In a pair of recent decisions, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board confirmed the broad and purposive approach to the statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment during collective bargaining. In Public Service Alliance of Canada v Treasury Board (Correctional Service Canada) and Public Service Alliance of Canada v Canada Revenue Agency, the Board found that the employer had violated the freeze by altering terms and conditions of employment without the union’s consent.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, like labour law in most jurisdictions, contains a prohibition on altering the terms and conditions of employment while a union and employer are engaged in collective bargaining. The provision states that, unless the parties otherwise agree, “each term and condition of employment applicable to the employees in the bargaining unit to which the notice relates that may be included in a collective agreement, and that is in force on the day on which the notice is given, is continued in force and must be observed by the employer, the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit and the employees in the bargaining unit” until either a collective agreement is reached or a strike could be commenced. This is referred to as a “freeze” on terms and conditions of employment. The purpose of the statutory freeze is to maintain the status quo, and provide stability during the collective bargaining process.
In the Correctional Service Canada case, the Union argued that the employer had violated the freeze by reducing the hours of work of full-time term employees to four days per week, contrary to its longstanding practice. The Board agreed, finding that there was “no evidence that the respondent had made any reductions to the hours of work of the affected employees before the freeze period”, and therefore there was an established pattern of full-time employment for term employees, which created a reasonable expectation that hours would not be reduced during the freeze period.
In the Canada Revenue Agency case, the Union argued that the employer violated the freeze by eliminating the ability of employees to select variable and flexible work hours commencing before 8:00 a.m. The Board agreed, holding: “It was demonstrated that before September 2014, employees had been able to request flexible and super-compressed work schedules for years and that their requests had been approved. Thus, a pattern had been established. Once notice to bargain was given, it was reasonable for the employees to expect that it would continue.”
Both decisions endorse the “business as before” approach to statutory freeze complaints, which requires consideration of the entire pattern of the employment relationship prior to the freeze, in order to determine whether there was a violation. The Board rejected the narrower approach advocated by the employer in both cases, and also rejected the claim that the employer retained discretion to modify hours of work pursuant to legislation. As the Board stated in Canada Revenue Agency, to accept that argument “would render the protection conferred under the statutory freeze provision meaningless and it could lead to an absurd interpretation of the Act.”
The Public Service Alliance of Canada was represented in both cases by Amanda Montague-Reinholdt of RavenLaw.