Le rôle de la recherche dans la négociation collective centralisée

Après quelques commentaires sur le rôle de la recherche en négociation collective, l'auteur examine le contexte des négociations collectives au sein duquel fonctionne le Bureau de recherches sur les traitementsINTRODUCTION : GENERAL OBSERVATIONSThe Function of ResearchThis article might be started by offering some thoughts of a general nature, since its topic rests on a fundamental premise which is that independent research is a useful function in collective bargaining.First, while recognizing that the fact that a collective bargaining system is centralized or decentralized, can have definite implications for specific research objectives, it could be questioned that the very function of research in collective bargaining has to change fundamentally because of the changing context In which it is performed. Research is not only a servicing function, it is also a creative function. For instance, if the structure of collective bargaining can have an impact on the kinds of research that are to be conducted, it is also possible that a change in the structure of collective bargaining towards a higher degree of centralization or vice-versa, can be the result of careful research assessment.Centralization and Decentralization in Collective BargainingSecondly, it is submitted here that the concepts of "centralization" and of "decentralization" in collective bargaining must be approached in a realistic and flexible manner.For example, there may be cases within a centralized structure, where the bargaining process does not appear to be geared to the provision of sufficient attention to local factors ; including local market pressures and forces. An illustration of this is where the centralization of the bargaining system is such that the collective agreement may cease to be the document from which reliable wage and salary information can be extracted for the simple reason that the rates actually paid are often above the centrally negotiated rates, which because of the very structure of the collective bargaining process cannot reflect regional or local market forces. As it is known, such situations have developed in certain contexts outside North-America. On the other hand, and returning to our own setting, more centralized bargaining, may produce master agreements that apply to the total of the bargaining unit and are supplemented by additional documents applying to local establishments, thereby providing attention to local factors. These observations are made for the simple purpose of urging somewhat of a balanced approach to the very concepts of "centralization" and "decentralization".As a final comment on the desirability of a balanced approach to the concepts of "centralization" or "decentralization" in collective bargaining, the following quotation from a paper delivered by Mr. Robert Sauvé to the 1970 McGill Industrial Relations Conference may be of relevance here :"In my opinion, the most important phenomenon is the ageing or obsolescence of the collective agreement. The necessity of negotiating working conditions in a context that extends beyond the enterprise is already being felt. We know that certain employer-employee agreements are bound to involve entire sectors of activity and that they have a part to plan in the pursuit on the economic and social aims of the collectivity. However, this does not mean that the collective agreement involving one or more enterprises in particular is about to disappear completely. On the contrary, indeed. Experience in foreign countries is increasingly proving to us that certain problems of the workers must be discussed within a context limited exclusively to the enterprise concerned. The recent agitation in Sweden is an outstanding reminder of the obligation to remain close to the worker and to dispell the many delusions that employers and certain specialists might have... On the other hand, many working conditions must be in harmony with the economic policies and the circumstances of a given sector of activity. Therefore, the happy medium would consist in having negotiations carried out on various levels and according to methods of proceeding corresponding to the very nature of the problems discussed. More and more, we shall have, at our disposal, legal structures adapted to the various types of negociations as well as to the particular conditions prevailing in each of the large fields of professional activity". (Translation) iThe Reputation of the Role of Research in Collective BargainingA third general thought would be on the reputation of the role of research in collective bargaining. We have on several occasions, heard industrial relations practitioners, including negociators from both sides, who commend wide respect in view of their proven record of success and skill, question the use of statistical data and other information at the bargaining table, or at conciliation hearings. The accuracy of such statements cannot be questioned in view of the fact that in some specific situations, research information cannot always provide or strengthen the basis for agreement.What might be feared is the possible emergence, as a result of these statements related to specific events, of a widely-held negative approach to the role of research in collective bargaining and labour relations. Our own experience (for what is worth), and we are sure the experience of many colleagues engaged in independent labour relations research simply do not support such a negative view.Our approach to the role of research should be balanced and realistic.To perhaps put it in modest or minimal terms, we feel that even if statistics and other information that are placed on the bargaining table are not to be used as material to be eventually incorporated in the terms of settlement, they might very well help the parties in certain situations and contexts to have a clearer notion of what they do not wish to obtain or to settle for, and thereby help the parties, through a needed process of elimination, to gain a better notion of what they in fact would be prepared to accept.We clearly recall a case of potentially major and even serious proportions where researched information provided was not specifically incorporated in the settlement that was arrived at, but in addition to providing useful information helped one of the parties in gaining a clearer notion of what they would not wish to settle for, and at the same time helped the two parties to find a common ground for agreement. Not to mention cases where researched information submitted to the parties can just contain the elements of accomodations or solutions the parties were looking for, without having perhaps been able, and for possible very good reasons, to initially have a very explicit notion of what they actually wanted.In relation to this comment, we are tempted to add, incidentally, that a labour relations research officer should never feel discouraged if a settlement or a collective agreement in relation to which he has worked, does not show any sign that some of his analyses or interpretations have been incorporated, for his findings may have been highly useful as an indispensable stepping stone to the final compromise.THE PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ENVIRONMENTAgainst the background of these general thoughts, the collective bargaining environment within the Pay Research Bureau functions, might be discussed.Collective Agreement CoverageAs it was reported by the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Finkelman, at the Convention of the Public Service Alliance in Toronto, in January, 1970 :"In a period of a little less than three years since the Public Service Staff Relations Act came into force, bargaining agents have been certified for all but at most a few thousand employees in a Public Service that numbers, I believe, some 215,000 ... that is, pretty close to the full 100%. On the other hand, the Department of Labour reports that, as of January 1, 1967, trade unions represented about 32% of non-agricultural paid workers in Canada and about 26% of the overall labour force. The percentage has not changed more than fractionally in the last two years"."It is obvious that, in so far as the growth of employee organization is affected by management opposition, such opposition in the Public Service, if it did exist, was effectively curbed by public policy. Indeed, if additional proof were required of this conclusion, it can be provided by reference to the extent of organization among what are commonly referred to as white-collar workers and professionals, an area where, even apart from the reluctance of some of such employees to join unions, a great degree of employer opposition to unionization is likely to be encountered today. In the Federal Public Service, such employees are now almost 100% organized. In employment that does not come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, only about 15% of office employees in Canada as a whole are covered by collective agreements. To make another comparison if one excludes the Federal Public Service only about 25% of employees in public administration in Canada enjoy the fruits of collective bargaining. (Preliminary figures released by Surveys Division, Economies and Research Branch, Canada Department of Labour)"2.In addition to this significant comment, it might be observed that we have at the federal level an almost totally organized and predominantly white collar segment including a number of professional employees who in the private sector are only rarely organized. We also have at the federal level a great variety of occupations functioning almost side by side under collective agreement.Perhaps this last comment could be expressed in more specific terms and a quotation from a presentation by T.J. Wilkins might here be helpful :"In all, close a quarter million employees come under the umbrella of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They include professional employees, supervisory employees, office workers in a wide variety of occupations — Furthermore, a great variety of specialized occupations are represented in the total body of federal employees who are now entitled to the full rights of the collective bargaining legislation for the first time in history. They include occupations like scientists, engineers, teachers, foreign service officers, air traffic controllers, as well as the more conventional clerical and administrative occupations. Coverage of these many varied occupations provides a fertile ground for precedent-setting collective bargaining decisions, the impact of which may well extend beyond the context of the Public Service" 3.Occupational DiversityCommenting on this last quotation one can, it is felt, accurately state that in the case of the Federal Public Service, collective bargaining for the most part is not only centralized but that it is diversified as well in terms of the number of occupations and functions that it covers. This diversity can be considered as adding to the significance of our collective bargaining environment. Indeed, in the context of the dynamics of collective bargaining, one can safely speculate that collective agreements are bound to influence each other. Discussing in hypothetical but not unrealistic terms, it can be stated that it is not unlikely that if in the private sector, what has for instance been negotiated on the problem of safety in construction might be found to be useful with regard to a problem of technological change in textile or vice-versa, it is not necessarily impossible that within the Public Service what has been negotiated for engineers for example can be found to be useful for teachers, clerks or computer specialists, or vice-versa. What might usefully be explored here is the impact that the closeness of Public Service collective agreements can have on the transferability of provisions and even experience, from one occupational stream to another 4.Potential Impact of Public Service Bargaining in Other SectorsIf one can recognized these internal dynamics (in need of research of course) of the collective bargaining process in the Public Service, one has also to recognize the potential impact of that collective bargaining process on the non-public service sector. In this respect, the most recent Annual Report released by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, contained the following comment :"It is beyond doubt that the establishment of a collective bargaining system in a public service context is a development of major significance since some of the key environmental factors and institutional goals that have an impact on collective bargaining and on the nature of the collective agreements reached in the public service are clearly distinct from those that condition collective bargaining and collective agreements in the private sector. In addition to the distinctive characteristics of the public service environment, the very newness of collective bargaining in the federal public service is also a factor that can lead to the well-founded expectation that some of the agreements that are and will be arrived at by the parties may have preceding setting value and may therefore have a marked impact on the nature of some of the agreements subsequently reached. That this precedent setting value might, in some cases, extend to collective bargaining in the private sector could well turn out to be over a period of time and increasingly verifiable hypothesis" 5.Regarding specifically the role of research and information in collective bargaining, there is another distinctive characteristic of the Public Service environment which could be briefly discussed, in relation to the private sector environment.The Public Service Environment and the Role of ResearchIt is realistic to assume that an employer in the private sector may not, for very good reasons (one of them being the maintenance of the competitive position of his firm), wish to convey in detail to other employers (particularly his competitors) the reasons why some of the provisions he has negotiated have proven to be very successful in terms of his employees' morale as well as in terms of the general utilisation of his work force. That reluctance in exchanging information with other employers is, in some cases, to be related to the competitive nature of the system within which private employers generally operate.It is submitted her that perhaps among other factors, the obviously lesser importance of inner economic competitiveness within the Public Service would likely make collective bargaining information more easily communicable from one bargaining unit to another. In such a context, it can be suggested that the role of research could be made easier and, as a result, research could become all the more helpful to the process of collective bargaining.A further point might be suggested.Within reasonable limits, studies of the collective bargaining process prepared, as it has been suggested, in the perhaps more fluid informational context in the Public Service could provide findings that would be of practical interest to employers and unions in outside sectors where the results of collective bargaining research might perhaps not lend themselves to wide circulation. The suggestion just made is of course very tentative, and, as such, open for comments.THE ROLE OF THE PAY RESEARCH BUREAUWithin our Public Service collective bargaining environment, the Pay Research Bureau plans an unquestionably important role. For readers who are interested in a factual and detailed account of the evolving function of the Pay Research Bureau over the year reference is made to the article by T.J. Wilkins on The Pay Research Bureau, published in the Civil Service Review of September, 1967, and to the dissertation by Robert Giroux, of the University of Ottawa, on Pay Determination in the Canadian Public Service. Finally, the present role of the Pay Research Bureau has been recently discussed by K. Scobie in a paper entitled, The Role and Function of the Pay Research Bureau.The Evolving Functions of the Pay Research BureauAlthough reference has just been made to the article by T.J. Wilkins on the Pay Research Bureau, it might be appropriate to submit here parts of some of the perhaps more significant paragraphs of that presentation."One of the tenets of the pay policy of the Canadian Public Service is that rates of pay and other terms and conditions of employment within the Service should be generally in line with those prevailing for comparable work outside the Public Service. The task of following this policy has become increasingly difficult in times of rapid changes in rates of pay and has resulted in more emphasis on pay research as a separate and important function. Essentially, the pay research process involves compiling factual data on compensation and other conditions of employment"."In September, 1957, the Pay Research Bureau was created to provide objective information on pay, employee benefits and working conditions both outside and within the Public Service. It was to do this at appropriate intervals in time later coincided with key dates in the biennial cyclical pay review policy of the Government, and as well on a trend basis where possible. It was to provide this information to the principal staff associations as well as to the various government agencies concerned with pay determination. An intrinsic part of the pay research techniques developed by the Bureau was that of job matching, meaning that thepay data collected were related to jobs which were similar in duties and responsibilities.In contrast to the practice prevailing even now in industry and other governments in Canada, the Pay Research Bureau was divorced from the pay determination process in order to enhance the objectivity of the Bureau's findings and its operational independence. This point is often misunderstood and cannot be overemphasized. The Bureau provides factual, objective and impartial information ; it does not actually set rates of pay or recommend changes in existing rates. Whether or not compensation for the Public Service is adjusted when differences with private employers are demonstrated by Pay Research Bureau data is a matter for employer and employee representatives to resolve at the bargaining table"."In March, 1967, with the promulgation of the collective bargaining legislation, the Government provided for the continuation of an independent Pay Research Bureau under the aegis of the newly-established Public Service Staff Relations Board.The transfer of the Pay Research Bureau from the administrative jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to that of the Public Service Staff Relations Board was a move intended to enhance even more the ability of the Bureau to conduct its operations impartially and in an atmosphere of independence. In the collective bargaining era, the Bureau is clearly required to serve the needs of the parties to bargaining to the extent that its resources permit and to make its findings available both to the employer and to the certified bargaining agent concerned. In general, the Director has greater authority to establish appropriate operating polices and practices, to determine and modify a basic program of studies, and to respond to ad hoc requests. There is, however, an overriding requirement for regular consultation with employer representatives and certified bargaining agents to ensure that their requirements are reflected in the Bureau's program within the limits of its resources"."Essentially, the Bureau is requesting management in a great many organizations throughout the country to provide data about salaries and wages, working conditions, pay structures and classification plans. This information is often given to the Pay Research Bureau and to no other survey organizations. It is furnished on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence and that the input of individual companies will in no way be revealed in the final reports of the Pay Research Bureau. It is furnished also on the understanding that these reports, even though they represent a distillation of data from many organizations, are distributed on a confidential basis and used in a highly responsible manner. The trust of individual companies is an important commodity without which the Bureau could not obtain the co-operation which is essential if it is to provide the comparative data needed by the parties to bargaining" 6.The Advisory Committee on Pay ResearchIn this new context of collective bargaining in the Public Service, the continuing and important role of theAdvisory Committee on Pay Research of the Pay Research Bureau, should certainly be emphasized. This Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. George E. Gauthier, Vice-Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, comprises representatives of the Employers and of the Staff Associations, and its principal function is to advice on the scope, priority and other aspects of the Bureau's work, in preparation for collective bargaining. There is no doubt that this Committee makes an extremely valuable contribution towards the development of an informed and factual climate within which collective bargaining can function constructively. In the longer perspective, such Committee may well represent an experiment of significance in the field of employer-employee consultations for the development of relevant and useful information, and it may therefore constitute as part of the Pay Research Bureau total fact-finding effort, a development of significance in the field of labour relations in Canada.The independent character of the Pay Research Bureau can be illustrated by the balanced consultative mechanisme that has just been described and also by the res