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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 6
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 7
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 8
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 9
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
Agreed to on December
20
19 Other leave with
or without pay
Clause 19.13
Leave With Pay for Family-Related
Responsibilities
Agreed to on December
20
21 Leave general Clause 21.06
Added language under paragraph
21.06 a) for reasons other than illness
Agreed to on December
20
36 No Discrimination Clause 36.01
Added language gender identity and
gender expression,
Agreed to on December
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,
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 10
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 11
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 12
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 13
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 14
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 15
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 16
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 17
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 18
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%
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 19
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/
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 20
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 21
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 22
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 23
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 24
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 25
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
Positive (%) Positive (%)
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 Average 67 68 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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 26
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,
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 27
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 28
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 29
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 30
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 31
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 32
Article 13 Hours of Work
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 33
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.
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 34
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.
Article 13 Hours of Work
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 35
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:
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 36
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 37
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 38
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
- Effective May 10, 2015: 1.25 % salary increase
- Effective May 10, 2016: 1.25 % salary increase
- Effective May 10, 2017: 1.25 % salary increase
The Employer also proposes a wage adjustment of 1% effective May 10, 2016, prior to the
economic increase.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 39
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 40
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;
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 41
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 42
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 43
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 44
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
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.
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%).
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 45
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 46
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 47
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%
Unable to assess - 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%
Unable to assess - 0%
On April 1, 2012 and October 1, 2012 – LA-
1:
Exceeds - 7%
Fully Meets - 4.6%
Unsatisfactory - 0%
Unable to assess - 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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 48
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 49
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 50
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 51
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 52
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 53
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
administered according to the plan, based
upon each employee's performance review
and appraisal report;
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 54
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 55
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 56
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 57
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 58
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)
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 59
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 60
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 61
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 62
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 63
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 64
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)
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 65
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 66
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 67
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 68
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 69
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
Legal Counsel $101,439
Other Public Sector Employers $111,279
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa $111,279
Legal Counsel $107,847
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 70
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 71
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 72
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 73
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 74
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 75
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
FI02 FI (Financial Mgmt.) 1635 $85,085.00 453
FI03 FI (Financial Mgmt.) 1437 $103,333.00 500
FI04 FI (Financial Mgmt.) 669 $116,712.00 703
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 76
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 77
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 78
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 79
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
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 80
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
Positive (%) Positive (%)
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
LP Average 56 62 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
Positive (%) Positive (%)
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
LP Average 55 63 63 66
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 81
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
Positive (%) Positive (%)
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 Average 67 68 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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 82
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 83
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)
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 84
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 85
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 86
(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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 87
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 88
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
http://ajc-ajj.net/news/article/102/AJC-and-Treasury-Board-Reach-Tentative-Agreement/
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 89
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 90
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 91
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 92
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 93
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 94
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 95
LP-02 Pay scale restructure
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.
LP-03 Pay scale restructure
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 96
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 97
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%
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 98
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%
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 99
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/
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 100
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%
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 101
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
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 102
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.
LP Group Binding Conciliation Board 103
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