Unions protest pension changes
Northern Employee Benefits Services CEO says opponents lack understanding of bill
Elaine Anselmi
Northern News Services
Published Monday, October 20, 2014
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
With signs raised in the air and nearly 50 voices chanting "shame," members and supporters of public service labour organizations across the territory demonstrated their opposition to the proposed changes to the pension plan they rely on late last week.
Jack Bourassa, right, regional executive vice-president for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, spoke to union members and supporters at a rally against Bill 12 outside the legislative assembly in Yellowknife. - Elaine Anselmi/NNSL photo |
"I'm old, I'm looking forward to my pension," joked Bruce Gudeit, second vice-president for Local 2, Union of Northern Workers.
His jovial tone quickly changed to the serious matter that had brought people from all around the territory to the capital.
"They haven't done it yet, but if they get away with things like this, where does it end?"
Representatives from the Union of Northern Workers (UNW), Northwest Territories Teachers' Association, Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and Northern Territories Federation of Labour (NTFL) voiced their concerns about Bill 12, the Northern Employee Benefit Services (NEBS) Pension Plan Act outside the legislative assembly.
"It's an initiative that has been presented as a shared risk-reward kind of pension plan," said Jack Bourassa, regional executive vice-president, North for PSAC. "The misnomer of this is that there's nothing shared about it: the rewards are all employer-based and risks are all beneficiary-based."
The demonstration is not the first backlash the NEBS has received over Bill 12.
A public consultation on the proposed changes brought opposition earlier this fall, including union representatives who voiced concerns that the bill negatively affects the rights of their members.
Northern Employee Benefits Services CEO Shawn Maley responded to the unions' comments, saying that they did not reflect the proposed changes within the bill.
"I was surprised at the lack of understanding of the bill since it was a public document since March," Maley said in early October. "We have protected the pension promise for those in the plan."
Despite this, union leaders said there was a major lack of communication about the bill, as well as a lack of representation of current and retired employees on the NEBS board that regulates the plan.
"Probably our largest objection is that there was no meaningful consultation either with beneficiaries to the plan, the bargaining agents that represent the workers under this plan, or the non-unionized workers under this plan. No one was consulted that this plan actually affects," said Mary Lou Cherwaty, NTFL president.
"It's unconscionable to me that a government can draft legislation without consulting with the people who it affects."
Maley said representation was not a concern that has previously been brought forward, and suggested NEBS initiate an "open door policy" to discuss these matters.
Cherwaty said there was little time for conversation, as the bill itself came as a surprise to the unions.
"Unfortunately, when this bill went through first and second readings we were not advised, and we did not see it in the media about any kind of consultation and we were lucky that the Canadian Labour Congress noticed this happening and got ahold of us to let us know," said Cherwaty.
"This bill could have gone to third reading and we would not have known, and that is shameful."
One sticking point for unions was vague language used in the bill and lack of definition for key components.
"The core benefits and ancillary benefits are not defined, so they can choose what an ancillary benefit is and apply it retroactively," said Todd Parsons, UNW president.
"For example: if you give a cost of living increase of two per cent in each of 10 years, that would be a 20 per cent increase; 10 years out, if the plan would be a concern for administrators, they could retroactively take back that 20 per cent because it would be an ancillary benefit by their definition."
Noting another concern for unions was the transfer of power to the finance minister.
Should administrators be called into question, Parsons said these vague definitions offer further opportunity for interpretation.
"We don't want to see a minster or plan administrator with the ability to change the plan in an ad hoc manner," said Parsons.
Bill 12 would give the NEBS the operating framework it has lacked since the organization took over as administrator of the pension plan in 1999.
Maley said this sort of legal framework has been a long-standing interest - something union leaders did not dispute.
"We agree as a labour movement that the pension plan needs a legal framework, but this bill is not it," said Cherwaty.
- with files from Shane Magee
