Please note, where there is nothing to report, no update will be provided.

8 February 2007:

I need your help.  NRC has provided the RCEA with a list of names of former AD Group members that they have been unable to contact. These former members are eligible for the pay equity settlement. The list, by province, is attached below. Please review the list and if you know any of these people, please contact them or their family and refer them to the Manager of Pay and Benefits of NRC at the address below. They will need to contact NRC.

Manager Pay and Benefits
NRC
1200 Montreal Rd, Bldg M-58
Room W-125
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0R6

Or by Fax:
c/o Manager, Pay and Benefits, 613-954-1471

Or via email to:
compensation@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

I thank you for your help.

Serge Croteau, President

List of names of former AD Group members

23 January 2007:

Pay Equity – The RCEA has been advised by NRC that:

Regarding the question of "taxability", the response we received from a Senior Programs Officer at CRA is that “the amount payable under 53(2)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is exempt from tax and is not reported on any information slip” and that “the amount in question is not taxable, it will be paid without deduction for tax and will not be reported on any information slip (i.e., T-4 or any other such slip).

January 2007:

Pay Equity Update

NRC has provided the RCEA with the following information:

As stated in the settlement, NRC's obligation is to pay all active employees by March 31, 2007. As for the terminated employees, we must receive the acknowledgement cards and NRC must pay by the later of March 31 2007 or 90 days following receipt of the cards. We are anticipating being able to start making the payments by the middle of February 2007 with the reception, verification and release of cheques by end of February, beginning of March 2007. Please note that this includes the active employees and the terminated ones for which we have received cards.

Number of terminated (SOS) accounts: 948 employees
Number of employees with no mailing address: 47
Number of packages sent to terminated employees: 901 (948 - 47)
Number of returned and completed acknowledgement cards to date: 402
Number of returned packages with wrong address: 204
Number of packages sent but not yet returned (floating): 295

If you know of anyone who has not yet sent their acknowledgement cards in, please encourage them to do so.

July 19, 2006:

PAY EQUITY SETTLEMENT

Seven years after filing a pay equity complaint on behalf of its AD Group, the Research Council Employees’ Association has reached a settlement with the National Research Council.  The details are listed below.   Current NRC employees who are eligible for payments will automatically receive them.  Former employees will need to contact NRC to ensure that payments are made.  Current RCEA members are encouraged to contact their former colleagues to make sure they are aware of the settlement.

DETAILS OF SETTLEMENT

1. The NRC will pay to all Eligible Employees (as defined below in paragraph 2) the maximum sum of $21,726.00, pro-rated in accordance with paragraph 3 herein.

2. An Eligible Employee is defined as an NRC employee classified as an AD, CR or ST during the period April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1999 (Retroactive Period) and in receipt of a salary, an allowance (maternity allowance, parental allowance), disability benefits or workers compensation benefits.

3. Entitlement to payment, to the maximum sum of $21,726.00 will be prorated based on the period of employment as an Eligible Employee (“Pay Equity Settlement”).

4. In the event that an Eligible Employee predeceases payment of his or her Pay Equity Settlement, then his or her Pay Equity Settlement shall be paid to his or her assigns, heirs or successors, as appropriate.

5. An employee who would otherwise be an Eligible Employee, will not be considered an Eligible Employee for any portion of the Retroactive Period during which he or she was on secondment to another (Non NRC) employer.

6. NRC’s payment to individual Eligible Employees of the Pay Equity Settlement will be structured as follows:

The parties agree that 80% of the Lost Wages Compensation shall be deemed to be wages for all purposes.

8. No additional calculations for acting pay, overtime, call-back, etc.will be made as this as been factored into the settlement amount.

9. Current NRC employees will receive their payments by March 31, 2007.  Please make sure that all your contact information is up to date.  If it is, there is no need to contact NRC regarding your payment.

10. For former NRC employees, (those who have resigned or retired), NRC will send a Notice of Settlement and an Acknowledgement card to the last known address by December 1, 2006.  These employees are required to return this Acknowledgement Card (which will tell NRC that the address and contact information is correct) by October 31, 2007.

11. Newspaper advertisements and web postings will also be used to ensure that all former employees are aware of the settlement.  While NRC will try to contact all former employees, it is also their responsibility to ensure that NRC has the current address and contact information. Eligible Employees who are not currently employed by NRC are required to provide written notification of their current mailing address by October 31, 2007.   The written information must be postmarked not later than   October 31, 2007 and must be sent to. 

    Manager Pay and Benefits
    NRC
    1200 Montreal Rd, Bldg M-58
    Room W-125
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0R6

    Or by Fax:
    c/o Manager Pay and benefits 613-954-1471

    Or via email to:

    compensation@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Current NRC employees are not required to send in this information.

12. NRC shall issue payment to Eligible Employees who have complied with the Notice requirements in paragraphs 10 or 11 above, by the later of March 31, 2007 or 90 days following the date the written notification or Acknowledgement Card is received by NRC.

13. Those Eligible Employees who are not currently employed by NRC and have not complied with paragraphs 10 or 11 above shall be deemed to no longer be Eligible Employees.

Tax Waiver Option for Retroactive Pay

In certain cases, the Income Tax Act allows lump-sum payments to be issued without tax withheld, or with a reduced amount of tax withheld.

It is recommended that you contact your pay and benefits advisor as soon as possible for more information about your options. You may be eligible for a tax waiver to transfer the Lost Wages portion of your settlement into an RRSP.  There is no need to apply for a tax waiver for the tax-free portion of your settlement.

You can also contact your nearest Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) office to ask for an authorization form letter.

THIS MUST BE DONE WELL IN ADVANCE of the receipt of your settlement cheque. CRA refers to four to six week’s minimum to process the request.

CONCLUSION

The RCEA believes this is a fair settlement.  While it does not go back to 1985 (the period covered by our complaint) it does provide a substantial payment to a large number of employees and former employees.  Members should also be aware that members of the CR and ST groups received, in 1990, a lump sum payment that was retroactive to 1985.
 
The NRC will calculate all payments.  The RCEA is not able to assist in the actual calculations of amounts.  We do suggest, however, that all employees and former employees verify their periods of employment so that when payment is made, they can be sure that the proper period has been covered.  Up to the deadline of October 31, 2007, we will be posting additional information as it becomes available.  We may also be calling on members to help us find former employees to ensure that everyone who is entitled to a payment gets it.

March 2006:

A case conference was held on March 10, 2006. Dates for the hearing process were established. The hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is now scheduled for January to April 2007. The RCEA, with our legal counsel, is in the process of identifying witnesses and preparing all necessary documentation. We are determined to make our case before the Tribunal.

January 2006:

The CHRC invited the parties to indicate whether they were interested in participating in a mediation process.  The RCEA indicated that it would participate in mediation, while the NRC declined.  As a result, the file has now officially been referred to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  A case conference will be held within the next few weeks.  The RCEA is in the process of confirming legal representation and preparing the case to be presented before the Tribunal.  Our legal counsel advises us that the Tribunal will likely be convened within the next 6 months.

November 2005:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to refer our complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal.  Our legal counsel is in the process of writing to the Commission to determine what this means,  what the timeframes look like, whether the Commission will provide legal counsel to the RCEA before the Tribunal and whether the Commission will be conducting a study.  Once we have answers to some or all of these questions, more information will be posted on the website.

October 2005:

The RCEA always ensures that it is up to date on all developments related to Pay Equity. All such developments, decisions and news worthy items are carefully examined to determine their applicability to our file. The RCEA is fully aware of the recent Canada Post decision. As always, when there is any news or developments to report with respect to the RCEA complaint, information will be posted on this site.

September 2005:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator has recommended that the complaint be referred to a Human Rights Tribunal. We have raised the issue of who will represent the RCEA and whether the CHRC will conduct an investigation prior to a Tribunal hearing. We are waiting for a response. We are hopeful that the CHRC will provide more assistance, but we are aware of their resource limitations and the RCEA is prepared to take some actions should the matter be referred to Tribunal without an investigation.

September 2004:

As reported in January 2004, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the file be referred to a Human Rights Tribunal. Both the RCEA and NRC objected to this, as this would have allowed the CHRC to wipe its hands of the matter and required both the union and the employer to argue a full case before the Tribunal. The issue with our pay equity complaint is that there is no study that deals with the situation going back to 1985. This is what we were relying on the CHRC to complete. To go before a CHRC tribunal without such a study would certainly mean that our complaint would fail. We have written to the CHRC and demanded that they fulfill their mandate and conduct a study. To date, the only response that we have received is a letter advising us that their Pay Equity Section is now comprised of one person, whose responsibility it is to deal with all the outstanding files. We have not heard from the CHRC since that letter.

The situation does not look good. We cannot argue for pay equity back to 1985 or at least 1990 without a study. We do not have the staff or financial resources to conduct such a study. (The consultants that NRC almost hired estimated the cost of such a study as close to $1 million.) We have to rely on the CHRC and they do not seem able or willing to carry out such a study.

We are in the process of consulting with legal counsel to determine if there is another approach that can be taken in this long running dispute. Further information will be posted as it becomes available.

22 October 2003:

No news to report at this time.

2 July 2003:

NO GOOD NEWS.

NRC and the RCEA are no longer going to conduct a joint pay equity study. NRC HAS DECIDED that it will not put out the money to do this, given their view that there would be NO GUARANTEE that the results would be accepted by either the Canadian Human Rights Commission or Treasury Board. Our response - when is there ever a guarantee that results will be accepted?

Where does this leave us now? We have had two recent meetings with the CHRC. They, all of a sudden, are under pressure to do something about their outstanding complaints. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has several roles. Like NRC, it is a government agency. It is also a Commission, which is made up of government appointees, who are charged with upholding the Canadian Human Rights Act. This “Commission” can be viewed as similar to the actual council of the NRC.

In pay equity cases, the CHRC investigates complaints. It then writes a report of its findings and makes a recommendation to the Commission of the CHRC as to whether the complaint could be upheld or should be denied. It can also recommend that there is enough in the complaint to warrant its referral to a Tribunal. If the Commission accepts this recommendation, it will order that a Tribunal be convened to hear the complaint. Conversely, the Commission can determine that there is nothing to a complaint and simply deny it. If a Tribunal is convened, the parties then have to make their case to the Tribunal. In the past, when this happened, when the CHRC had recommended that a file go to Tribunal, particularly in large pay equity files, the CHRC provided the legal representation. This is no longer the case, as the CHRC (as well as most Human Rights agencies across the country) has seen their funding and mandates drastically reduced.

The CHRC has indicated that they will now conduct an investigation of the complaint, as written. Our complaint, as written, states that there has been a pay inequity for the AD group (and its predecessor CR and ST groups) since 1985. The CHRC will now do an investigation, but not necessarily a full pay study, to determine if there is enough to recommend that the complaint be sent to a full CHRC Tribunal for a hearing. If they do recommend that it go to Tribunal, there is no guarantee that the CHRC will represent the RCEA at the hearings. In the past, where the CHRC has sent a matter to Tribunal, they have often acted as the representative of the complainant. Presently, in Canada, this is changing. The CHRC is redefining its role and will not necessarily represent all complainants.

If our case is referred to a Tribunal, we will have to try and convince the CHRC to represent us. If we are left to represent ourselves, we will have some problems. We will have to generate sufficient data to prove to the Tribunal that the pay inequity exists and how large it is. This may cost more than all the total reserves of the RCEA. We are hopeful, however, that this fact and the whole issue of systemic discrimination will convince the CHRC to, in fact, represent us.

We are in the process of reviewing all our files and forwarding relevant information to the CHRC. In our view, there might already be enough information and data in the files to support the contention of a pay inequity back to 1985-88.

We may be bloodied but we have not given up hope. We will be doing everything that we can to both prove our case and convince the CHRC to represent our interests. We have lost faith, however, in the NRC. We have been patient. We will now only be dealing with the CHRC and our own legal counsel. In our view, NRC has succumbed to Treasury Board pressure. They don’t want us to get good results. They don’t want to pay back to 1985. And Treasury Board certainly does not want to see that kind of result, given the fact that they are currently being challenged in the courts by the PSAC for some of the other separate employers. Once again Treasury Board and NRC are stonewalling the pay equity situation.

This is a matter that goes back to 1985. For whatever reason, the RCEA at that time did not file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is no point in second guessing that decision. What we have been trying to do, since 1999, is to rectify that situation. Clearly the time gap between 1985 and 1999 is proving to be a very large issue. We have explored, and will continue to explore, every possible avenue to remedy this situation.

March 2003:

Several meetings have been held with the consultant. It became apparent at these meetings that the issue of retroactivity of any pay inequity needed to be dealt with now rather than somewhere down the road. We have therefore been working on the development of a new methodology that will allow us to review jobs going back to 1985 in order to determine whether there was a pay inequity and, if so, how large it was. The need to structure the study around a 14 year period will undoubtedly add some time to the process, but will, we believe, save time in the long run and more importantly, provide us with more reliable and accurate data.

January 2003:

A contract to conduct the pay equity study has been signed with the Hay Consulting Group. The process will begin in February with a two-day training session for all participants. The RCEA has also engaged the services of a classification specialist to assist us during the pay equity study.

December 2002:

The contract with the consultant is being finalized. The RCEA is in the process of hiring its own consultant to represent the Association during the pay equity study. We have also identified several AD members who will serve as our representatives on the Working Group. We anticipate that the Steering Committee and the Working Group will begin their work early in the new year.

20 November 2002:

A meeting was held on Friday November 15th at noon at the M-50 auditorium to provide an update to members of the AD group on pay equity. The purpose of the meeting was to describe what will happen over the course of the next year and not to re-hash the past.

The meeting was taped so it could be put on our web site for the AD members in all the other parts of the country.

The RCEA President, Wayne Findlay, introduced Joan Van Den Bergh, Senior Labour Relations Officer of the RCEA and Richard Momy, Manager of Labour Relations at NRC. They gave the up-date and then fielded questions from the audience.

Opening Statement – Joan Van Den Bergh:

We’ve come here today to give you a little update on where things are going. I know people are very frustrated about how long this has taken and where things are. As you know, the complaint was filed in late 1999. It was subsequently updated in early 2000 and at that time we started dealing with the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission), thinking that they would undertake the study that was needed for Pay Equity in order to determine how much money people are owed. We have to determine the difference between male and female jobs, then the dollar value associated with that. To do that, we have to have a study done – a Pay Equity study. So from the beginning we’ve been working towards getting a study done.

At first we were dealing with CHRC and that was incredibly slow and subsequently they lost all their staff and we decided that we would hire a consultant to do the study with us. As you know, we put out a bid - a proposal for bids. We received two bids. They were evaluated in September and we have one company that was successful – the Hay Consultant Group. So, we are in the process now of – Richard Momy could probably talk a little more on this, on writing the contact with them. They’ve won the bid and we have to write down the deliverables and all these types of things that go in a contract and I am no expert on that. The RCEA is going to be paying for about 40% of the cost of the consultant study so it is definitely a joint study. We met with the Hay Group last week just to talk about what the next steps are once the contract is in place, and what we are going to have to do. They estimate it will take about a year to get the results of the study. What we have to do is first establish a Steering Committee, which will be a senior level committee, which will likely have DGs and one VP from NRC. The RCEA would also have a representative on that committee and so would the PE Group, which has also filed a complaint. This will be sort of a decision-making committee for high-level decisions.

It won’t be a working group – it will be a Steering Committee. Then we are going to have a working group, which will be as the name suggests – it will do most of the work. It has been estimated that this working group, over the course of the next 12 months will likely spend 50% to 70% of its time on the Pay Equity Study. The RCEA is likely going to hire somebody with a good pay equity background to be our person on that Committee. The PE’s will have someone there, and NRC will have a number of people, including several from their classification group. This will be the Committee that will actively work with the Hay Group in doing the study. The Hay Group is going to train everybody involved on how the Pay Equity Study needs to be done and then they are going to be advising us. A great deal of the work will come from our end, from the people here at NRC. Now the thing about Hay – they own a job evaluation plan called the Hay Plan and we are going to be using that plan to do the Job Evaluation Study. One of the first steps will be to review that plan and determine if it needs to be adjusted in any way in order to properly capture the work to be assessed of the jobs here. The next step would be to develop a questionnaire and administer it to members of the AD group as well as to the comparator groups, which for the ADs are TOs, CSs and some of the Operational sub-groups. In order to do this, people will have to be trained in how to fill out the questionnaire – a sort of “train the trainer”. People will have to go out and help people fill in the questionnaire; this step will take a bunch of time. Once the questionnaire is filled out, we are going to have to establish a Job Evaluations Committee. For that we estimate around 200-250 jobs, which will be a representative sample of the AD group, as well as the comparator groups. They estimate that once trained – and Hay will train us, they can do 5 or 6 jobs or questionnaires a day. So it is a time consuming process. People who volunteer to participate in these Committees will be freed up from their jobs. It won’t be outside of working hours and it won’t be in addition to your normal work. This is why the buy-in of NRC is extremely important and this is why we need senior people on the Steering Committee so that everyone understands that those who participate actively in the Study will need time to do it and it will become, over a period of time, their job. So down the road we are going to need people to volunteer to sit on these Job Evaluation Committees. If anyone is interested you can let us know.

Once the jobs have been evaluated, the Hay Group will do most of the analytical and statistical work and will plot the results of the job evaluations on a grid and determine where the male line is and where the female line is and what the gap is. This gap, between the two lines, will provide us with the results that we need. Hopefully it will show that there is, in fact, a wage gap. I should mention that we will have the CHRC sitting on the Steering Committee too so that we can avoid any problems at the end of the day with the CHRC. We want to know at each step of the way that what we are doing is being done in such a way that is not going to cause any problems. We want, at the end of the study, for the CHRC to say, “it’s a good study and your results are valid”. Once we have that, we go to Treasury Board or NRC goes to Treasury Board and tries to negotiate the money end. The period of time we are looking at for the study to cover is 1985 to present.

We are trying to get retroactivity to 1985 and determine what the wage gap was from 1985 to 1999. In 1999, in your last collective agreement, adjustments were made based on adjustment in the Public Service that brought the rates of pay close to par with CR and ST rates in the Public Service. Technically, as of 1999, there is no longer a Pay Equity issue so that is why we are looking at 1985-1999. As we put on the web site at one point, that is where we are going to have the big issue with Treasury Board - the whole retroactivity issue. We are prepared to do whatever it takes to get retroactive monies back to that date and NRC is certainly with us on this. I must say for NRC – this has truly been a joint process even though it has been slow and tedious and all these things. NRC has not fought us on anything. It has been different from other unions involved with pay equity, with different employers where the employer has fought them every step of the way and challenged everything they want to do. NRC has not done that. They have worked with us and we have worked with them. Our goal is to get results in a Study that will hold up and that we can go to Treasury Board with and that we can put before Treasury Board because they hold the purse strings and say you must give us the money.

We want to be able to say to Treasury Board: “Here are the results, you said do a study – we’ve done a study. Here are the results, now pay us.” So that’s it in a nutshell where things are going. Richard, do you want to add to that?

Richard Momy – NRC:

I just thought maybe to reinforce that Joan is right that certainly the President and Senior Management here at NRC very much want to have the issue resolved in some fashion. They have done a lot in the past to try to get it moving. It’s been difficult, it’s been a challenge at Treasury Board and everywhere else but it is a commitment. I can assure that the President, as early as last week reminded us that it has taken, as far as he is concerned, a long time and he is very concerned about that so we aim to have it moving and we aim to bring it to a close. Hopefully in the relative near future. Recognizing of course that there is a lot of work to be done, a lot of work that cannot be done without the input of employees and input from the AD community, comparative groups and employees. It will be a very time-consuming project with a lot of work.

Questions: (Summarized and edited to avoid repetition)

Q: What’s the bottom line – how long are we talking?

A: 12 months for the study – to get results – starting in January 2003. We don’t know how long once Treasury Board is involved – they either negotiate or we might have to go to court.

Q: What is NRC offering – have we been offered any money?

A: No dollar offers. NRC does not have the authority to offer money. There is nothing to base an offer on because the study has not yet been done.

Q: After the study results are presented to Treasury Board, can they still say No?

A: Yes.

Q: What is involved in being a volunteer on the working Group Committee?

A: Work on the Job Evaluation Committee. 3-4 months of your time. Sitting in a room with a group of people. Evaluating jobs using the questionnaires. The Hay Group will train you. Management will have to free you up.

Q: How many people will you need?

A: We don’t know yet.

Q: Was NRC not a part of the Public Service Survey back in the early 1980’s?

A: No, this has already been explained in detail on the web site.

Q: If Treasury Board still says no after the study is done – how long will it take us to get through the courts?

A: We don’t know.

Q: How much is the study costing?

A: At this time we do not have the exact cost or a reasonable estimate.

Q: Is Pay Equity money an issue?

A: Yes! NRC doesn’t have the money or the authority and there are many legal ramifications.

Q: If Dr. Carty retires and/or Mr. Findlay retires in two years will this study fall through the cracks?

A: No, both the rest of the RCEA Executive, as well as other NRC Senior Managers, are committed to this.

Q: How long is the time frame for the contact with Hay?

A: There is not time frame as such, but there are deliverables that have to be met.

16 October 2002:

Notice of Meeting:

Update on Pay Equity

Friday, 15 November 2002
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
NRC Auditorium, Building M-50
Montreal Road

Question and answer session on the progress of Pay Equity for the AD Group.

August 28, 2002:

While a large number of firms expressed interest in the RFP, only two firms submitted bids. We will soon begin the process of evaluating the proposals.

August 2002:

The Request for Proposals has been posted and a large number of firms have shown interest. They have until mid-August to submit their bids. NRC and the RCEA will begin to evaluate the bids at that time.

July 2002:

The Request for Proposals has been finalized and posted on the government contracting web site. It will remain on the site for 45 days. The RCEA and NRC will be reviewing submissions at the end of the 45-day period. A joint NRC/RCEA communiqué will be sent to all AD members shortly.

25 April 2002:

NRC has determined that it is necessary to go to a bidding process in order to select a consultant. A Request for Proposal (RFP) is being prepared. All submissions will be considered and the bid that is most in keeping with government contracting practices will be chosen.

March 2002:

The RCEA and NRC have generally agreed on which consultant to hire. NRC is in the process of examining contracting rules and will determine if it can enter into a contract with the selected consultant or if a bidding process is required, given the value of the contract. We are hopeful that no bidding will be required. IF that is the case, once the contract has been signed, we anticipate that the process will start moving again.

January 2002:

There seems to be some misunderstandings arising from the December update, particularly on the issue of retroactivity.

AT NO TIME HAS THE RCEA AGREED THAT RETROACTIVITY SHOULD ONLY BE CALCULATED BACK TO NOVEMBER 1998. WE HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED AND STILL MAINTAIN THAT ANY SETTLEMENT ON PAY EQUITY MUST GO BACK TO 1985.

The December update merely reported that it was Treasury Board that felt that retroactivity would only go back to 1998. It also stated that “We decided that the issue of retroactivity is a separate one, and we will deal with it if and when it comes up once we have pay results.” This clearly means that once a study is completed and, if at that time, Treasury Board refuses to fund a settlement back to 1985, we are prepared to take other action.

There is nothing to be gained now in arguing with Treasury Board about the retroactivity issue. The important thing now is to hire a consultant and get the pay equity study completed. To this end, we have interviewed three consulting firms. We will be checking references and we anticipate that a firm will be selected shortly. Two of the firms were of the view that a study would take less than one year. The composition of the RCEA Pay Equity Committee has not changed. No representatives have resigned.

We have attempted to keep all members adequately informed. The December update was quite lengthy and contained a great deal of information. The result of this update, however, has been quite negative. Many members seem not to have understood what was written in the update, and rather than call us and ask for clarification, have instead decided to send petitions and to question our integrity. This is very disheartening as we are doing everything that can be done to keep the process moving and to get satisfactory results for all AD members.

Finally, and for the last time, we will attempt to answer the question of why NRC employees are included as part of the Public Service for some things and not for others, such as pay equity. The only answer is that this is what the Government of Canada has decided to do. These are primarily political decisions. The Government of Canada has taken the view that the Public Service Pay Equity Complaint and settlement was made by one union on behalf, only, of its members in the Public Service. The Government of Canada received a lot of bad publicity when it settled that complaint. It apparently has decided to avoid additional negative press by refusing to extend the settlement to the employees of Separate Employers. This is not fair, this is not right, but this is the way it is. We cannot change this, but we can attempt to get around it by presenting our own pay equity results to Treasury Board. This is what we are doing and will continue to do until we have resolved the pay equity issue.

December 2001:

There have been a few new developments with our pay equity complaint. As you know, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which was investigating our complaint, no longer has the human resources to carry out the investigation. All their pay equity staff has either been reassigned or quit. As a result, the RCEA and NRC began to investigate the possibility of conducting a joint study with the assistance of a paid consultant. The RCEA was prepared to pay half the costs of such a joint study. One of our goals in this joint study was to prove that a pay inequity existed as of 1985 and to seek retroactive payments covering the period 1985 to 1999. The retroactive adjustment period would only cover these years because in 1999 the rates of pay for the AD group were adjusted to include the pay equity relativity adjustments awarded to the Public Service groups. This means that as of 1999, our rates of pay reflected the pay equity settlement that the PSAC negotiated for its members.

NRC recently met with Treasury Board, at which time the Board questioned the value of a joint study and indicated to NRC that it doesn’t think it should do the work of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They have also advised NRC that they will not provide funding for any results that go beyond one year prior to the date of the complaint. This means, given that our complaint was filed in November of 1999, any payments authorized by Treasury Board would only go back to November of 1998. Since as of May 1999 there is no real disparity in our rates of pay, any settlement that only goes back to the end of 1998 would have virtually no impact on our rates of pay.

NRC was concerned about these developments and so advised the RCEA. As a result of this, we met with our legal counsel to explore options. While legal action was discussed, it was determined that now was not the best time to pursue this. We also concluded that the best way to proceed would be to continue with a pay equity study. We decided that the issue of retroactivity is a separate one, and we will deal with it if and when it comes up once we have pay results. We also met with Dr. Carty who, despite Treasury Board’s view, reaffirmed the willingness of NRC to participate in a joint study.

NRC and the RCEA have already met with one consultant. We will be setting up meetings with at least two more firms prior to making a decision on which firm will conduct our study. Once a consultant firm has been selected, we are hopeful that the process will begin to move along at a faster pace. The RCEA will also be meeting with the Canadian Human Rights Commission next week to get their feedback.

We know that members are frustrated. There is nothing we can do to speed things up. Some members have asked whether we should be participating in the PSAC legal challenge. The answer to this is no. First of all, we have not been invited to participate. Secondly, the fact situation for those groups is different than our fact situation. And finally, there is no reason to believe that the legal process will move any more quickly than the study and complaint process that we are following. We believe that the route that the RCEA is following is the best one for its members. We are working hard towards achieving results for our members and we ask for your continued support.

October 2001:

With respect to Pay Equity, we have received a proposal from one consultant and are in the process of reviewing it. In order to ensure that the best possible proposal is in place, we are seeking other submissions from other consultants. Once those have been received, a decision will be made. Regardless of which consultant is selected, both the RCEA and its AD membership will have a great deal of work to do in the future. In order to facilitate the process, we must be prepared to participate and to do much of the analytical work. We hope that many members will be interested in working on the project down the road.

September 2001:

The RCEA and NRC recently met with the Canadian Human Rights Commission to discuss the hiring of a consultant to conduct the AD pay equity investigation. The CHRC has no objection to proceeding this way and, in fact, is encouraging it due to its continuing human resource problems. The RCEA and NRC will meet with the consultant on September 19 to discuss how he will proceed, how long it will take, and what the cost will be. In order to ensure that we have a say in how the consultant proceeds and how long the process will be, the RCEA will be contributing to the cost of the investigation.

Summer/August 2001:

A meeting with the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been scheduled for the end of August to review where we are at with respect to the AD Pay Equity Complaint. We are looking at the possibility of having a consultant do the investigation, since the CHRC does not seem able to do it in a timely manner. No final decisions have yet been made.

June 2001:

The upheaval at the Canadian Human Rights Commission has finally affected the AD pay equity complaint. Our investigator has resigned; as a result our June meeting has been postponed. We are waiting for the appointment of a new investigator. On another front, both NRC and the RCEA are exploring the possibility of engaging a consultant to conduct the study (with the support of the CHRC). We have had preliminary talks with NRC and will be scheduling a joint meeting with the CHRC. We will go this route only if it will speed the process up.

May 2001:

Recently, we published a timetable for the AD Pay Equity Study. Although many members were surprised by the length of time required for the study, most were pleased to have an idea as to how long it would take. Another meeting is scheduled with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for June 15.

April 2001:

The Pay Equity Committee met on March 30 and again on April 24. The initial oral interview questionnaire has been finalized and letters to members who will be interviewed should go out within the next few weeks.

April 25, 2001:

Following discussions with the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the meeting on April 23, 2001, a tentative schedule regarding the ongoing investigation was agreed upon. The CHRC explained, in some detail, the various steps that must be undertaken to complete the investigation. The process is extremely time consuming and labour intensive. Many members will undoubtedly be surprised by the tentative schedule. We certainly were. On the other hand, we want to see a complete and comprehensive investigation done, one that will both provide us with the results we seek and will stand up to scrutiny by the CHRC and the Treasury Board (which must ultimately provide the funds to pay the outstanding amounts). The schedule is posted for information purposes only. It is tentative and subject to change. We do anticipate, however, that in the absence of events that will seriously impact on it, the schedule will be adhered to.

STEPS - ANTICIPATED COMPLETION

August 31, 2001: Preliminary questionnaires and interviews completed.

May 1, 2002: Develop and finalize Job Evaluation Plan (JEP) and questionnaire (most critical step in entire process). Determine sample size.

August 31, 2002: Pilot Test questionnaire and JEP Evaluate test. Modify JEP - finalize JEP and questionnaire.

December 31, 2002: Administer questionnaire. Collection of job information.

June 30, 2003: Evaluate questionnaires. Rate jobs.

September 30, 2003: Completion of Wage Gap Analysis.

October 1, 2003: Commencement of negotiations. re: settlement.

March 2001:

On the pay equity front, we met last week with the Human Rights Commission and another meeting is scheduled for the end of the month. At that time, members of the TO group will be identified for interviews. The Human Rights Commission intends to begin interviewing members of the AD, OP, CS and TO groups in April. The purpose of these interviews is to provide the CHRC with a full understanding of the nature of work performed by these groups, which will then enable it to begin the preparation of a job evaluation plan. We know that members are frustrated by the amount of time that this is taking. Please rest assured that things are progressing. The complaint investigation process is very complex and labour intensive. No party to the complaint is purposely delaying the process.

February 2001:

The Pay Equity Committee met on February 8, 2001 and another meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2001. The January meeting was cancelled due to the illness of the investigator. The planned communiqué was delayed as a result of the PE Group withdrawing from the Canadian Human Rights process. The communiqué has now been amended to reflect their withdrawal and should be distributed shortly. The Committee is now identifying jobs and employees who will be interviewed in order to provide the investigator with a full understanding of the range of work done at NRC by AD, TO, CS and OP group members. Those whose positions are identified will be notified by NRC and will be given time to attend the interviews.

January 2001:

The AD Pay Equity Study is proceeding, albeit very slowly. The Committee will be meeting again on January 11 and a joint communiqué should be released shortly. As you all know, this also is a very long and slow moving process. The steps necessary to complete a thorough pay equity study are lengthy and complex. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has a methodology that it follows in these types of complaints. In order to get a result that all parties can live with, we must follow this methodology.