AJC on their web site, is provided under Appendix F.

In its brief, under LP classification structure (paragraph 29), the AJC incorrectly included the

LA-3C as being converted to LP-06. The table “Evolution of the Law group- Practitioner Work”,

which is included in the January 22, 2014 letter to the PSLRB, indicated in footnote 2 that “LA-

3C represents a senior management level included in the LC (Law management Cadre)

classification.” The table indicated that there was no concordance to the LA-3C in the new Law

Practitioner (LP) classification level.

Also, under paragraph 30, the AJC indicates that “Positions are classified on the basis of their

total points” and they specify in the footnote that the information is taken from the Law


Practitioner (LP) Group -Job Evaluation Standard. The information provided is a selection of

responsibilities for the LP-01 through LP-05 positions and does not provide all responsibilities

nor does it provide information on the LP06 position since none exist in the LP classification.

Therefore any information in the AJC brief that refers to LP-06 position is incorrect and should

not be taken into consideration. When looking at the AJC’s proposals for annual rates of pay, at

pages 86-88 and page 93, any proposal for rates of pay for LP-06 should be discarded since no

such classification exists.

5.2 Delivering legal services

The Law Practitioner Group comprises positions that are primarily involved in the application of

a comprehensive knowledge of the law and its practice to the performance of legal functions.

As per their collective agreement20

, the normal hours of work for lawyers averages thirty-seven

decimal five (37.5) hours per week over each four (4) week period.

In paragraph 27, the AJC states that Lawyers now have to work 1400 hours, instead of 1310

hours, on legal work.

The 1,400 hour target, when introduced, was not intended to increase overall hours worked but to

increase the time spent providing legal services, i.e. increase the time spent on client files per

year.21

The AJC stated that an AJC member survey determined that 71% of members reported working

longer than the standard 37.5 hours per week to meet their target of 1,400 billable hours.

However, the AJC has not provided any methodological information on this survey, nor is there

any description of the sample size or the confidence interval for the result.

The annual hours of work for employees working a 37.5 hour week is 1956.6. If we remove from

those the 11 designated paid holiday (82.5 hours), this means that lawyers work 1870 hours a

year.

20

Paragraphs 13.01 (a) and 13.02 (a) LAW group collective agreement, Expiry date: May 09, 2014 21

Jusnet: Increase time Spent Delivering Legal services ( Appendix G)


Consequently, the 1400 hours target entails that LPs spend 75% of their standard annual work

hours on legal work.

As stated in April 2015 by Mr. William Pentney, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy

Attorney General of Canada, “This measure reflects the fact that, as Public Servants, our highest

value to Canadians is providing legal services.”22

In their brief23

, the AJC states pressures on the Public Prosecution Services of Canada due to the

Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Jordan and Cody, that limits the time within which criminal

prosecutions must proceed to trial.

Kathleen Roussel, the new Director of Public Prosecutions at PPSC, indicated the following on

June 6, 2017 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

“I would say that at the moment we have sufficient staff in order to meet our obligations. The

addition of judges is something that we're going to have to keep an eye on. As new judges are

appointed, it may have an impact on the resource requirements of the Public Prosecution

Service, particularly if there are more courts sitting. I think it's far too early for us to judge that.

I would add that, in terms of our workload, we just looked at recent numbers and our workload

is not increasing. Presuming our workload remains steady, the addition of extra judges may not

actually make a difference for us. It's really just organizing ourselves to make sure that we are

covering all the courts, and I would say that for the time being, we have sufficient staff to do that.

Obviously, it's something we assess on a regular basis, at least annually.”

22

Jusnet: Increase time Spent Delivering Legal services ( Appendix G)

23

AJC Brief, paragraphs 23 and 136


ANNEX A

A1 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE AJC’S ECONOMIC PROPOSALS

The analysis presented here has been developed in accordance with the factors and principles

outlined in the PSLRA and the Policy Framework. Considerations include; external market

comparability, internal comparability and recruitment and retention.

A1.1 External Comparability

This section compares LP pay rates to those offered in the external market. The Government of

Canada’s stated objective is to provide compensation that is competitive with, but not leading,

compensation provided for similar work in relevant external labour markets. TBS reviews labour

market trends nationally and it commissions third-party human resources experts to conduct

primary and secondary research at the occupational-group level. National trends guide

compensation decisions. TBS relies on the findings of their commissioned experts’ market

surveys to determine whether targeted wage measures are appropriate. These experts define the

external market and find comparable positions to those within the Government of Canada. For

example, engineers compare to engineers, administrators to administrators, and criminal

prosecutors to criminal prosecutors.

As a national employer, the Government of Canada employs LPs across the country. The

following table presents a breakdown of the LP population by province. Further, it breaks down

the LP population in Ontario by municipality.


Table A1: Law Practitioner Population and Average Salary by Location, March 201424

Location Average Salary Count % of Total

Population

Prince Edward Island $141,128 13 0.5%

Charlottetown $141,128 13 0.5%

Ontario (excluding NCR) $138,882 400 14.0%

Kitchener $141,523 4 0.1%

Toronto $139,431 367 12.8%

Brampton $132,912 16 0.6%

London $132,561 9 0.3%

Newmarket $129,012 2 0.1%

Guelph $118,931 2 0.1%

New Brunswick $135,011 14 0.5%

Saint John $145,160 2 0.1%

Moncton $133,320 12 0.4%

Newfoundland And

Labrador $134,242 9 0.3%

St. John's $134,242 9 0.3%

Nova Scotia $129,386 84 2.9%

Halifax $129,386 84 2.9%

National Capital Region $127,933 1,489 52.1%

Ottawa $128,236 1,253 43.8%

Gatineau $126,327 236 8.3%

Saskatchewan $126,966 51 1.8%

Saskatoon $126,966 51 1.8%

Alberta $126,136 160 5.6%

Banff $152,433 1 0.0%

Red Deer $137,886 1 0.0%

Edmonton $126,878 125 4.4%

Calgary $122,172 33 1.2%

Yukon $126,080 15 0.5%

Whitehorse $127,609 14 0.5%

Yukon, Unorganized $104,675 1 0.0%

Quebec (excluding NCR) $125,361 227 7.9%

Quebec $130,813 4 0.1%

Montreal $125,263 223 7.8%

British Columbia $123,034 289 10.1%

Penticton $152,433 1 0.0%

Victoria $141,523 4 0.1%

24

LP population and compensation data is from March 2014 unless otherwise stated. This is to align with the

expiration of the previous collective agreement.


Vancouver $122,670 284 9.9%

Manitoba $120,838 68 2.4%

Winnipeg $120,838 68 2.4%

Nunavut $119,197 11 0.4%

Iqaluit $119,197 11 0.4%

Northwest Territories $108,546 29 1.0%

Yellowknife $108,546 29 1.0%

Europe $98,936 1 0.0%

Brussels Belgium $98,936 1 0.0%

Grand Total $128,386 2,860 100.0%

A1.2 Deloitte External Comparability Study

In December 2016, Deloitte completed a study of the LP occupational group’s salary compared

to the external market. The results show that there are no significant pay gaps on average, though

there are pockets of regional disparity. This is not unique to the LP group in comparison to the

rest of the core public administration (CPA). The Deloitte study is further evidence to support the

employer’s offer of 1.25% annually over four years, which is consistent with the pattern

established with 87% of the represented CPA that has settled to date.

Government of Canada lawyers fall within five streams of work: advisors, policy analysts, those

working on legislation, those conducting civil litigation, and those conducting criminal

prosecutions. In consultation with the Department of Justice and Public Prosecution Service of

Canada, Deloitte determined that the Government of Canada’s external market comparators are

provincial and territorial governments. Private sector lawyers, while having passed the bar, have

different types of expertise and additional administrative responsibilities.

The Deloitte study compared the first four levels of the LP occupational group to provincial

government lawyers, but it did not include the fifth level nor law management positions. Deloitte

developed a survey tool that it sent to provincial and territorial officials responsible for managing

human resources and compensation. Most provincial and territorial governments participated in

the Deloitte study, with the exceptions of Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.

The survey included job capsules that Deloitte developed based on job descriptions for LPs at

levels one through four, a questionnaire requesting the respondents to identify comparator

positions and salary information, and the LP job evaluation standard.


The Deloitte study measured whether the federal government’s maximum pay rates by level

were within 10% of the external market.25

The Government of Canada pay rates in the Deloitte

study are the current effective rates from the expired collective agreement (May 10, 2013) and

they were compared to the effective rates in the provinces and territories at the time of the study

(ranging from 2015 to 2016).

The Government of Canada offers two pay rates for LPs, Toronto rates and national rates for

those outside of Toronto. Therefore, Deloitte conducted three salary comparisons: first, it

compared national pay rates to all study participants, second, it compared national pay rates to all

study participants except the Government of Ontario, and third, it compared Toronto rates to the

Government of Ontario. Like the federal government, most provincial governments have lock-

step progression salary ranges; therefore, Deloitte chose to compare TBS’ maximum to

provincial maximums.

Deloitte sought job matches based on 15 job capsules. Each summarized the job types that

federal lawyers undertake, including advisory duties, policy analysis, legislative duties, civil

litigation, and criminal prosecution. To provide an overview of the LP group by level, Deloitte

averaged the maximum salaries of job matches by job capsule and level to determine whether the

Government of Canada’s pay rates were competitive.

Table A2 presents the results of the Deloitte study by LP level for national pay rates compared to

the average of the provincial/territorial maximums, including and excluding Ontario.

Table A2: Deloitte Results, LP national pay rates compared with external market

Law Practitioner

(LP) Level

TBS Maximum

Salary ($000), 2013-

14

TBS vs. National

Average (with

Ontario)26

TBS vs. National

Average (without

Ontario)

LP-01 $98.9 +1.3% +2.7%

LP-02 $137.9 +8.4% +8.4%

LP-03 $152.4 +2.3% +6.2%

LP-04 $173.2 +5.0% +14.7%

25

Deloitte and other major human resources consulting firms use +/- 10% for determining whether compensation is

competitiveness with the external market. 26

The national average for the external market (with and without Ontario) is an average of all job matches and

salary rates by level that the survey participants provided to Deloitte.


TBS national pay rates exceeding the average of the provincial/territorial maximums, excluding

Ontario, ranging from 2.7% to 14.7%. Once Ontario is included in the average, TBS rates remain

ahead of the average of the national maximums. Pay increases consistent with the pattern

established with the CPA would add 2.5% to the TBS rates.

Charts A1 and A2 plot the variance between the TBS rates and the external market. The first

chart plots national rates against the average of the maximum pay rates for all provinces and for

all provinces excluding Ontario, to demonstrate how Ontario skews the comparison. The second

chart plots the variance between Toronto pay rates and Ontario pay rates.

Chart A1: Deloitte Results, LP national pay rates compared with external market (with and

without Ontario)


Chart A2: Deloitte Results, LP Toronto pay rates compared with Government of Ontario

TBS considers the LP Toronto pay rates as the appropriate comparator for the Government of

Ontario pay rates. As indicated in Table A3, over 75% of Government of Ontario lawyers are

employed in Toronto while 12.8%27

of the LPs in Ontario are employed in Toronto. Combined,

the National Capital Region of Ottawa, Ontario (43.8%) and Gatineau, Quebec (8.3%) represents

52.1% of the LP population. Only 3% of the Government of Ontario’s CCs are in Ottawa.

27

This increases to 13.4% when including all receiving Toronto pay rates, not just those in Toronto. All receiving

Toronto pay rates work in the Greater Toronto Area and, in very few cases, pay file data had updated pay rates but

not city of work.


Table A3: Government of Ontario Crown Counsel Population, November 2016

Government of Ontario Crown Counsel Population Total % of Total

Greater Toronto Area 1,076 77.1%

Outside Greater Toronto Area 320 22.9%

Grand Total 1,396 100.0%

TBS has discussed the Crown Counsel breakdown with the Government of Ontario’s Centre for

Public Sector Labour Relations and Compensation. They informed TBS that the 2015 CC3 pay

band had a $73,504 range, increasing from $118,118 to $194,292. This is a 64.5% increase. In

comparison, the average distance between the maximum steps for national and Toronto LP pay

rates is $22,881. The wide range for the CC3 pay scale suggests the group spans multiple levels.

Comparing 2013 rates, the CC3 minimum of $113,978 is the mid-point of the LP-02 and its

maximum is lower than the maximum for the LP-04. The Centre also informed TBS that CC3

pay progression is tied to annual performance. Table A6 outlines the performance rates paid to

CC3s.

The Government of Ontario provided matches to LP job capsules for levels one, three, and four.

Their positions were either Assistant Crown Attorneys or Crown Counsels, and both are

classified as CC levels one, three, or four. They have three lawyer levels, CC1, CC3, and CC4.

The CC2 level was eliminated in prior negotiation rounds. The Government of Ontario provided

Deloitte with the following matches based on its interpretation of the job capsules and job

evaluation standard that it received.

Table A4: Government of Ontario Matches to Law Practitioner Positions

TBS Government

of Ontario

LP-01 CC1

LP-02 -

LP-03 CC3

LP-04 CC4

The matches were primarily jobs in criminal prosecution and civil litigation. They did not

provide matches to LPs conducting policy or legislative duties. As chart A2 above shows, rates

of pay for Ontario lawyers are just more than 10% ahead of those offered by the Government of


Canada. However, the Government of Ontario’s pay rates in the Deloitte study are effective July

2015, which means they include two years of wage growth that the LPs have not yet received.

Table A5: Comparison of LP and Crown Counsel Pay Rates (Adjusted for 2015 Rates)

LP Level (Toronto

Rates)

2015 Adjusted

Maximum

Government of

Ontario Match

2015

Maximum Variance

LP-01 $101,425 CC1 $110,174 -7.9%

LP-03 $179,844 CC3 $194,292 -7.4%

LP-04 $192,902 CC4 $211,553 -8.8%

Table A5 shows adjusted maximum pay rates for Toronto LPs. They were increased by 1.25%

annually for two years. This is consistent with the employer’s offer. The gap closes to within the

+/- 10% competitive threshold for 2015 rates. It is important to note that LP-01s at the maximum

pay are eligible for performance payments between 4.6% and 7.0% while CC1s are not eligible

for performance payments.

Table A6: Crown Counsel 3 Performance Payment System

Percentage of CC3 Population Receiving Rate Rate Received

5.0% 0.0%

15.0% 2.0%

65.0% 5.0%

15.0% 7.0%

Weighted Average Performance Payment 4.6%

TBS is confident that the correct matches are shown in the Deloitte analysis. Not only were

matches verified by HR specialists in Ontario and Deloitte but a look at the performance pay

regime in Ontario also lends credence to this view. Performance payments become part of CC3

base pay once awarded. CC3s at the maximum receive their performance payments as lump

sums. Using the weighted average as specified in table A6 above, which accounts for the

probability of CC3s having good and bad years, it would take just over eleven years for a CC3 to

reach the maximum of their pay scale. This is after having progressed every six months through

the ten steps in the CC1 pay scale, suggesting CC3 maximums are paid to those with over 16

years of experience. As table A7 shows, tenure of this length is normally seen at LP levels three

and above. Based on years of experience an LP-03 and a CC-03 seem to be properly matched.


Based on the years of experience for a CC-03, TBS rejects the view that a CC-03 should be

matched to a federal LP-02 as the AJC asserts. There is no basis for this comparison.

Table A7: Average pensionable years of service by level28

Law Practitioner

Level Count

Average Years

of Pensionable

Service

LP-00 50 0.1

LP-01 579 4.8

LP-02 1,581 12.8

LP-03 483 18.3

LP-04 135 22.6

LP-05 32 26.6

Grand Total 2,860 12.5

During the negotiation session of December 2016, the AJC raised concerns about changes made

to the 2016 Deloitte Study compared to the 2012 Deloitte study. Annex B addresses those

concerns.

A1.3 Secondary Research on External Comparability

Most lawyers work in the National Capital Region. The Government of Ontario’s public service

salary disclosure presents useful information on public sector lawyers working in Ottawa. The

pay rates in Ottawa are a fair comparator because they are the closest and most convenient

alternative employer. Major family and financial decisions like relocation are not a factor.

Though Quebec does not provide similar data for Gatineau, the results of the Deloitte study show

that LPs working in Gatineau make significantly more than their Quebec counterparts.

Table A8 presents the 2016 results of the Government of Ontario’s public disclosure of data on

salaries paid to public sector employees in 2015 that were over $100,000. The table filters the

data to include only legal professionals employed in Ottawa, Ontario. Further, it breaks down the

results by employment sector.

28

Figures include active LPs receiving National and Toronto pay rates, including represented and non-represented

employees. Years of pensionable service are pegged to time within the federal government.


Table A8: Public Sector Legal Compensation for Ottawa, Ontario, 2016 Public Sector Salary

Disclosure

Sector - Ottawa, Ontario Average Salary

Hospitals & Boards of Public Health $170,431

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group $172,375

General Counsel, Freedom of Information Coordinator $172,375

The Ottawa Hospital $168,487

General Counsel $168,487

Municipalities & Services $124,845

City of Ottawa $124,675

Associate Legal Counsel $106,720

Legal Counsel $121,497

Senior Legal Counsel $148,296

City of Ottawa - Police Services $149,610

General Counsel $149,610

Ottawa Community Housing Corporation $101,439


Other Public Sector Employers $111,279

Children's Aid Society of Ottawa $111,279


Senior Counsel $135,305

Universities $150,975

University of Ottawa $150,975

Counsellor $134,445

Legal Counsellor $147,478

Associate Legal Counsellor $174,499

Grand Total $127,409

The average salary of LPs working in Ottawa was $128,236 and this is 0.6% ahead of the Ottawa

average in the table. The average salary increases to $140,135, representing 33.7% of the entire

LP population, once those earning less than $100,000 are excluded, and this is 9.1% ahead of the

Ottawa average.

Assuming that the LP’s receive the economic pattern established to date in the federal public

sector of 1.25% over four years, these gaps would increase to between 5.5% and 13.5%. This is

further evidence that the LP group is paid competitively and fairly relative to the external market.


A1.4 Total Compensation

Compensation comparisons should also consider total compensation. All terms and conditions of

employment, including supplementary benefits, need to be taken into account in evaluating

comparability, even if they are not subject to negotiation.

Total compensation is an important factor since external comparators do not always have

compensation benefits that are as attractive as those provided by the federal government.

Although lawyers in the public sector would largely have similar pensions and benefits, there are

important distinctions. For example, The LP-1 in the federal government would be subject to

performance pay, whereas the comparable CC-01 in the Ontario government would not be.

Additionally, total compensation in the public sphere is extremely important when comparing

salary with the private sector. The disparity in pensions and benefits with the public sector and

the private sector is well documented.

In addition to wages, total compensation is composed of paid and unpaid non-wage benefits,

such as employer contributions to pensions, other employee benefit programs (i.e., health and

dental) and flexible working arrangements, such as telework, variable work hours (compressed

work week), leave with income averaging, and pre-retirement transition leave.

A detailed breakdown of total compensation for a typical LP in fiscal year 2014-15 indicates:

Base pay represented 82% of total compensation for employees of the group.

About 15% of total compensation was accounted for by pension and benefits, including

life and disability insurance, health and dental plans.

Allowances and premiums accounted for the remaining 3% of total compensation. For the

LP group, these premiums largely take the form of performance pay.


Table A9: Total Compensation Components, Law Practitioner (2014-15)

Sources: Pay System, Entitlement and Deductions System, Pensions and Benefits SectorNotes:

1. The figures are based on salaries effective on April 1st, 2014. Allowances, premiums, pension and benefits are based on FY

2014-15 data.

2. The figures above reflect the total remuneration package for a typical employee within the occupational group and do not reflect a

particular employment classification level.

3. Pensions and post-employment health benefits and dental benefits are based on 50:50 contribution rates and the elimination of

severance accumulation for voluntary departures.

Salary81.9%

Pensions9.2%Post-Employment

Health and Dental

Benefits0.8%

Current Benefits4.7%

Allowances and Premiums

3.3%

Performance payments in 2014-15 were estimated to account for 3.3% of the LP compensation.

This is based on the entire LP population, including those that are not eligible for performance

payments. Only those at that maximum pay rate for levels one through three are eligible for

performance payments while all at levels four and five are eligible. Table A10 presents a

breakdown of performance payments for 2015-16.29

It is clear that almost all LPs that are eligible

to receive performance payments do receive them.

29

Performance payment figures for 2015-16 are the latest figures available. Other pension and benefit figures have

not been made available in the payroll and entitlement databases beyond 2014-15, which explains the difference in

fiscal years used in this section.


Table A10: Performance payments for LPs by Level, 2015-16

Classification Eligible for

Performance Pay

Received

Performance Pay

% that Received

Performance Pay

LP-01 356 257 72.2%

LP-02 1,403 1,249 89.0%

LP-03 506 464 91.7%

LP-04 149 144 96.6%

LP-05 32 32 100.0%

Total 2,446 2,146 87.7%

A2 Internal Relativity

Internal relativity is a measure of the relative value of each occupational group within the core

public administration (CPA). The Policy Framework on the Management of Compensation states

that compensation should reflect the relative value to the employer of the work performed, so

ranking of occupational groups relative to one another is a useful indicator of whether their

relative value and relative compensation align. Further, the Public Service Labour Relations Act

says that there is a need to maintain appropriate relationships with respect to compensation

between classifications and levels.

Table A11 presents the five highest paid occupational groups in the CPA as well as other groups

the LPs frequently collaborate with based on March 2014 data. The ranking is based on average

salary paid per employee factoring in hours worked (excluding overtime). The expenditures do

not include employee benefit plan payments (which are estimated to add an additional 20.0% to

the expenditure), nor do they include performance management payments, which the LP groups

receives, nor terminable allowances that other groups receive for recruitment and retention

issues. Ranking third overall and trailing only doctors, the LP occupational group is compensated

fairly relative to the rest of the CPA.


Table A11: Top Five Occupational Groups, Average salary expenditure per active employee,

201430

Occupational group Population Average

Salary Rank

Distance from

CPA Average

Medicine - Medical Specialist 37 $184,159 1 149%

Medicine - Medical Officer 228 $150,498 2 104%

Executive 5,421 $136,025 3 84%

Law Practitioner 2,860 $128,386 4 74%

Scientific Management 186 $116,597 5 58%

Air Traffic Control - Non-Operational 9 $116,546 6 58%

Auditors 130 $93,221 13 26%

Commercial Officers 2,552 $92,466 14 25%

Economics and Social Science Services 12,413 $86,299 17 17%

Financial Management 4,398 $86,220 18 17%

Chart A3 plots average annual wage growth for the LP and the core public administration for the

previous two rounds of collective bargaining. The LP group received increases consistent with

the CPA weighted average until 2013 when it received its double-digit restructure. Providing

wage increases similar to those in the AJC proposal would increase internal inequality between

the LPs and the rest of the CPA, including other groups the LPS work closely with.

30

Figures present salary rankings per active status employee by bargaining group and they include represented and

non-represented employees. Executive and executive-equivalent occupational groups that do not have bargaining

agent representation, nor are linked to bargaining agents, (i.e. Law Management) are excluded from the figures. The

Scientific Management occupational group (SE-REM) is included because they are bargained employees in the

Professional Institute for Public Service of Canada – Research bargaining group.


Chart A3: Annual Wage Growth, 2009 to

201731

It is clear that past wage increases have set the LPs far apart from other professional groups in

the CPA in terms of base wages. TBS has recently begun studying job values for its occupational

groups in conjunction with the Hay group. Hay points are meant to provide an understanding of

the content of the job and presents value of the whole job in question. This is referred to as “job

size” or “job value” and provides some context when comparing one job to another to determine

relative value. Table A12 below lists various professional groups the LP employees work closely

with within departmental legal services units in various departments throughout the CPA. The

table clearly shows that, relative to its job value, LPs are adequately compensated based on their

“job value”. For example, an LP-03, with an average Hay score of 698 is paid a maximum base

salary of $155,400. This compares to an AU-06 at 690 Hay points and a max salary of $120,927

31

The CPA average is weighted by the population of each bargaining group forming five employment categories:

scientific and professional, administrative and foreign service, technical, administrative support, and operational.

Percentages include economic increases, restructures, and terminable allowances. The LP increase in 2013 includes

a 1.06% increase attributed to the conversion from in-range to lock-step progression for levels one through three.


or an FI-04 with a Hay point score of 703 and a maximum salary of $116,712. It is clear that a

settlement for the LP group above wider CPA patterns would serve to create internal relativity

issues amongst other professional groups. This would have potentially serious consequences for

workplace morale and overall workplace cohesion.

Table A12: Hay Points vs. Max Salary

Classification Occupational group

Average

population

(2016-17)

2014 Max

base salary

Final average

Hay points value

LP01 LA/LP (Law) 557 $98,936.00 393

LP02 LA/LP (Law) 1787 $140,567.00 571

LP03 LA/LP (Law) 507 $155,400.00 698

LP04 LA/LP (Law) 149 $176,248.00 985

AU02 AU (Auditing) 13 $79,344.00 330

AU03 AU (Auditing) 22 $88,925.00 478

AU04 AU (Auditing) 60 $100,243.00 553

AU05 AU (Auditing) 22 $109,993.00 557

AU06 AU (Auditing) 7 $120,927.00 690

CO01 CO (Commerce) 482 $70,565.00 276

CO02 CO (Commerce) 1450 $98,073.00 393

CO03 CO (Commerce) 665 $108,476.00 633

CO04 CO (Commerce) 63 $117,593.00 787

EC01 EC (Economics) 330 $56,214.00 232

EC02 EC (Economics) 1682 $62,026.00 297

EC03 EC (Economics) 1313 $67,614.00 314

EC04 EC (Economics) 1910 $74,647.00 350

EC05 EC (Economics) 3538 $88,764.00 429

EC06 EC (Economics) 3395 $101,048.00 556

EC07 EC (Economics) 2816 $113,016.00 609

EC08 EC (Economics) 422 $122,331.00 692

FI01 FI (Financial Mgmt.) 1178 $72,282.00 313




A3 Recruitment and Retention

TBS sets compensation levels that enable it to recruit and attract qualified and motivated

employees. Information about ‘on the field’ realities in organizations and departments help


identify specific problems that can be hidden in the aggregated data, like issues that are specific

to a region, a stream of work, or a level within a group.

For this purpose, TBS surveyed departments to identify problems in recruiting and retaining

employees and the impact of such difficulties. Fifteen departments completed the survey. No

departments flagged issues for the LP group, including the Department of Justice and Public

Prosecution Service of Canada, which employ 92.3% of the LP population.

The public service went through a restraint period from 2011-12 to 2015-16. The data presented

in this section reflects the Government of Canada’s restraint measures that effected employment.

During this period, the Government of Canada undertook the Deficit Reduction Action Plan,

strategic and operating reviews, and implemented an operating budget freeze through to 2015-

16.32

These measures had direct effects on hiring and employment levels across the Government

of Canada. It is also important to note that the former Law (LA) group signed a new collective

agreement that took effect in March 2013, which appears to have had a positive impact on

voluntary separations. The new agreement included wage increase of more than 15% by its final

pay increase in May 2013.The data tables below present information for the LP occupational

group in comparison to the average for the core federal public administration.

Fluctuations from year-to-year are normal and will happen for most indicators (e.g. number of

retirements). Looking at the trends and the averages over the reference period is a way to get a

better understanding of the overall path of an occupational group.

32

The operating budget freeze held departmental budgets at their existing reference levels. Further, it required that departments fund wage

increases from their existing funding levels in perpetuity, which is contrary to the convention of a central government fund providing for

negotiated wage increases. This is an important consideration because departments would have to set aside contingency funds for wage increases as a trade-off for program spending.


Table A13: Population33

LA/LP Population 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-

15

2015-

16

Annual average population 3,079 2,987 2,893 2,845 2,799

Year-to-year change (y/y) - -3.0% -3.1% -1.7% -1.6%

Core public administration (CPA) increase (y/y) - -2.8% -4.7% -2.8% -1.6%

Table A13 shows that the population of the LP group decreased from 2011-12 to 2015-16, from

3,079 to 2,799, which amounts to a 9.0% reduction. The drop aligns with what the CPA (-11.5%)

experienced during the reference period marked with restraint measures.

Table A14: Separations34

Separations 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

External separations 132 137 118 103 111

Internal Separations 11 23 15 15 25

Total Separations 143 160 133 118 136

Total separation rate 4.6% 5.4% 4.6% 4.1% 4.9%

CPA separation rate 7.1% 8.3% 8.3% 7.5% 7.9%

Table A15: Voluntary non-retirement separations35

Voluntary Non-Retirement Separations 2011-

12

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2015-

16

LA/LP voluntary (non-retirement) separation

rate 2.3% 1.9% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3%

CPA voluntary (n-r) separation rate 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%

Table A14 above shows that total separation rates steadily decreased in the last three years of the

reference period. Compared to the CPA, the LP separation rate is notably lower.

33

Unless stated otherwise, all figures in A13 to A15include employees working in departments and organizations of the core public

administration (FAA Schedule I and IV) and they include all active employees and employees on leave without pay (by substantive classification)

who were full- or part-time indeterminate and full- or part-time seasonal. For comparison purpose, LP employees who were reclassified as part of

the creation of the Law Management (LC) group in 2011-12 are excluded from the LP group. The average population is based on a 12-months

average over the fiscal year. The source for data is the incumbent system. 34

External separations are separations to outside the CPA. Internal separations are separations from the group to other groups within the CPA.

Total Separations rates are calculated by dividing the number of external and internal separations in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees. The sources of data are the mobility file and Public Service Commission appointment files. 35

Voluntary non-retirement separations include resignation from the CPA for outside employment, return to school, personal reasons,

abandonment of position. They also include separations to Separate Agencies. Voluntary non-retirement separations rates are calculated by

dividing the number of voluntary non-retirement separations in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees. The sources of data are the mobility file and Public Service Commission appointment files.


Table A15 shows that the rate at which LPs left voluntarily (not after retirement) was higher than

the CPA average at the beginning of the period. This trend reversed after LP employees received

significant pay increases in 2013.

Table A16: Hiring36

Hiring 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

External hiring 109 48 52 82

Internal hiring 15 18 19 17

Total hiring 124 66 71 99

Total hiring rate 4.0% 2.2% 2.5% 3.5%

CPA total hiring rate 6.9% 3.3% 4.1% 5.5%

Table A16 shows hiring in the LP group followed a similar trend to that in the CPA. Total hiring

rates fell in 2012-13 after the Government of Canada implemented restraint measures, and they

increased in the following years. Hiring needs depend in large part on the rate at which

employees leave the group, and as the previous tables show, the LP separation rate is

significantly lower than the average.

Table A17: Job advertisements37

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Total Applications

LA/LP 948 789 1,256 1,241 2,518

CPA average 6,003 5,653 6,383 4,391 7,803

Total Applications Screened-In

LA/LP 792 747 1,097 1,144 2,400

CPA average 4,928 5,204 5,483 3,670 6,494

Percentage of Applications Screened-In

LA/LP 84% 95% 87% 92% 95%

CPA average 82% 92% 86% 84% 83%

Table A17 presents job advertisement figures for the LP group. It is normal for professional

groups to attract fewer applications in total compared to the average due to the time and effort

36

External hiring includes hires from outside the CPA. It also includes employees whose employment tenure changed from casual, term or

student to indeterminate or seasonal. Internal hiring includes hires to the group from other groups within the CPA. Total hiring rates are calculated by dividing the number of external and internal hires in a given fiscal year by the average number of employees. The source for data

are the Public Service Commission appointment files. 37

Figures include applications to external job advertisements from departments and organizations of the core public administration (FAA

Schedule I and IV). Data are for closed advertisement. Cancelled advertisements are excluded. Screened-In applications are those that meet the criteria of the advertisement. Averages for the CPA represent the mean across all groups in the CPA.


required to attain the necessary qualifications. However, the number of applications screened-in

for LP positions clearly shows that the number of qualified candidates who are screened in per

application consistently exceeds the CPA average.

Recruitment and retention indicators show that the LP group is healthy when compared to the

rest of the public service. There is little evidence to support increases above the 1.25% pattern

established with 87% of the represented CPA that have settled to this point.

A3.1 Public Service Employee Survey Results for the LP Group

Job satisfaction is crucial to healthy recruitment and retention. The Public Service Employee

Survey (PSES) results were used to assess overall job satisfaction of LP group relative to the

federal public service employees over the three-year period from 2014 to 2017.

Looking at the PSES results for indicators of job satisfaction, the LPs’ responses were in line

with the public service average when looking at measures of overall job satisfaction, satisfaction

with the department or agency of employment, and on encouragement received to be innovative

or take initiative.

Looking at individual levels within the LP group, all levels but LP-05 showed improved job

satisfaction between 2014 and 2017. LP-01s, in particular, consistently reported more positive

responses than the overall public service average. A closer look at the results for individual

survey questions for the LP group compared to the overall public service are in the tables below.

A3.2 Job Satisfaction (PSES Surveys - 2014 and 2017)

Table A18: Overall Job Satisfaction

Q7 - Overall, I like my job. LP Public Service


2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 82 82 79 78

LP-02 79 78 79 78

LP-03 78 79 79 78

LP-04 81 82 79 78

LP-05 100 83 79 78



LPs continued to report high levels of job satisfaction with 78% of LPs responding positively in

2017. This matches the public service average (78%). For most levels within the LP group,

responses were similar to 2014.

Table A19: Satisfaction with Department or Agency

Q6 - I am satisfied with my department or

agency. LP Public Service


2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 62 71 64 65

LP-02 55 61 64 65

LP-03 53 63 64 65

LP-04 53 68 64 65

LP-05 93 67 64 65


LPs’ satisfaction with their department or agency was relatively consistent with the overall

public service average in 2017 (Table A19). LP-01s, LP-04s, and LP-05s reported higher levels

of satisfaction with their department and agency (71%, 69% and 67% respectively) compared to

the overall public service average (65%). Overall, the LP group’s satisfaction increased from

56% to 62% between 2014 and 2017, while the overall public services’ responses increased

slightly (from 64% to 65%) over the same period.

All levels of the LP group reported improved satisfaction with their department or agency over

the three-year period, with the exception of the LP-05s.

Table A20: Encouragement to be Innovative or Take Initiative

Q3 - I am encouraged to be innovative or to

take initiative in my work

LP Public Service


2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 60 73 63 66

LP-02 53 62 63 66

LP-03 56 65 63 66

LP-04 52 63 63 66

LP-05 80 64 63 66



Positive responses to the question “I am encouraged to be innovative or to take initiative in my

work” for the LP group increased from 55% to 63% between 2014 and 2017, while increases for

the public service increased from 63% to 66% over the same period (Table A20). While the

percentage of positive responses for the LP group (63%) remained below the public service

average (66% in 2017), there were large increases in the proportion of positive responses

between 2014 and 2017.

Table A21: Support to Balance Work and Personal Life

Q5 - I have support at work to balance my

work and personal life. LP Public Service


2014 2017 2014 2017

LP-01 72 76 71 72

LP-02 66 70 71 72

LP-03 66 62 71 72

LP-04 55 64 71 72

LP-05 74 67 71 72


LP’ positive responses on feeling supported to balance work and personal life was consistent

over the three-year period (increasing from 67% to 68%). Responses varied across individual

levels within the LP group. LP-01s, LP-02s and LP-04s felt more supported in regards to work-

life balance in 2017 compared to 2014.

A3.3 Mobility and Retention (PSES 2014)

The 2014 PSES survey included certain indicators for measuring mobility and retention

including an employee’s intention to leave their current position within the next two years, as

well as their main reason for leaving.


Table A22: Intention to Leave Current Position

Q. 61 -Do you intend to leave your

current position in the next two

years?

2014 PSES Survey - LP

Yes (%) No (%) Not Sure (%)

LP-01 21 42 37

LP-02 16 49 36

LP-03 16 45 39

LP-04 22 54 25

LP-05 7 67 27

LP Average 17 47 36

Public Service Average 26 40 34

LPs were much more likely to stay in their current positions for the next two years compared the

public service average (47% and 40% respectively). This was consistent across all levels

(ranging from 42% to 67%) compared to the public service average (40%) (Table A22).

The PSES results are consistent with third-party analysis. The Counsel Network publishes

annually an In-House Counsel Compensation and Career Survey Report. The report provides

data and analysis of in-house and corporate counsel compensation and workload within Canada.

The 2016 report summarizes the responses to 962 surveys sent to over 4,800 in-house counsels.

Publicly-quoted companies (i.e. listed on stock markets) were the largest number of respondents

followed by privately-owned companies, crown corporations, governments and not-for-profits.

Government, crown corporations, and not-for-profits had the shortest average workweeks.

Lawyers at privately-owned and publicly-quoted organizations worked longer weeks on average.

Those working in government were less likely to report that their hours per week were on the

rise. This could explain why sectors in which respondents were most likely to report they were

“very satisfied” with their work-life balance were government, crown corporations, and not-for-

profits rather than in privately-owned or publicly-quoted in-house counsels.

On balance, the PSES results align with the rest of the public service and are often better. Again,

there is little evidence to support providing increases above and beyond the pattern already

established with 87% of the represented CPA that has settled to date.


A4 Response to Association of Justice Counsel Briefing

Association of Justice Counsel (AJC) Wage Study38

A4.1 Best Fit Comparators

The AJC requested that Salopek & Associates (S&A) identify the best fit comparators in the

external market, placing greater emphasis on Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and Alberta

than other provincial jurisdictions in Canada. The September 2013 and March 2014 data are

consistent with the demographic distribution of LPs, the majority are located in these four

provinces.

S&A relied on secondary research to complete their assessment of job matches in the external

market. They assessed publicly available job postings, job descriptions, the Government of

Ontario’s 1991 Guide to the Lawyers Compensation Plan and the federal Department of Justice’

LP competency continuum. With this information, they sought comparators for the first three

levels of the LP occupational group.

In contrast, the Deloitte survey relied on primary and secondary research. Deloitte assessed LP

job descriptions to develop job capsules that summarized roles and responsibilities. They

developed a survey tool that they sent to compensation and human-resources experts in all

provincial and territorial governments.39

They also sent participants the LP job evaluation

standard.40

The survey respondents reviewed the material and identified the appropriate matches

38

There will be marginal discrepancies between the demographic numbers in the employer response compared to

S&A. The response is based on the March 2014 population, which has formed the basis for calculations of

compensation increases for the LP group and all other represented groups in the core public administration. This

period was selected because it aligns with the expiration of the majority of the collective agreements under

negotiation. Specific to the LP group, all conversions of LPs to LCs had taken effect at this point. The September

2013 data sent to the AJC did not include the LC population. Additionally, the demographic data includes

represented and non-represented employees because non-represented employees’ compensation is determined by

increases to represented employees’ compensation. Only instances where there were significant differences in the

population demographics between this briefing and the S&A market analysis are noted. 39

Eleven of the thirteen provincial and territorial jurisdictions responded to the survey. Deloitte worked with the

respondents to answer questions and to clarify their responses. 40

Job evaluation standards are point-rating plans that provide a quantitative method of determining the relative

values of jobs within an occupational group. The LP job evaluation standard has six elements: critical thinking and

analysis, knowledge, communication and interaction, leadership, physical and sensory effort, and work environment.

It is used throughout the human resources process. (source: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-

secretariat/services/collective-agreements/job-evaluation/law-practitioner-group-job-evaluation-standard.html)

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/job-evaluation/law-practitioner-group-job-evaluation-standard.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/job-evaluation/law-practitioner-group-job-evaluation-standard.html


of their lawyers to those in the federal government based on their extensive experience with their

jurisdiction’s law practitioners.

The 2016 Deloitte study included two extra job capsules for the LP-04 that were not included in

the 2012 Deloitte study. The capsules outlined the civil litigation and criminal prosecution

streams of work at level four. Now knowing about the more experienced senior litigators and

prosecutors at the federal level, several jurisdictions revised their matches by shifting their senior

positions to match the Government of Canada’s senior positions or by adding matches that did

not exist previously. For example, the Government of Ontario’s senior lawyers were matched to

LP-04 because the 2012 study incorrectly indicated that senior lawyers in the Government of

Canada are solely advisors, a duty that the Government of Ontario says is not conducted at senior

levels.

A4.2 Issues with Best Fit Comparators

1. S&A’s market analysis is not transparent in the rationale supporting its matches. Readers

are to accept their judgement at face value. In contrast, the Deloitte survey is based on the

expert opinions of those responsible for designing, developing, and implementing human

resources and compensation management frameworks. Deloitte used two distinct levels

of expertise to arrive at their results: first, human-resources experts from participating

organizations, and second, their own accredited human-resources analysts.

2. There are overlapping comparisons. S&A matches Ontario’s CC4 to LP-03 and LP-04.41

They note that the CC4 has specialized expertise and that it is restricted to 2% of the CC

population. The LP-04 population is similarly small, representing 4.7% of the March

2014 population. Further, the job evaluation standard states that in order to meet the

knowledge criteria required for level four, LPs must be recognized as experts and

authorities on the issues in their field of law or practice. In comparison, LP-03 is required

to have advanced knowledge of the law related to assigned work, but work under

supervision of experts. Presuming that the LP-03 and LP-04 have similar responsibilities

41

The study makes this connection on page eight, but it neglects to present the pay difference between CC4 and

LP-04 in its compensation analysis starting on page ten.


to be matched to the CC4 greatly skews the results in order to arrive at an inappropriate

conclusion.

a. The Government of Ontario’s Centre for Public Sector Labour Relations and

Compensation Division explained to TBS that in order to advance from CC3 to

CC4 in Ontario, one must be appointed to the position by the Deputy Attorney

General. At 2.0% of the overall CC population, CCs at level four are clearly the

senior-most positions and should not be compared to the LP working level.

3. S&A obtained a copy of the Government of Ontario’s compensation plan for its crown

counsellors. It is important to note that the plan was last updated in 1991, so it does not

reflect the elimination of the CC2 classification as of 2003. This omission would skew

the interpretation of the CC occupational group breakdown and their levels of

responsibility because it does not account for the redistribution of CC2 responsibilities to

the remaining classifications. S&A disingenuously conceals that responsibilities were

redistributed across levels, which is reflected in the distance between the maximums by

level. Clearly, a 75% increase in maximum earnings from CC1 to CC3 comes with a

substantial increase in responsibility.

4. The findings in the market analysis for the Province of British Columbia erroneously

references Alberta when stating that LP-02s match to level two and three.

5. Advancement for lawyers in British Columbia is linked to years of call to the bar. The

dataset that S&A used for LPs provides years of pensionable service, which is a different

measure of time. It measures all time in the public service and does not factor in whether

an LP has passed the bar.

6. As with the Deloitte survey, S&A compare 2013 LP pay rates to more recent pay rates in

the external market. Given the timing of their market analysis, it captures 2017 salary

rates that were not available at the time of the Deloitte study. The pattern established

across 19 of the 27 bargaining agents in the core public administration (CPA), which

represent 87% of the bargaining population, settled on 5.1% economic increases


(excluding targeted wage adjustments). All percentages gaps for positions below the

market will improve substantially once a new collective agreement is in place.

A4.3 Issues with Methodology

7. S&A compares salary rates for LP levels one through three, but it excludes LP levels four

or five. Of the 2,860 active LPs in the March 2014 dataset, 135 were at level four and 32

were at level five, which represents a combined total of 5.8% of the LP population.

Table A23: LP Population by Level and Pay Rate

Level % of Total Count

National Rates of Pay 86.6% 2,477

LP-00 1.4% 41

LP-01 17.1% 490

LP-02 48.8% 1,395

LP-03 14.6% 418

LP-04 3.7% 106

LP-05 0.9% 27

Toronto Rates of Pay 13.4% 383

LP-00 0.3% 9

LP-01 3.1% 89

LP-02 6.5% 186

LP-03 2.3% 65

LP-04 1.0% 29

LP-05 0.2% 5

Grand Total 100.0% 2,860

8. The comparison to JAG lawyers is an invalid one. Treasury Board Ministers determine

and regulate military compensation per section 35 of the National Defence Act. In

November 2005, TB Ministers approved a funding formula for determining JAG lawyers’

compensation. The formula is outlined in table A24.


Table A24: JAG Compensation Standard

For each of the following ranks:

…the maximum

salary for the

following level:

…is first

increased

by a

Military

Factor of:

…then

increased by a

performance

pay element of:

Captain / capitaine LP-01 6.5% 4.0%

Major / major LP-02 6.5% 5.0%

Lieutenant-Colonel / lieutenant-

colonel LC-01 6.5% 6.7%

Colonel / colonel LC-03 less $1,500 6.5% 6.7%

Brigadier-General / brigadier-

général LC-04 6.5% 6.7%

9. S&A make false comparisons between the LP levels starting at LP level three.

Lieutenant-Colonels and above carry significant management responsibilities so they are

benchmarked to Law Management (LC). By pegging the LP-05 to the Brigadier General,

and matching simply by descending the hierarchy from this false equivalency is

disingenuous and disregards the demands placed on the senior ranks of Canada’s armed

forces. This type of matching demonstrates why it is important that wage studies include

surveys of the human-resources professionals that are responsible for designing and

implementing occupational standards and compensation plans.

10. S&A does not disclose that JAG lawyers receive a 6.5% military differential above the

maximum salary of their benchmark LP position. The differential compensates members

of the Canadian Forces for certain dis-utilities they endure as a result of military service,

including the loss of personal freedom associated with unlimited liability of service,

frequent separation from home and family, and the constant severing of social contacts

when relocating throughout Canada and overseas. These constraints do not compare to

those placed on the LP occupational group.

11. The JAG comparison does not disclose that the JAG salaries in the comparison include

performance payments but that the LP salaries do not.


A4.4 Issues with S&A’s Assessing Competitiveness

12. S&A asserts that the gap measured in 2012 compared to 2016 has changed significantly.

It has because of the 15.2% increase that the LP group received during the previous round

of collective bargaining. As the AJC states on its website, the raise was a “high

watermark … that will see [its] members receive a substantial 15.25% raise” and that

“almost nowhere in the world of labour will you find a result that matches or betters the

double-digit increases.”42

The AJC is correct, the previous increase was historic and that

is why the gap has closed significantly with the external market. It is also why the LP

group, when measured for internal relativity, is within the top five occupational groups in

the CPA, lagging only medical doctors (see table A11 of this Annex)

A4.5 Response to S&A Critique of Deloitte Survey

S&A misrepresents the Deloitte study. Their market analysis is replete with assertions that

Deloitte’s only comparison was between TBS maximum pay rates and the median (P50) of the

respondents’. While this comparison is in the Deloitte study, so are many other approaches. As

the Charts A1 and A2 in section A1.2 show, the TBS position is based on the average of the

maximum pay rate in the external market compared to the maximum TBS pay rate. Other

measures can present useful analysis, but the primary evidence for comparison is based on the

average of results across job capsules (i.e. average of all matches to the five LP-01 levels to

create a comparison-point for the LP-01).

Deloitte’s study includes the following comparisons:

1. TBS maximum base salary vs. average of jurisdictional maximum base salary, national

rates compared to all participants

2. TBS maximum base salary vs. average of jurisdictional maximum base salary, national

rates compared to all participants except Ontario

3. TBS maximum base salary (Toronto Rates) vs. maximum rates for Government of

Ontario

4. TBS maximum base salary vs. jurisdictional range of results (minimum to maximum)

42



5. TBS maximum base salary vs. jurisdictional base salary median

6. TBS maximum base salary vs. jurisdictional base salary median for unique matches only

(removes instances were provinces matched one classification to two or more LP

classifications)

7. All tables by job capsule include comparisons to the 25th

, 50th

, 75th

, and 90th

percentiles

(where respondents provided data) and the minimum and maximum salary in the external

market.

The first three calculations are the most significant. Averaging the range of matches by LP job

capsule permitted Deloitte to present a more meaningful comparison of LPs by level to the

external market. It is clear that there is a wide variance in lawyer compensation across Canada.

Averaging the results mitigates this. Distinguishing between all jurisdictions and the Government

of Ontario demonstrates the effect that province has on the results. Since the Government of

Canada provides regional pay rates for lawyers working in the Greater Toronto Area, it is not

appropriate to compare the national pay rates to the Government of Ontario pay rates. According

to data provided by the Government of Ontario, 77% of their lawyers work in the Greater

Toronto Area (1,076). The remaining 320 working throughout Ontario are not forming a

competitive market for other lawyers. Further, S&A and the AJC briefing state that the

Government of Ontario intends to hire 32 additional assistant Crown Attorneys. That represents

1.1% of the LP population.

TBS had requested that Deloitte prepare a weighted average of the results to address the variance

between survey respondents. The intention was to grant greater significance to the variances

where there were more practicing lawyers. Deloitte informed TBS that it would be unsound to

complete this analysis because respondents’ population data was insufficient to define the

external market. Further, Deloitte mentioned other methodological barriers like instances of

double-matches and instances where the respondents matched different positions to the same

level, all which would render the weighted meaningless and skew the results. Therefore, Deloitte

recommended against a weighted average.

S&A suggests that a comparison of +/- 10% is appropriate in its comparison with private-sector

in-house counsel. Yet it says this is not appropriate when comparing LPs to provincial and


territorial governments. The threshold in the Deloitte study is consistent with the threshold used

in all other wage studies that the Federal Government receives from human resources firms with

national and international reputations like Deloitte, KornFerryHay, and Mercer.

S&A misrepresent Deloitte’s methodological explanation. Pages 16 and 17 of the Deloitte study

outline the study’s job matching methodology in more detail than the S&A’ report outlines its

own methodology. All thirteen provincial and territorial jurisdictions were surveyed and eleven

responded. In contrast, S&A provides no evidence to support their job matching exercise. They

do not include job capsules, examples of the job descriptions used, the number of job

descriptions analysed, or why the comparison occasionally is based on roles and responsibilities

and other times based on years of call to the bar verses years of pensionable service. They

provide no evidence that the sample data they collected is representative of the external market.

The study erroneously reports that 70% of LP-02s work within the Province of Ontario. The

table below shows the demographic breakdown for the LP-02 population in March 2014 by

province. The majority of LP-02s do work in the Province of Ontario; however, they are a much

smaller majority than citied in the market analysis (56% of the total LP-02 population).

Specifically, 53.3% of the total LP-02 population works in the National Capital Region.


Table A25: LP-02 Population by Province/Region and Pay Rate43

Location % of Population Count

National Rates of Pay

Alberta 5.9% 94

British Columbia 10.1% 159

Manitoba 2.4% 38

National Capital Region 53.3% 842

New Brunswick 0.7% 11

Newfoundland and

Labrador 0.5% 8

Northwest Territories 0.8% 13

Nova Scotia 2.9% 46

Nunavut 0.3% 5

Ontario 0.8% 13

Prince Edward Island 0.6% 9

Quebec 7.5% 119

Saskatchewan 1.8% 29

Yukon 0.6% 9

Toronto Rates of Pay

Ontario 11.8% 186

Grand Total 100.0% 1,581

A4.6 Specific comments on the AJC Briefing

Paragraph 125 outlines performance payments. It omits that the Government of Ontario does

not provide performance payments to CC1, which Deloitte and S&A agree compares to the

LP-01. Those holding LP-01 positions are eligible for 4.7% (fully meets) or 7.0% (exceeds)

performance payments. Based on the results of the Deloitte study, the 2013 LP-01 Toronto

pay rate is -10.2% behind the Government of Ontario’s 2015 CC1 pay rate. The gap would

close to -7.6% when grossing up LP salary rates from 2013 to 2015 with the Government of

Canada’s trend of 1.25% annual increases. Performance pay would virtually close the gap.

Paragraph 128 does not breakdown the population distribution in Ontario. Using March 2014

data, 43.8% of the total LP population is in Ottawa, Ontario, part of the National Capital

Region, which is distinct from the Toronto market.

43

Figures include all active LPs who were represented and non-represented. The source of data is the March 2014 extract form the incumbent

system.


Paragraph 132 of the brief misrepresents legal agent compensation. Public Prosecution

Service of Canada informed TBS of the experiences LPs had while working as legal agents

prior to joining the Government of Canada. It is unlikely that the majority of legal agents bill

1,400 hours annually. The largest omission, however, is that legal agents' compensation

includes administrative overhead. Agents supply their own support staff, infrastructure,

supplies, and all other items necessary for carrying out law practice. Generally, 40-50% of

billings go to overhead. Further, their compensation covers supplementary employment

benefits, like pensions and medical care. The Government of Canada allots an additional

20.0% for employee benefit payments and 13.0% for accommodations per salary dollar

spent.

Comparisons to the Robert Half survey of in-house counsel starting at paragraph 133 are

made with data that had been submitted by companies. The self-reporting bias and survey

response rate, which Robert Half does not reveal, will dictate whether the data applies to a

general population.

The Robert Half survey does not provide sufficient data to make appropriate comparisons

with the LP populations. The matches were made based on years of experience, which does

not account for ability, effort, skills, or workload. Breakdowns by firm size and years of

experience are weak substitutes for direct job comparisons. There is no explanation of how

Robert Half arrives at its index to calculate the variance between cities in Canada. Robert

Half presents itself as an information resource for lawyers seeking to change positions

between private-sector firms.

Paragraph 139 misrepresents the Law Management (LC) pay increase of 2016. The increase

was to match the LC pay with their subordinate LPs. LCs at level one are to receive the same

pay as LPs at level three, LC-02 are to receive the same pay as LP-04, and LC-03 are to

receive the same pay as LP-05. This is not a pattern for the federal public service.

Starting on Page 78, the briefing confuses economic increases with targeted wage measures.

All groups in the table on Page 79 agreed to 1.25% annually over four years. None received

2.0% annually plus additional measures.


o Specifically, the AJC references the SV group increases. These were based on a joint

employer-union wage study. The AJC is seeking much more generous increases than

the SV group received. They are basing this on a flawed market analysis that TBS

rejects.

o The SH group’s elimination of regional pay rates carried a minimal cost because

almost all nurses covered by this change we already receiving the two regional rates

that remained in effect. Only one individual received nearly 15% while the average

increase was 0.5%. The AJC request is an inversion of this. They are requesting that

all LP-02 to 04 receiving national pay rates (67% of the total LP population) receive

wage increases to match 10% of the LP population.

A5 Evaluation of Association of Justice Counsel Pay Proposals

TBS reviewed the AJC pay proposals. The review projected the ongoing costs of these proposals

based on March 2014 population and compensation data for LPs. TBS refers to this as the wage

base.

The period aligns with the end of the fiscal year in which the previous collective agreement

expired. TBS used March 2014 data for all 27 bargaining groups when advising TB Ministers on

negotiating mandate decisions and the ongoing costs that the Government of Canada can expect

to incur upon the full implementation of pay increases contained in new collective agreements.

The wage base includes represented and non-represented employees. Non-represented

employees’ pay rates follow those negotiated by bargaining agents for represented employees in

the same occupational group. There are 2,860 employees in the March 2014 data, 85.3% are

represented and 14.7% are non-represented.

The AJC provided two four-year proposals. Both proposals include 2.0% annual economic

increases to all pay rates. Over four years, this equals an 8.2% cumulative increase. In contrast,

87% of the represented population received 1.25% annual economic increases over four years

that equal a 5.1% cumulative increase.


A5.1 AJC Wage Proposal: Single national rate

Part IV (m) outlines the AJC’s proposal to harmonize national pay rates with Toronto pay rates.

It outlines restructures for LPs in levels one, two, and three and market adjustments to increase

the range of the pay scales for LPs in levels four and five. It includes LP level six, which does

not exist.

Note that all pay proposals would generate additional performance payments. LPs at the

maximum of levels one through three are eligible for performance payments up to 4.6% and

7.0% while all LPs at levels four and five are eligible for performance payments up to 7.0% and

10.0%.

LP-00 Pay scale compression

The LP-00 pay scale is currently the same for national and Toronto pay rates. That is why the

AJC did not propose alignment. They are requesting to increase the minimum from $36,172 to

$45,510, a 25.8% increase. They are also requesting that the maximum decrease from $78,970 to

$68,806, a 12.9% decrease. There are 50 LPs in the March 2014 data at this level. The highest

paid receives $68,806, the proposed new maximum rate. The majority are at $43,467.

LP-01 Pay scale restructure

The LP-01 national pay scale is the same for national and Toronto pay rates. The AJC did not

propose alignment. However, they are requesting that the pay scale extend by adding three

additional steps to the maximum, each step worth 4.7%. This would extend the pay scale from a

maximum of $98,936 to $113,550, a 14.8% extension. When combined with the economic

increases of this proposal, the maximum would increase 24.2%, which is nearly 10% higher than

the 15.4% gap the AJC alleges exists at this level. The population distribution along the pay

scales tilts toward the maximum, so 60.1% LP-01s would receive significant raises over the term

of this contract. 44

44

This is common across all occupational groups in the core public administration. The majority of pay scales are

lock-step progression, which guarantees employees receive annual pay increases. Assuming an LP-01 starts at step

one of their pay scale then they would attain the maximum pay rate within eight years since there are eight steps.

Performance and merit do not prohibit advancement in lock-step systems. Promotions from one level to the next



The LP-02 national pay scale does not match the Toronto pay scale. The AJC proposed

alignment first and then a restructure that would shift the pay scale by dropping the first three

steps and extending the maximum by adding three additional steps to the maximum, each step is

worth 4.7%. The national pay scale minimum would increase from $99,976 to $115,098, a

15.1% increase and the Toronto pay scale minimum would increase from $100,283 to $115,098,

a 14.8% increase. The LP-02 maximum would increase for national rates from $137,886 to

$182,192, a 32.1% increase and for Toronto from $158,743 to $182,192, a 14.8% increase.

When combined with the economic increases, these percentages increase to 43.0% for national

rates and 24.2% for Toronto rates. The AJC alleges there is a 30.3% gap at this level. Again,

their proposal seeks increases that move the majority LPs well ahead of their external market

comparators.

For national pay rates, 66.9% of the total LP-02 population in the March 2014 wage base

receiving the maximum rate would receive a 32.1% increase as a result of the restructure. For

Toronto rates, 6.1% of the total LP-02 population would receive a 14.8% increase as a result of

this restructure. Both would receive an additional 8.2% through economic increases.


The LP-03 pay scale restructure is the same as the LP-02 pay scale restructure. The national pay

scale minimum would increase from $121,156 to $145,988, a 20.5% increase and the Toronto

pay scale minimum would increase from $127,197 to $145,988, a 14.8% increase. The LP-03

maximum would increase for national rates from $152,433 to $201,345, a 32.1% increase and for

Toronto from $158,743 to $201,345, a 14.8% increase. When combined with the economic

increases, these percentages increase to 43.0% for national rates and 24.2% for Toronto rates.

The AJC alleges there is a 30.6% gap at this level.

generally require that the associated pay raise equal at least 4.0%; therefore, those promoted from the maximum pay

of their previous level normally end up on the third step of their new level, decreasing the time required to reach the

maximum.


For national pay rates, 78.7% of the total LP-03 population in the March 2014 wage base

receiving the maximum rate would receive a 32.1% increase as a result of the restructure. For

Toronto rates, 11.8% of the total LP-03 population would receive a 14.8% increase as a result of

this restructure. Both would receive an additional 8.2% through economic increases.

LP-04 and 05 Pay band extensions

The AJC proposed raising the national LP-04 pay band to the Toronto pay band. This would

increase the national minimum from $136,332 to $144,335, a 5.9% increase, and the maximum

from $173,177 to $188,186, an 8.7% increase. There is a single pay band for LP-05, so the

proposal does not include alignment. Next, the proposal recommends converting from in-range

progression based on performance to annual lock-step progression. The proposed pay scales

would be extended from their current maximums. For the LP-04, the national maximum would

increase by 26.0% and the Toronto maximum would increase by 16.0%. For the LP-05, the

maximum would increase by 18.0%. The only evidence the AJC provides for these wage

increases are inappropriate comparisons to Judge Advocate General (see table A23) and the

private sector.

For the LP-04, 78.5% of their March 2014 population were at their maximum rate. When

accounting for years of service at level, they would move to the new maximum rate of $218,211

over the term of this contract.

For the LP-05, 84.4% of their March 2014 population were at their maximum rate. When

accounting for years of service at level, they would move to the new maximum rate of $228,233

over the term of this contract.

A5.2 Summary of AJC Pay Proposal

The AJC’s proposal to raise national pay rates to Toronto pay rates, extend those rates, and then

apply 2.0% annual economic increases for four years imposes significant costs on the

Government of Canada. It is an extraordinary request in comparison to the wage increase trends

within the core public administration, and across the Canadian public and private sectors, both

within the period under review and historically. Tables A26 and A27 show that the annual

increases the AJC seeks would exceed the cumulative increases that 87% of the represented


population in the core public administration has settled on (83% when including the non-

represented population).

The first two components of this proposal equate to hiring 965 LPs, increasing to 1,262 with the

economic increases that are well above the pattern of 1.25% annually that are in agreements

covering 87% of the represented CPA.

Table A26: AJC Proposed Wage Increases for LPs at National Maximum Pay Rates

TBS-

National Pay harmonization, restructures, and 2.0% annual increases

Proposal 1 Current

Maximum

Proposed

Maximum

Cumulative

Increase

Average Annual

Increase

LP-01 $98,936 $122,910 24.2% 5.6%

LP-02 $137,886 $197,210 43.0% 9.4%

LP-03 $152,433 $217,942 43.0% 9.3%

LP-04 $173,177 $236,199 36.4% 8.1%

LP-05 $193,377 $247,047 27.8% 6.3%

Table A27: AJC Proposed Wage Increases for LPs at Toronto Maximum Pay Rates

TBS-

Toronto Pay harmonization, restructures, and 2.0% annual increases

Proposal 1 Current

Maximum

Proposed

Maximum

Cumulative

Increase

Average Annual

Increase

LP-01 $98,936 $122,910 24.2% 5.6%

LP-02 $158,743 $197,210 24.2% 5.6%

LP-03 $175,431 $217,942 24.2% 5.6%

LP-04 $188,168 $236,199 25.5% 5.8%

LP-05 $193,377 $247,047 27.8% 6.3%


Table A28: AJC Proposal 1: Costs

Proposal 1 2014 /

2015

2015 /

2016

2016 /

2017

2017 /

2018

2018 /

2019 and

ongoing

% of March

2014 Wage

Base

Economic (2.0%) $7.8M $16.8M $26.0M $35.4M $36.3M 8.2%

Restructure and

economic $106.7M $130.0M $141.5M $153.1M $154.3M 35.0%

Performance

Management Plan

(PMP) increase

$5.3M $6.5M $7.1M $7.7M $7.7M 1.8%

Total cost of union

proposal $112.0M $136.5M $148.6M $160.8M $162.0M 36.8%

A5.3 AJC Wage Proposal: Alternative pay proposal

The second proposal would offer restructures, but it would not include raising national pay rates

to Toronto pay rates.

The proposal is unique in that is suggests restructures in three of the four years under

negotiation. The following tables outline the extensions that the AJC is requesting.

Table A29: AJC Alternate National Pay Rate Increases

TBS-

National

Pay harmonization, restructures, and

2.0% annual increases

Alternate

Proposal

Current

Maximum Proposed Maximum

Cumulative

Increase

Average Annual

Increase

LP-01 $98,936 $128,688 30.1% 6.8%

LP-02 $137,886 $179,353 30.1% 6.8%

LP-03 $152,433 $189,372 24.2% 5.6%

LP-04 $173,177 $215,181 24.3% 5.6%

LP-05 $193,377 $240,281 24.3% 5.6%


Table A30: AJC Alternate Toronto Pay Rate Increases

TBS-

Toronto

Pay harmonization, restructures, and

2.0% annual increases

Alternate

Proposal

Current

Maximum Proposed Maximum

Cumulative

Increase

Average Annual

Increase

LP-01 $98,936 $128,688 30.1% 6.8%

LP-02 $158,743 $206,481 30.1% 6.8%

LP-03 $175,431 $217,942 24.2% 5.6%

LP-04 $188,168 $233,807 24.3% 5.6%

LP-05 $193,377 $240,281 24.3% 5.6%

Table A31: AJC Proposal 2: Costs

Proposal 2 2014 /

2015

2015 /

2016

2016 /

2017

2017 /

2018

2018 /

2019 and

ongoing

% of March

2014 Wage

Base

Economic (2.0%) $7.8M $16.8M $26.0M $35.4M $36.3M 8.2%

Restructure and

economic $72.1M $90.5M $101.1M $112.0M $113.1M 25.7%

Performance

Management Plan

(PMP) increase

$3.6M $4.5M $5.1M $5.6M $5.7M 1.3%

Total cost of union

proposal $75.7M $95.0M $106.2M $117.6M $118.8M 27.0%

This proposal aligns closer to the publicly-divulged salary demands that the AJC revealed in an

interview with iPolitics that was published on July 12, 2017 where they are cited as requesting

20.0% or higher increases, though the request tends to the on the higher side once factoring in

annual economic increases on top of the restructures. 45

The proposal exceeds the alleged gaps in the flawed S&A’ market analysis in the AJC briefing.

The LP-01 and LP-02 national rate maximum would increase 30.1% when including 2.0%

annual economic increases, well above the weighted average gap they provide of 15.4%. The

same holds for the LPs at levels three to five, which would increase 24.3% with 2.0% annual

economic increases on top of the restructures.

45

Katherine May, Contract talks with federal lawyers deadlocked, headed to conciliation, iPolitics.ca, July 12,

2017. http://ipolitics.ca/2017/07/12/contract-talks-with-federal-lawyers-deadlocked-headed-to-conciliation/

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/07/12/contract-talks-with-federal-lawyers-deadlocked-headed-to-conciliation/


A5.4 Summary of AJC Alternate pay proposal

The proposal is less generous that the AJC proposal outlined above. However, the increases are

still extraordinary, especially with the additional 8.2% cumulative increase from the 2.0%

average annual economic increases.

As outlined above, the population distribution for the LPs tilts toward their maximums at each

level. The same approach was used to calculate the ongoing cost of this restructure.

The alternate pay proposal removes the request to harmonize national and Toronto pay rates. It

maintains the request for multiple new steps per level and 2.0% annual economic increases. It

still carries a substantial financial burden for departments because it represents an estimated

27.0% increase in the LP wage bill. The additional steps equate to hiring an additional 628 LPs,

increasing to 925 with the economic increases.

A5.6 Employer’s Economic Proposal

As demonstrated throughout this brief, the Employer feels that it has come to fair and equitable

negotiated settlements with 19 of the 27 groups it employs. These settlements have been

supported by analysis of a group’s recruitment and retention metrics as well as internal and

external wage comparability. The LP group has similar to metrics to other professional groups

that have settled for pattern increase and a 1% adjustment in the third year. For ease of reference,

the costs of the Employer’s economic proposal are included in table 32 below.

Table A32: Employer Proposal: Costs

Employer Proposal 2014 /

2015

2015 /

2016

2016 /

2017

2017 /

2018

2018 /

2019

% of

March

2014

Wage

Base

Economic (1.25%) $4.9M $10.5M $16.1M $21.9M $22.4M 5.10%

Market adjustment (1.0%) in

2016/2017 and economic $4.9M $10.5M $20.2M $26.5M $27.1M 6.10%

Performance Management

Plan (PMP) increase $0.2M $0.5M $1.0M $1.3M $1.4M 0.30%

Total cost of Employer

proposal $5.1M $11.0M $21.3M $27.8M $28.4M 6.50%


ANNEX B

B1 CHANGES TO THE 2016 DELOITTE STUDY AND RESPONSE TO AJC

CONCERNS

1. The 2016 Deloitte survey does not include a match to LP-02.

Deloitte provided the Government of Ontario with job capsules and the LP job evaluation

standard. It also provided copies of LP-04 job descriptions that demonstrated that LPs at this

level have criminal prosecution and civil litigation responsibilities. Upon review, the

Government of Ontario determined that its CC1 matched the LP-01, the CC3 matched the LP-03,

and the CC4 matched the LP-04. The Government of Ontario did not provide a match to the

LP-02.

2. The 2012 study used a competitive threshold of +/-5% while the 2016 study used a

competitive threshold of +/-10%.

The 2012 study was inconsistent with the standard threshold that human-resources experts use.

The Government of Canada has received compensation studies from KornFerry Hay, Deloitte,

and Mercer. These firms normally recommend +/-10% to account for subjectivity and

uncertainty in job matching. Salopek & Associates uses the same threshold in its market analysis

on page 16.

3. The Deloitte studies do not use a weighted average.

As outlined in section 4.1, TBS requested that Deloitte prepare a weighted average to determine

National salaries. However, Deloitte declined countering that a straight average of the results

was methodologically more appropriate. To use a weighted average methodology in this case

would inappropriately determine that Federal lawyers (generally solicitors located in the

National Capital Region (Ottawa, ON, and Gatineau, QC)) are a “better-fit” match to the

Province of Ontario Crown Counsel (generally prosecutors located in the Toronto, ON, region)

simply based on Provincial location (while downplaying the Montreal, QC, market which is


geographically closer) and not take into consideration the National scope of the work performed

by Federal lawyers.

4. Why did Deloitte use March 2014 data rather than September 2013 data?

Deloitte used March 2014 data at the request of TBS because this period was used to form the

overall negotiating mandate for the core public administration. The differences in population and

salary are minimal.


APPENDICES

A CPA Signed Proposals

B Memorandum of Agreement on Employee Wellness

C Guidelines on Management Leave

D Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category Senior

Excluded Levels

E Information bulletin dated of December 16, 2013, Implementation of the new Law

Practitioner (LP) classification standard

F Letter to the Public Service Labour Relations Board on January 22, 2014 for the

amendment of the LA bargaining certificate.

G JUSnet article - April 2015

H Wage Comparability Study

submission of the treasury board to the …ajc-ajj.net/response_to_ajc_brief_2017.doc.pdf ·...

Documents