A New Labour Relations Regime for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Contents

Executive summary

Following a Supreme Court of Canada decision in , the labour relations regime covering the regular members of the RCMP needs to be changed, at the latest on . This would normally require an Act of Parliament.

Before introducing legislation, the government has launched a consultation process to obtain the views of the members on some of the options available to them. The consultation occurred during the summer of 2015. It consisted of a survey, town hall sessions along with videoconferences and teleconferences.

More than 9,000 members completed the survey. More than 650 people participated in the town hall sessions.

Members were very clear in expressing the direction they would like to see the Government take. They would like a regime designed specifically for the RCMP. They would like to be represented by a union who only represents the RCMP. They would prefer a single national bargaining unit. They fear any arrangement that would link them with the other parts of the public service. As such they prefer a new legislation. Differentiation from the public service is where the consensus is the strongest.

During the consultation process, one thing became clear. Their desired model is to have their wages and benefits driven by police services arbitration decisions as opposed to dragged by broad public service and fiscal considerations.

Many members expressed frustrations with the amount of time it takes to implement the Supreme Court decision. They view negatively the role played by management.

Introduction

Launch of Consultations with Regular Members on Proposed Labour Relations Framework

“As you are aware, on , the Supreme Court of Canada found that parts of the current RCMP labour relations regime are unconstitutional. As a result, the Government of Canada will introduce legislation to create a new labour relations framework. This framework will address key issues cited by the Supreme Court, including choice of independent representation by members. Equally important, it will recognize the distinct needs and characteristics of Canada’s national police force.

Regular members are invited to provide input on the development of the new labour relations framework. You can help shape the legislation and contribute to the success of the new labour relations framework.

The Government will undertake consultations with regular members through both an online confidential and anonymous survey and regional town hall meetings. The consultations will be led by Mr. Alain Jolicoeur. The survey will be launched this afternoon, with the town hall meetings to take place shortly thereafter. I sincerely hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to be heard, as the framework will have an important impact on your future and the future of the RCMP.

To help you prepare, the RCMP is updating the Member Labour Relations Development site. This information will also help you familiarize yourself with common labour relations concepts and terms that you will hear more about in the coming months.

Great care has been taken to ensure that these consultations are carried out in a way that enables you to express yourselves freely so that your voice can truly be heard.

At this time I would also like to reiterate my appreciation for the essential work you do to keep Canadians safe. During my two years as the Minister of Public Safety, you have continually impressed me with your dedication, professionalism and bravery.

Sincerely,

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness”

It is with this memorandum from the Minister of Public Safety to RCMP regular members that a consultation process was launched on .

The process consisted of a national survey and a series of town hall meetings, videoconferences and teleconferences. The purpose was to solicit members’ views on the new labour relations framework that needed to be put in place following the Supreme Court of Canada decision of . The court has given the Government one year for a new legislation to be passed.

Every RCMP regular member was provided with opportunities to input their views and more than 50% of them did. Although many felt that there was not enough opportunity for learning about labour relations and that communications about the subject were not sufficient, the results of the consultation allow for fairly clear conclusions on a number of important areas. Additionally, because of the open-ended question in the survey, strong messages are delivered to management as if the pressure had been building and the survey provided a release valve. The fact that about 8500 employees took the time to explain their views and frustrations is important in itself. Not taking their view into account would miss out on a serious opportunity, both in terms of the design of the new labour relations regime and in terms of the management culture within the RCMP.

History

The most recent compensation business case titled Fair Compensation for the RCMP, signed by the author of this report, describes the current labour relations regime in this way:

“Members of the RCMP, unlike the majority of public service groups and other police agencies, do not have the right to bargain collectively and have no recourse to arbitration or strike action. Members of the RCMP are, therefore, dependent upon the fairness of their employer, the Treasury Board of Canada, to recognize and appropriately reward their work and to set their terms and conditions of employment. This becomes even more important in the current context of a changing labour relations environment. Any perceived unfairness in the determination of member compensation could lead to employee discontent and militancy, as was the case in similar circumstances in the 1990s.

The Staff Relations Representative (SRR) Program is the official and only labour relations program for RCMP members, as provided for in Regulation 56 of the RCMP Act. While not a bargaining agent, the Program’s goal is to provide members with representation on matters that impact work conditions, including pay and benefits, workplace safety, staffing, and training.

In 1996, the RCMP Pay Council, a joint labour-management forum, was established to assist the Commissioner in resolving issues of pay and benefits and to provide objective recommendations on member pay and working conditions in a consultative and consensual manner.

The five member Pay Council is led by an impartial chairperson. There are also two management representatives (a serving senior officer appointed by the Commissioner and a compensation specialist selected by Senior Management) and two member representatives (a Staff Relations Representative who also chairs the SRR Pay & Benefits Committee and a labour economist selected by the SRR Caucus).” See Footnote 1

The Supreme Court, in its January 16th decision of this year, has deemed the current labour relations model at the RCMP unconstitutional and has given the Government one year to legislate a new model or simply use the Public Service Labour Relations Act without the exclusion for RCMP members from the definition of “employee”. The policy decisions required to proceed should benefit from the members’ perspectives.

Methodology

In order to conduct a thorough consultation with RCMP regular members, a multi-pronged approach was taken. The strategy included developing and administering a survey to all regular members, traveling to various Divisions and conducting town halls, as well as providing the members with a dedicated email account to which they can send their views. On , a message from the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, was sent to all RCMP members, announcing the launch of the consultations with regular members on the proposed labour relations framework and encouraging them to participate.

Survey

In consultation with the RCMP Survey Centre, a questionnaire was developed intended to gather information from the members on their views and preferences for a new labour relations structure, including their views on how major bargaining disputes should be resolved, the most important features of a system of labour relations, and their preferences for representation structures that would best serve their needs. A copy of this survey is included in Annex 1.

The survey was administered to all regular members. The RCMP Survey Centre sent email invitations to 17,366 active members with a personalized email link to the survey, as well as 1,140 letters to members on leave with a personalized link and information on how to access the survey. The RCMP Survey Centre also compiled the responses and provided us with data at the end of the survey period. The Survey Centre managed the questionnaire invitations and responses via FluidSurvey, an online hosting company.

The email invitations were sent out on with collection closing on , however the survey was not closed and link disabled until , which is the day the data were compiled. Therefore, the survey was available to members from until .

The survey response rate to the email invitations was approximately 53% (9,163 respondents). Only 15 surveys were completed from the paper mail out. Due to technical and time constraints, the 15 survey responses from the mail out group are not included in the compiled survey results by Division.

Town Halls

In order to gain first hand insights from the members across all divisions, we visited numerous detachments throughout this consultation period, and met face to face with the members. The sites were strategically selected across Canada and thirteen sessions were held between and . The full schedule is included in Annex 5. The team that travelled across the country to deliver these sessions included Alain Jolicoeur, independent facilitator and main presenter, Dennis Duggan, TBS representative, and for technical support, Stephanie Boyles, Manager Pay Research, Kelly ten Holder and Rania Abi-Ghanem.

On , in the weekly “Week in Review” broadcast that goes out to all members force-wide, the information about the town hall meetings was made available to all members. Subsequently, each Division sent out internal communications to its members reminding them of the town halls scheduled for their region.

These sessions provided regular members with an opportunity to share their thoughts on their preferred labour relations framework and delivered information critical to helping the members make informed decisions on the future state of labour relations in the RCMP. The presentation given to members is included in Annex 7.

In an effort to reach as many members as possible, each session was conducted in a town hall format and included numerous video conferencing sites and as many as 2,000 phone lines available for members to join via telephone conference. The RCMP National Operations Centre (NOC) set up the video conferencing sites and coordinated the telephone conferencing with operators from Shared Services Canada and Bell Canada. The scope of these town halls were unprecedented from a technical perspective. Each session included a live presentation and discussions with an audience ranging from a few participants to approximately 100 regular members, while accommodating participant discussions via numerous videoconference links and teleconference lines.

Ms. Boyles liaised with contacts from the town hall sites to ensure the technical equipment and staff were available and ready as well as the conference rooms or gymnasiums were reserved. She communicated with NOC at each of the sessions to ensure the video conferencing links were properly established with each Region.

Ms. ten Holder liaised with operators from NOC and Shared Services Canada/Bell Canada and moderated the teleconferencing portion of the sessions, including ensuring an open communications line at all times with Shared Services and Bell to immediately resolve any arising technical issues and coordinate the queue of members waiting on the phone lines to ask questions or make comments.

Email

On , an email address (RCMP-LRTownhalls-AssembleesRT-GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca) was set up dedicated to receiving inquiries from members about the town halls or for providing their views into the labour relations consultation process. Between and , approximately 50 inquiries were sent via this email address. Each one was dealt with on a case-by-case basis by either providing answers to the technical questions such as locations and times of town halls, or forwarding the inquiry to the appropriate party to respond – either Mr. Jolicoeur, Mr. Duggan (TBS), or internally to the Labour Relations Initiative team.

Overview of answers to survey questions 1 to 13

Below is an overview of the responses to questions 1-13 of the Labour Relations Consultation Survey. Annex 3 provides more detailed results broken down by Division.

1. Do labour relations matter to you personally?

  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Of great importance TOTAL
Total Number 69 285 1522 2871 3640 8387
Total Percent 1% 3% 18% 34% 43% 100%

These results show that, to the vast majority of members, labour relations is very important. Seventy-seven percent (77%) answered “a lot” or “of great importance”. This is higher than you would normally find in large public organizations. There is a level of frustration with the RCMP members’ terms and conditions of employment, revealed later in the report, which explains some of these numbers.

2. How involved/aware would you say you have been in RCMP labour relations in the past few years?

  Not involved A bit Somewhat A lot Highly involved Total
Total Number 1511 1394 3039 1789 490 8223
Total Percent 18% 17% 37% 22% 6% 100%

Some 28% answered “a lot” or more and 65% answered “somewhat” or more. Again, this is a high proportion of member awareness of these issues.

3. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a representative organization?

  RCMP members-only labour organization RCMP members and other members of the federal public service in the labour organization RCMP members and police officers of other forces Don’t know Total
Total Number 5576 418 2205 349 8548
Total Percent 65% 5% 26% 4% 100%

Sixty-five percent (65%) of the respondents would like a bargaining agent that represents only RCMP members. Another 26% would support an organization that also represents other police forces. Only 5% would consider an organization that also represents other parts of the public service.

4. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a grouping of members that is appropriate for collective bargaining?

  A single, national grouping that is consistent with the RCMP’s unique situation as a national police organization A number of different RCMP groupings, perhaps divided by province or region Don’t know Total
Total Number 5277 2862 403 8542
Total Percent 62% 34% 5% 100%

Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents prefer one national unit while 34% prefer a number of regional units. Here, it is important to note that “C” and “E” Divisions are similar to each other and differ from the rest of the country. Fifty-four percent (54%) of “C” Division respondents demonstrated a preference for one national unit and 42% of them preferred a number of regional units, while 53% of “E” division respondents preferred one national unit and 43% of them preferred a number of units. It seems, these two Divisions are more comfortable than the others with a regional unit that would focus on their specificity but still favour a national unit albeit to a lesser extent.

5. Is it important to you that your representative organization have as its principal mandate the representation of RCMP members only?

  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total
Total Number 251 217 894 1743 5203 83 8391
Total Percent 3% 3% 11% 21% 62% 1% 100%

The results for this question are fairly consistent across Divisions. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the respondents answered “a lot” or “very important”. It is also what was heard during the town hall discussions.

6. Do you think there might be “conflicts of loyalties” if RCMP members were represented by labour organizations that also represent non-police workforces?

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know Total
Total Number 194 519 1046 2387 4073 181 8400
Total Percent 2% 6% 12% 28% 48% 2% 100%

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there might be conflicts of loyalties if their labour organization also represented non-police workforces.

7. How important is it to you that the grouping of RCMP members that is appropriate for collective bargaining is a single, national unit?

  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total
Total Number 617 408 1553 2010 3518 289 8395
Total Percent 7% 5% 19% 24% 42% 3% 100%

Two thirds (66%) of the respondents answered “a lot” or “very important”. The discussions revealed that members perceive two main reasons for having a single, national bargaining unit. First, one national bargaining unit would speak with one voice and have a lot more bargaining power to deal with management and the employer. Second, it would also avoid the breaking out of terms and conditions of employment into different packages for different groups.

8. Should binding arbitration be the means by which bargaining impasses are resolved if there is no right to strike? (Binding arbitration uses an independent labour relations expert or panel to determine the outcome of a dispute).

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know Total
Total Number 131 342 873 3577 3123 345 8391
Total Percent 2% 4% 10% 43% 37% 4% 100%

Eighty percent (80%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that binding arbitration would be the best solution in case of an impasse. They indicated in discussions a strong desire to “free themselves from the control of the employer”. That theme was covered many times in answers to open-ended question 14.

9. Is it important, given the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization, that there be specific new labour relations legislation that is focused exclusively on RCMP members? (As opposed to the PSLRA amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization).

  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total
Total Number 237 150 823 1850 4994 338 8392
Total Percent 3% 2% 10% 22% 60% 4% 100%

Eighty-two percent (82%) of the respondents answered “a lot” or “very important”. The farther away from the public service the better it appears to them.

10. How important is it to you that there be a tribunal other than the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to administer the labour relations legislation applicable to RCMP members in the future? (The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is the independent, neutral, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the administration of the PSLRA).

  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total
Total Number 322 196 1428 2286 3479 658 8369
Total Percent 4% 2% 17% 27% 42% 8% 100%

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the respondents answered “a lot” or “very important”, however, National Headquarters and Depot Divisions show significantly higher numbers. They may have followed some of the unfavorable decisions made by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

11. How much or how little does each of the following elements of a labour relations system matter to you?

The possible answers for this question were “Not at all”; “A bit”; “Somewhat”; “A lot”; and “Very much” for each of the listed labour relations elements. The numbers below indicate the proportion of respondents that selected “a lot” and “very much” for each element. The details can be found in Annex 3.

  • Cooperative Relations with Management: 40% and 21%
  • Independence from Management: 27% and 43%
  • Finding Best Solutions to Problems together with Management: 43% and 24%
  • Ability to be Adversarial with Management: 33% and 31%
  • Knowing how to make Complaints: 38% and 34%
  • Being listened to by Management: 32% and 62%
  • Promoting the identity and reputation of the RCMP: 31% and 42%
  • Informing RCMP members of employment and workplace issues: 39% and 49%
  • Avoiding conflict amongst RCMP members: 34% and 37%

The element that the respondents consider the most important is “Being listened to by management”. They also go out of their way in question 14 to express this sentiment in various ways. There appears to be strong frustrations related to that.

12. Of the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services?

“Independence from management” and “Being listened to by management” were the most frequently selected from the list.

13. Looking at the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services?

The clear winner is “Wages and benefits”. Two other elements were selected more often than the rest. They are “Working conditions” and “Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment”.

The latter is a theme that was use by many respondents in their answer to question 14 and speaks to their perspective on management and leadership in general.

Overview of answers to the important open-ended question 14

14. Is there anything else you feel it is important to communicate about the future of RCMP regular member labour relations?

Over 50% of the members have answered the survey questionnaire, which reflects a high response rate and thus a high interest in the issue. The vast majority of respondents have elected to use the open-ended question to offer their perspective on the issue of labour relations and on RCMP management in general. The information collected from these 8500 members amounts to 600 dense pages of comments. This collection of comments offers a perspective on the RCMP from the rank and file of the Force. The picture illustrated includes the expression of strong feelings and frustrations.

More than 8000 comments ranging from a few words to a few paragraphs represent a rich mine of information that unfortunately is very difficult to resume. To give a flavour of the different perspectives, I collected, for the reader, in Annex 4, less than 0.5% of these comments. I cannot claim that it is a perfect sample, far from that, but it covers some of the most frequent comments. Annex 4 should be thoroughly consulted to get a better appreciation of this section of the report.

There will likely be, under one legislation or another, a formal process (a vote on an explicit question) for the members to decide on the matter of representation and selection of bargaining agent. The present consultation was not intended to obtain the members views on that question. Nevertheless, a very large number of respondents decided to use question 14 to address it specifically. The intensity of the comments was equal on both sides. Unionization represents either something very bad to some respondents or something essential to others. For approximately 70% of those who explicitly covered it, unionization could not come soon enough and management and Government are only trying to roadblock it. For approximately 30% of the respondents who explicitly covered it, a union/association would be a major blow to the RCMP.

The respondents said that both legislation and representation should be specific for the RCMP. There appears to be a strong fear of being linked to other areas of the public service.

Many comments provided by members were outside the scope of the consultation. They range from complete distrust of the leadership at many levels, shameful lack of resources on the ground, unfair promotion process, inability to deal with low performers and improper governance, to name a few. The wording of the majority of comments suggests a serious morale challenge. There is obviously a major disconnect between the rank and file and senior management if these comments are representative of the view of the majority. The size of the sample being more than 50% of the whole entity, the odds are that these comments are indeed representative.

Main messages from town hall sessions

A series of town hall meetings, teleconferences and videoconferences were conducted across the country to provide additional information on various models of labour relations regimes. The idea was to allow for deeper conversations on a topic that can be a bit complicated for the uninitiated. More than 650 members participated.

The sessions consisted of a one-hour presentation by the author of this report followed by questions and interactive discussions. Each session was scheduled for two hours. However, one of them lasted for three hours.

Annex 5 provides the full list and schedule of sessions while annex 6 captures some of the main themes of discussions that were covered during the town halls.

In all sessions, members underlined the need for more sessions. In one of the Divisions, the sessions were not sufficiently advertised and many members complained about it later on.

In all sessions, many members complained about the fact that they were not authorized to use the internal email network, GroupWise, to communicate with each other on the issue of representation.

The participants were really resolute on their perspective that they are not public servants and that they are unique from the rest of the public service. They really wanted this point to be understood by all parties involved in creating the new labour relations regime. They also felt that any group representing them should include people with police experience.

The labour relations process remains mysterious to most members and there is little trust in the authorities to implement the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Moreover, there is a belief that the new regime will somehow allow for solving the internal resourcing issues by “freeing” the RCMP from Treasury Board.

There were many questions about the certification process under PSLRA.

There were some negative comments about the consultation process itself, mainly about timelines and the number of opportunities, or lack thereof, to input meaningfully. Some mentioned that associations should have been invited to participate in the discussions.

Analysis

After carefully reading the 600 pages of comments and reviewing the survey results, it is clear that the respondents want to distance themselves as much as possible from the other parts of the public service. The discussions in town hall sessions revealed that a fair number of participants confused the PSLRA, a legislation, and PSAC a union and bargaining agent. It is also clear that the process of certification is not understood.

To get more convincing results from the survey, it would have been useful to conduct numerous additional town hall sessions before administering the survey. This was mentioned many times during the town halls and was also flagged in the answers to question 14. The idea is that members should have been educated about the process of labour relations and the options available to them before being asked to provide input into the survey.

Many members mentioned that they did not fully understand the consequences of their selection of answers on the survey. Some said during the town hall sessions that they would now answer slightly differently. Many members were also uncomfortable with the structure of the survey. Some mentioned that they would have preferred to see an explicit question about their desire for unionization.

However imperfectly constructed, the consultation process has allowed for some useful communications. The process itself was, in my view, also worthwhile. The purpose was to obtain views and views were obtained.

Behind the words in the sessions and behind the comments in the survey, very strong feelings and concerns were evident. The intensity of those feelings is sometimes surprising. It is impossible not to sense a major disconnect between members and management, some of it probably caused by a lack of information/communication and frustration about remuneration.

The members clearly want to be represented by an organization that represents only police officers and preferably only RCMP members. For them this is very important, perhaps the most important factor.

They would like a labour relations regime that reflects the police reality and preferably specifically designed for them. They care about that.

They would prefer a separate labour board. In the sessions this did not come up as strongly as we see it in the results of the survey.

The majority strongly resents the idea that their representatives could be part of management and obtain promotions.

Members want to be listened to by management.

Many members believe that the RCMP should be outside the Treasury Board umbrella and they resent the current governance regime. Many believe that the Brown report recommendations should have been adopted See Footnote 2.

They believe that the level of resourcing in the RCMP is completely inappropriate given their mandate.

The majority thinks that unionization will go a long way in solving those problems and making management accountable.

Many believe that management is trying to slow them down by not allowing internal communications among members and associations on this important topic.

Conclusion

It is important to note that the author is not asked for his views but simply tasked with reporting on the members’ views and that, in a context of predefined survey questions. He, however, designed and led the town hall sessions.

The town hall sessions, teleconferences and videoconferences along with the open-ended survey question 14 have permitted a deeper understanding of the members’ views than the other questions in the survey. These tools have perhaps allowed for a better explanation of some of the survey results.

There are more members who want change than there are members who are comfortable with the status quo.

For every member who thinks that unionization represents the end of the RCMP, there are two or three others who think that the organization cannot survive without it.

Members prefer a labour-management regime defined specifically for the RCMP. They prefer to be represented by a union/association that represents only police officers and preferably only the RCMP members.

There is a concern expressed about the real possibility of not meeting the deadline set by the Supreme Court in its decision. Members fear anything that would strengthen their links with the broader public service from a labour relations perspective, like the simple removal of their exclusion from the definition of employee in the Public Service Labour Relation Act. Their desired model is to have their wages and benefits driven by police services arbitration decisions as opposed to dragged by broad public service and fiscal considerations.

The majority of members rejects the concept of promotions for the people representing them. They want a totally separate organization, independent from management.

Many would like to see a governance regime that would “free” the RCMP from Treasury Board.

A large number of members see the new model as an opportunity to make management accountable. By that they mean forcing them to deal with member concerns which, in their view, are generally ignored by management.

Members would like more consultation and discussion on the issue of labour relations as long as the change process is not slowed down.

Annex 1 – Survey questions

Seeking RCMP Regular Members' Views on Labour Relations

This questionnaire will take you not more than 15 minutes to complete. It does not require you to provide any personal information. Self-identification is not required.

Section A: Background to this Survey

The Supreme Court of Canada recently issued a judgement that:

  • Confirmed your right to “meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals” through collective bargaining;
  • Struck down the imposition of the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP); and,
  • Removed the exclusion of RCMP members from the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA).

The Supreme Court gave the Government until January 17, 2016 to enact a labour relations model appropriate to the RCMP; otherwise, the PSLRA will apply to RCMP members.

Your views matter. It is important that Government know whether you would prefer to have your own RCMP Labour Relations Statute or whether you would prefer to be covered by the PSLRA as amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization. We also need your views on how major bargaining disputes should be solved; the most important features of a system of labour relations; and, your preferences for structures that you believe best represent your needs.

This survey has 16 questions, most of which can be answered quite quickly.

Section B: Individual Member’s Labour Relations Involvement

  1. Do labour relations matter to you personally?
    • Not important
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Of great importance
  2. How involved/aware would you say you have been in RCMP labour relations in the past few years?
    • Not involved
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Highly involved

Section C: Issues that Need Your Opinion – Structures

There are a lot of possibilities for the future of labour relations within the RCMP. It is important that we know your opinion on these issues.

  1. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a representative organization?
    • RCMP members-only labour organization
    • RCMP members and other members of the federal public service in the labour organization
    • RCMP members and police officers of other forces
    • Don’t know
  2. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a grouping of members that is appropriate for collective bargaining?
    • A single, national grouping that is consistent with the RCMP’s unique situation as a national police organization
    • A number of different RCMP groupings, perhaps divided by province or region
    • Don’t know
  3. Is it important to you that your representative organization have as its principal mandate the representation of RCMP members only?
    • Not important
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Very important
    • Don’t know
  4. Do you think there might be “conflicts of loyalties” if RCMP members were represented by labour organizations that also represent non-police workforces?
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • Don’t know
  5. How important is it to you that the grouping of RCMP members that is appropriate for collective bargaining is a single, national unit?
    • Not important
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Very important
    • Don’t know

Section D: Issues that Need Your Opinion – Dispute Resolution

It is generally considered that the provision of police services is so fundamentally integral to ensuring the safety and security of the public that no interruption of that service can be tolerated. In all other jurisdictions in Canada, the right to strike for police officers is restricted or eliminated, with binding arbitration provided as the dispute resolution method.

  1. Should binding arbitration be the means by which bargaining impasses are resolved if there is no right to strike? (Binding arbitration uses an independent labour relations expert or panel to determine the outcome of a dispute).
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • Don’t know

Section E: Issues that Need Your Opinion – Statutory Framework

Here, you might need a bit of background so you can think about options. There are two alternatives: (1) to be covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization, or (2) to create a new RCMP-member specific labour relations act.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) governs labour relations and collective bargaining in the federal public service which includes the core public administration. It also applies to separate agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the Communications Security Establishment of Canada, the core public administration includes the RCMP, for whom the Treasury Board of Canada is the employer.

In some other jurisdictions, separate statutes apply to labour relations and collective bargaining for certain specific public service sectors such as teachers and police officers. There are also sector-specific acts for construction.

  1. Is it important, given the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization, that there be specific new labour relations legislation that is focused exclusively on RCMP members? (As opposed to the PSLRA amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization).
    • Not important
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Very important
    • Don’t know

An essential feature of labour relations is the creation of an independent, neutral, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the administration of the labour relations act. The tribunal determines which employee organization can be recognized as appropriate to bargain for certain groups of employees, it also determines whether there is sufficient support for unionization by way of a secret ballot vote. It ensures that rules are followed in bargaining, adjudication of grievances, and other key features of labour relations systems.

  1. How important is it to you that there be a tribunal other than the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to administer the labour relations legislation applicable to RCMP members in the future? (The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is the independent, neutral, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the administration of the PSLRA).
    • Not important
    • A bit
    • Somewhat
    • A lot
    • Very important
    • Don’t know

Section F: Priorities for internal HR services

This is a time of change for the RCMP’s labour relations system. It is important that Government know how to prioritize the services within labour relations that matter most during this transitional phase as we move towards , the date set by the Supreme Court for the Government to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Your input will help determine which services and support mechanisms receive the greatest attention both in the transitional phase, and as new labour relations system evolves.

  1. How much or how little does each of the following elements of a labour relations system matter to you? (Not at all, A bit, Somewhat, A lot, Very much)
    • Cooperative Relations with Management
    • Independence from Management
    • Finding Best Solutions to Problems together with Management
    • Ability to be Adversarial with Management
    • Knowing how to make Complaints
    • Being listened to by Management
    • Promoting the identity and reputation of the RCMP
    • Informing RCMP members of employment and workplace issues
    • Avoiding conflict amongst RCMP members
  2. Of the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services?

    First:

    • Cooperative Relations with Management
    • Independence from Management
    • Finding Best Solutions to Problems together with Management
    • Ability to be Adversarial with Management
    • Knowing how to make Complaints
    • Being listened to by Management
    • Promoting the identity and reputation of the RCMP
    • Informing RCMP members of employment and workplace issues
    • Avoiding conflict amongst RCMP members
    • Other please specify

    Second:

    • Cooperative Relations with Management
    • Independence from Management
    • Finding Best Solutions to Problems together with Management
    • Ability to be Adversarial with Management
    • Knowing how to make Complaints
    • Being listened to by Management
    • Promoting the identity and reputation of the RCMP
    • Informing RCMP members of employment and workplace issues
    • Avoiding conflict amongst RCMP members
    • Other please specify

    Employer human resources units provide information on the following labour relations matters:

    • Wages and benefits
    • Job security
    • Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment
    • Job training
    • Opportunities for advancement
    • Privacy protections
    • Pursuing grievances or appeals
    • Working conditions
    • Mediating conflict in the RCMP using informal means
    • Representing RCMP members in formal appeals
    • Assistance with public complaints against RCMP members
    • Serious incidents/statutory investigations
    • Establishing essential job requirements
    • Harassment and Discrimination issues
    • Duty to Accommodate solutions, Returns to Work, and Disability Issues
    • Safe and healthy workplace
    • Legal indemnification
    • Conduct issues
    • Discharge/demotion
    • Addressing sources of worker discontent in the workplace
    • Helping members feel they belong and are valued
    • Finding ways to improve performance in the workplace
    • Helping select investigators/mediators if there are issues that need outsiders’ involvement
    • Other
  3. Looking at the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services?

    First:

    • Wages and benefits
    • Job security
    • Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment
    • Job training
    • Opportunities for advancement
    • Privacy protections
    • Pursuing grievances or appeals
    • Working conditions
    • Mediating conflict in the RCMP using informal means
    • Representing RCMP members in formal appeals
    • Assistance with public complaints against RCMP members
    • Serious incidents/statutory investigations
    • Establishing essential job requirements
    • Harassment and Discrimination issues
    • Duty to Accommodate solutions, Returns to Work, and Disability Issues
    • Safe and healthy workplace
    • Legal indemnification
    • Conduct issues
    • Discharge/demotion
    • Addressing sources of worker discontent in the workplace
    • Helping members feel they belong and are valued
    • Finding ways to improve performance in the workplace
    • Helping select investigators/mediators if there are issues that need outsiders’ involvement
    • Other please specify

    Second:

    • Wages and benefits
    • Job security
    • Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment
    • Job training
    • Opportunities for advancement
    • Privacy protections
    • Pursuing grievances or appeals
    • Working conditions
    • Mediating conflict in the RCMP using informal means
    • Representing RCMP members in formal appeals
    • Assistance with public complaints against RCMP members
    • Serious incidents/statutory investigations
    • Establishing essential job requirements
    • Harassment and Discrimination issues
    • Duty to Accommodate solutions, Returns to Work, and Disability Issues
    • Safe and healthy workplace
    • Legal indemnification
    • Conduct issues
    • Discharge/demotion
    • Addressing sources of worker discontent in the workplace
    • Helping members feel they belong and are valued
    • Finding ways to improve performance in the workplace
    • Helping select investigators/mediators if there are issues that need outsiders’ involvement
    • Other please specify
  4. Is there anything else you feel it is important to communicate about the future of RCMP regular member labour relations?

Section G: Brief Information about You

Remember, this survey is confidential and anonymous. We need to know only two questions here for the purpose of analysis whether there are important patterns that will matter in the future.

  1. In which Division are you currently working?
    • B Division
    • C Division
    • D Division
    • E Division
    • F Division
    • G Division
    • H Division
    • J Division
    • K Division
    • L Division
    • M Division
    • National Division
    • National Headquarters
    • O Division
    • T (Depot) Division
    • V Division
  2. Which best describes your position?
    • Commissioned Officer
    • Non-commissioned Officer
    • Other

Thank you very much for taking the time to offer your thoughts. It is greatly appreciated.

Annex 2 – The respondents demographics

This report provides National and Divisional results for each question of the 2015 Survey: Seeking Views of RCMP on Labour. The first table lists the Divisions and corresponding Province or Territory with the number of responses and percentage. The Divisions were rearranged to illustrate the Divisional and Regional participation.

In which Division are you currently working?
Division Province/Territory Number Percent
B Division Newfoundland 233 3%
H Division Nova Scotia 475 6%
J Division New Brunswick 362 4%
L Division Prince Edward Island 52 1%
C Division Quebec 460 5%
National Division 257 3%
National Headquarters 423 5%
O Division Ontario 551 6%
D Division Manitoba 555 6%
F Division Saskatchewan 631 7%
T (Depot) Division 75 1%
K Division Alberta 1308 15%
G Division Northwest Territories 95 1%
V Division Nunavut 55 1%
E Division British Columbia 2948 34%
M Division Yukon Territories 74 1%
Total 8554 100%
Figure 1. Responses of Divisions to the question: In which Division are you currently working?
Figure 1. The data used to represent this graphic is found in the table immediately above the graphic.
Which best describes your position?
  Commissioned Officer Non-commissioned Officer Other Total
Total Number 438 6283 1799 8520
Total Percent 5% 74% 21% 100%
B Division 5% 73% 22% 232
C Division 4% 68% 29% 458
D Division 3% 75% 22% 551
E Division 4% 71% 25% 2935
F Division 5% 75% 20% 628
G Division 5% 80% 15% 94
H Division 4% 73% 22% 474
J Division 3% 74% 23% 361
K Division 4% 77% 19% 1305
L Division 4% 83% 13% 52
M Division 1% 77% 22% 74
National Division 7% 73% 20% 256
National Headquarters 23% 74% 4% 423
O Division 4% 78% 18% 549
T (Depot) Division 4% 89% 7% 73
V Division 7% 73% 20% 55

Annex 3 – 2015 Labour Relations survey results by divisions

For each question of the survey, a table has been produced with the total number of responses for the question and the percentage of responses by response category.

1. Do labour relations matter to you, personally?
  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Of great importance Total

Table 1 Notes

Table 1 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 1 – Footnote * referrer

Table 1 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 1 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 69 285 1522 2871 3640 8387
Total Percent 1% 3% 18% 34% 43% 100%
B Division 0% 4% 19% 35% 41% See Table 1 – Note * 230
C Division 1% 3% 14% 32% 51% See Table 1 – Note 456
D Division 1% 3% 17% 35% 44% See Table 1 – Note * 552
E Division 0% 3% 16% 33% 48% See Table 1 – Note 2844
F Division 2% 5% 21% 35% 38% See Table 1 – Note * 620
G Division 2% 2% 19% 38% 39% See Table 1 – Note * 93
H Division 1% 5% 21% 39% See Table 1 – Note * 34% 466
J Division 3% 3% 18% 36% 39% See Table 1 – Note * 360
K Division 1% 3% 20% 37% 38% See Table 1 – Note * 1295
L Division 0% 4% 25% 43% See Table 1 – Note * 27% 51
M Division 1% 5% 18% 32% 43% See Table 1 – Note * 74
National Division 1% 4% 21% 35% 40% See Table 1 – Note * 253
National Headquarters 1% 6% 23% 29% 40% See Table 1 – Note * 421
O Division 0% 2% 18% 31% 48% See Table 1 – Note 545
T (Depot) Division 1% 3% 20% 33% 43% See Table 1 – Note * 75
V Division 0% 6% 21% 29% 44% See Table 1 – Note * 52
2. How involved/aware would you say you have been in RCMP labour relations in the past few years?
  Not involved A bit Somewhat A lot Highly involved Total

Table 2 Notes

Table 2 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 2 – Footnote * referrer

Table 2 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 2 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 1511 1394 3039 1789 490 8223
Total Percent 18% 17% 37% 22% 6% 100%
B Division 14% 17% 35% See Table 2 – Note * 26% 7% 227
C Division 14% 17% 42% See Table 2 – Note 22% 5% 444
D Division 18% 16% 38% See Table 2 – Note * 21% 7% 539
E Division 17% 16% 38% See Table 2 – Note * 23% 6% 2797
F Division 23% 18% 35% See Table 2 – Note * 18% 5% 610
G Division 11% 27% 37% See Table 2 – Note * 21% 4% 90
H Division 18% 20% 34% See Table 2 – Note * 24% 4% 458
J Division 22% 16% 40% See Table 2 – Note * 18% 3% 352
K Division 21% 17% 34% See Table 2 – Note * 22% 5% 1263
L Division 6% 20% 52% See Table 2 – Note 14% 8% 50
M Division 22% 23% 35% See Table 2 – Note * 14% 7% 74
National Division 24% 19% 33% See Table 2 – Note * 19% 6% 248
National Headquarters 18% 13% 37% See Table 2 – Note * 23% 9% 414
O Division 16% 16% 36% See Table 2 – Note * 23% 9% 535
T (Depot) Division 11% 19% 36% See Table 2 – Note * 26% 8% 73
V Division 18% 24% 33% See Table 2 – Note * 18% 6% 49
3. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a representative organization?  
  RCMP members-only labour organization. RCMP members and other members of the federal public service in the labour organization. RCMP members and police officers of other forces. Don’t know. Total

Table 3 Notes

Table 3 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 3 – Footnote * referrer

Table 3 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 3 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 5576 418 2205 349 8548
Total Percent 65% 5% 26% 4% 100%
B Division 76% See Table 3 – Note * 6% 17% 1% 233
C Division 67% See Table 3 – Note * 4% 23% 6% 460
D Division 69% See Table 3 – Note * 5% 21% 5% 555
E Division 58% See Table 3 – Note * 4% 35% 3% 2947
F Division 68% See Table 3 – Note * 5% 21% 5% 631
G Division 69% See Table 3 – Note * 4% 20% 6% 95
H Division 73% See Table 3 – Note * 7% 13% 7% 475
J Division 65% See Table 3 – Note * 7% 22% 6% 362
K Division 68% See Table 3 – Note * 5% 23% 4% 1307
L Division 87% See Table 3 – Note 0% 12% 2% 52
M Division 76% See Table 3 – Note * 1% 20% 3% 74
National Division 59% See Table 3 – Note * 5% 32% 4% 256
National Headquarters 72% See Table 3 – Note * 4% 21% 2% 421
O Division 71% See Table 3 – Note * 5% 20% 5% 550
T (Depot) Division 77% See Table 3 – Note 4% 13% 5% 75
V Division 64% See Table 3 – Note * 11% 18% 7% 55
4. Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a grouping of members that is appropriate for collective bargaining?
  A single, national grouping that is consistent with the RCMP’s unique situation as a national police organization. A number of different RCMP groupings, perhaps divided by province or region. Don’t know. Total

Table 4 Notes

Table 4 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 4 – Footnote * referrer

Table 4 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 4 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 5277 2862 403 8542
Total Percent 62% 34% 5% 100%
B Division 70% See Table 4 – Note * 25% 5% 233
C Division 54% See Table 4 – Note * 42% 4% 460
D Division 62% See Table 4 – Note * 33% 4% 555
E Division 53% See Table 4 – Note * 43% 4% 2946
F Division 61% See Table 4 – Note * 32% 7% 630
G Division 67% See Table 4 – Note * 26% 6% 95
H Division 72% See Table 4 – Note * 21% 7% 475
J Division 70% See Table 4 – Note * 24% 6% 362
K Division 61% See Table 4 – Note * 34% 5% 1306
L Division 69% See Table 4 – Note * 25% 6% 52
M Division 68% See Table 4 – Note * 31% 1% 74
National Division 72% See Table 4 – Note * 24% 4% 256
National Headquarters 81% See Table 4 – Note 15% 4% 420
O Division 76% See Table 4 – Note 20% 4% 549
T (Depot) Division 72% See Table 4 – Note * 23% 5% 75
V Division 70% See Table 4 – Note * 28% 2% 54
5. Is it important to you that your representative organization have as its principal mandate the representation of RCMP members only?
  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total

Table 5 Notes

Table 5 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 5 – Footnote * referrer

Table 5 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 5 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 251 217 894 1743 5203 83 8391
Total Percent 3% 3% 11% 21% 62% 1% 100%
B Division 1% 3% 8% 16% 72% See Table 5 – Note 0% 229
C Division 3% 2% 8% 24% 62% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 454
D Division 1% 3% 11% 22% 61% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 552
E Division 3% 3% 12% 21% 59% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 2839
F Division 3% 3% 12% 21% 61% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 626
G Division 0% 1% 9% 31% 59% See Table 5 – Note * 0% 93
H Division 2% 3% 12% 20% 61% See Table 5 – Note * 2% 469
J Division 2% 1% 11% 23% 61% See Table 5 – Note * 2% 359
K Division 3% 2% 11% 22% 62% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 1301
L Division 2% 0% 2% 25% 71% See Table 5 – Note * 0% 51
M Division 1% 0% 15% 15% 69% See Table 5 – Note * 0% 74
National Division 6% 2% 9% 17% 65% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 253
National Headquarters 4% 2% 8% 17% 69% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 418
O Division 3% 3% 9% 19% 66% See Table 5 – Note * 1% 544
T (Depot) Division 0% 1% 7% 16% 76% See Table 5 – Note 0% 74
V Division 5% 2% 11% 22% 58% See Table 5 – Note * 2% 55
6. Do you think there might be “conflicts of loyalties” if RCMP members were represented by labour organizations that also represent non-police workforces?
  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know Total

Table 6 Notes

Table 6 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 6 – Footnote * referrer

Table 6 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 6 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 194 519 1046 2387 4073 181 8400
Total Percent 2% 6% 12% 28% 48% 2% 100%
B Division 3% 5% 10% 30% 50% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 229
C Division 3% 7% 14% 28% 46% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 457
D Division 1% 6% 12% 27% 52% See Table 6 – Note * 3% 552
E Division 2% 7% 12% 28% 48% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 2842
F Division 2% 4% 12% 27% 53% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 626
G Division 1% 4% 10% 32% 49% See Table 6 – Note * 3% 93
H Division 2% 5% 12% 31% 47% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 468
J Division 3% 9% 14% 31% 40% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 360
K Division 2% 6% 12% 29% 48% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 1303
L Division 0% 4% 14% 20% 60% See Table 6 – Note 2% 50
M Division 0% 5% 14% 30% 49% See Table 6 – Note * 3% 74
National Division 4% 9% 11% 27% 47% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 255
National Headquarters 2% 5% 12% 24% 55% See Table 6 – Note 2% 417
O Division 4% 5% 14% 31% 45% See Table 6 – Note * 2% 545
T (Depot) Division 1% 7% 12% 26% 51% See Table 6 – Note * 3% 74
V Division 2% 9% 13% 29% 42% See Table 6 – Note * 5% 55
7. How important is it to you that the grouping of RCMP members that is appropriate for collective bargaining is a single, national unit?
  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total

Table 7 Notes

Table 7 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 7 – Footnote * referrer

Table 7 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 7 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 617 408 1553 2010 3518 289 8395
Total Percent 7% 5% 19% 24% 42% 3% 100%
B Division 3% 3% 13% 26% 52% See Table 7 – Note * 3% 229
C Division 9% 5% 15% 29% 37% See Table 7 – Note * 4% 457
D Division 6% 3% 18% 22% 48% See Table 7 – Note * 3% 552
E Division 11% 7% 22% 22% 35% See Table 7 – Note * 3% 2837
F Division 7% 4% 18% 25% 41% See Table 7 – Note * 4% 625
G Division 6% 2% 18% 29% 41% See Table 7 – Note * 3% 93
H Division 3% 3% 16% 23% 48% See Table 7 – Note * 6% 467
J Division 4% 3% 15% 27% 48% See Table 7 – Note * 2% 361
K Division 7% 5% 20% 27% 38% See Table 7 – Note * 3% 1304
L Division 2% 6% 24% 16% 47% See Table 7 – Note * 6% 51
M Division 5% 4% 12% 24% 46% See Table 7 – Note * 8% 74
National Division 4% 2% 17% 30% 46% See Table 7 – Note * 2% 254
National Headquarters 3% 4% 9% 22% 60% See Table 7 – Note 3% 418
O Division 4% 2% 16% 22% 54% See Table 7 – Note * 2% 544
T (Depot) Division 3% 3% 16% 16% 59% See Table 7 – Note 3% 74
V Division 0% 5% 16% 27% 47% See Table 7 – Note * 4% 55
8. Should binding arbitration be the means by which bargaining impasses are resolved if there is no right to strike?  (Binding arbitration uses an independent labour relations expert or panel to determine the outcome of a dispute).
  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know Total

Table 8 Notes

Table 8 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 8 – Footnote * referrer

Table 8 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 8 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 131 342 873 3577 3123 345 8391
Total Percent 2% 4% 10% 43% 37% 4% 100%
B Division 1% 4% 10% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 37% 5% 230
C Division 2% 6% 11% 46% See Table 8 – Note * 32% 4% 457
D Division 2% 4% 9% 39% 41% See Table 8 – Note * 5% 552
E Division 2% 4% 10% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 37% 3% 2837
F Division 2% 5% 12% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 35% 4% 625
G Division 1% 5% 16% 31% 42% See Table 8 – Note * 4% 93
H Division 2% 4% 11% 46% See Table 8 – Note * 31% 7% 470
J Division 2% 3% 7% 48% See Table 8 – Note * 35% 5% 359
K Division 2% 4% 12% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 35% 5% 1303
L Division 0% 2% 10% 51% See Table 8 – Note 27% 10% 51
M Division 0% 7% 22% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 26% 3% 74
National Division 0% 2% 10% 36% 48% See Table 8 – Note 3% 253
National Headquarters 1% 2% 9% 43% See Table 8 – Note * 41% 4% 416
O Division 2% 3% 8% 36% 48% See Table 8 – Note 4% 543
T (Depot) Division 3% 3% 12% 38% 39% See Table 8 – Note * 5% 74
V Division 7% 2% 13% 39% See Table 8 – Note * 35% 4% 54
9. Is it important, given the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization, that there be specific new labour relations legislation that is focused exclusively on RCMP members? (As opposed to the PSLRA amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization).
  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total

Table 9 Notes

Table 9 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 9 – Footnote * referrer

Table 9 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 9 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 237 150 823 1850 4994 338 8392
Total Percent 3% 2% 10% 22% 60% 4% 100%
B Division 1% 3% 10% 20% 64% See Table 9 – Note * 3% 229
C Division 3% 2% 9% 27% 54% See Table 9 – Note * 5% 458
D Division 3% 2% 9% 19% 64% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 554
E Division 3% 2% 10% 21% 61% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 2833
F Division 1% 2% 11% 23% 58% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 624
G Division 3% 0% 12% 22% 55% See Table 9 – Note * 7% 94
H Division 2% 2% 10% 22% 58% See Table 9 – Note * 5% 470
J Division 3% 2% 11% 29% 51% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 360
K Division 3% 2% 12% 25% 54% See Table 9 – Note * 5% 1300
L Division 2% 2% 8% 33% 51% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 51
M Division 1% 1% 9% 26% 58% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 74
National Division 5% 2% 7% 25% 59% See Table 9 – Note * 3% 255
National Headquarters 2% 3% 8% 17% 68% See Table 9 – Note 3% 417
O Division 4% 1% 8% 18% 66% See Table 9 – Note * 4% 544
T (Depot) Division 3% 3% 7% 19% 68% See Table 9 – Note 1% 74
V Division 2% 2% 15% 25% 51% See Table 9 – Note * 5% 55
10. How important is it to you that there be a tribunal other than the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to administer the labour relations legislation applicable to RCMP members in the future? (The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is the independent, neutral, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the administration of the PSLRA). 
  Not important A bit Somewhat A lot Very important Don't know Total

Table 10 Notes

Table 10 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 10 – Footnote * referrer

Table 10 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 10 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 322 196 1428 2286 3479 658 8369
Total Percent 4% 2% 17% 27% 42% 8% 100%
B Division 5% 3% 17% 23% 45% See Table 10 – Note * 7% 229
C Division 7% 3% 14% 30% 36% See Table 10 – Note * 10% 454
D Division 3% 2% 16% 25% 43% See Table 10 – Note * 10% 552
E Division 4% 2% 17% 26% 44% See Table 10 – Note * 7% 2823
F Division 2% 3% 18% 31% 37% See Table 10 – Note * 10% 623
G Division 2% 4% 20% 29% 31% See Table 10 – Note * 14% 94
H Division 4% 3% 19% 25% 39% See Table 10 – Note * 9% 468
J Division 3% 3% 17% 35% See Table 10 – Note * 34% 9% 361
K Division 4% 2% 19% 29% 37% See Table 10 – Note * 8% 1296
L Division 4% 0% 27% 24% 33% See Table 10 – Note * 12% 51
M Division 3% 1% 23% 30% 38% See Table 10 – Note * 5% 74
National Division 7% 2% 14% 30% 41% See Table 10 – Note * 6% 255
National Headquarters 2% 2% 16% 23% 51% See Table 10 – Note 6% 417
O Division 4% 3% 14% 23% 47% See Table 10 – Note * 8% 544
T (Depot) Division 4% 4% 7% 30% 53% See Table 10 – Note 3% 74
V Division 4% 0% 26% 22% 41% See Table 10 – Note * 7% 54

11. How much or how little does each of the following elements of a labour relations system matter to you?

Cooperative Relations with Management
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 11 Notes

Table 11 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 11 – Footnote * referrer

Table 11 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 11 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 421 603 2332 3379 1780 8515
Total Percent 5% 7% 27% 40% 21% 100%
B Division 5% 8% 30% 38% See Table 11 – Note * 19% 233
C Division 2% 3% 17% 50% See Table 11 – Note 27% 458
D Division 7% 8% 25% 41% See Table 11 – Note * 19% 552
E Division 6% 8% 29% 38% See Table 11 – Note * 20% 2932
F Division 5% 8% 26% 44% See Table 11 – Note * 17% 626
G Division 6% 5% 32% 36% See Table 11 – Note * 20% 94
H Division 4% 7% 27% 38% See Table 11 – Note * 24% 474
J Division 6% 6% 24% 44% See Table 11 – Note * 21% 361
K Division 4% 7% 29% 40% See Table 11 – Note * 19% 1304
L Division 0% 12% 29% 27% 33% See Table 11 – Note * 52
M Division 4% 5% 28% 45% See Table 11 – Note 18% 74
National Division 4% 6% 28% 39% See Table 11 – Note * 23% 257
National Headquarters 4% 6% 25% 37% See Table 11 – Note * 28% 419
O Division 6% 7% 29% 36% See Table 11 – Note * 22% 549
T (Depot) Division 4% 11% 24% 37% See Table 11 – Note * 24% 75
V Division 5% 5% 22% 45% See Table 11 – Note 22% 55
Independence from Management
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 12 Notes

Table 12 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 12 – Footnote * referrer

Table 12 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 12 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 264 489 1788 2326 3658 8525
Total Percent 3% 6% 21% 27% 43% 100%
B Division 3% 8% 23% 23% 43% See Table 12 – Note * 233
C Division 3% 5% 13% 34% 45% See Table 12 – Note * 458
D Division 2% 6% 22% 26% 44% See Table 12 – Note * 555
E Division 3% 5% 20% 27% 45% See Table 12 – Note * 2937
F Division 4% 8% 28% 28% 32% See Table 12 – Note * 627
G Division 3% 4% 24% 30% 38% See Table 12 – Note * 94
H Division 3% 7% 23% 28% 39% See Table 12 – Note * 474
J Division 4% 6% 20% 30% 40% See Table 12 – Note * 360
K Division 4% 5% 25% 26% 39% See Table 12 – Note * 1304
L Division 2% 6% 19% 44% See Table 12 – Note * 29% 52
M Division 4% 8% 18% 25% 45% See Table 12 – Note * 73
National Division 3% 7% 17% 26% 48% See Table 12 – Note * 257
National Headquarters 4% 7% 21% 28% 41% See Table 12 – Note * 420
O Division 2% 3% 17% 23% 55% See Table 12 – Note 551
T (Depot) Division 4% 9% 21% 25% 40% See Table 12 – Note * 75
V Division 5% 13% 16% 7% 58% See Table 12 – Note 55
Finding Best Solutions to Problems Together with Management
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 13 Notes

Table 13 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 13 – Footnote * referrer

Table 13 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 13 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 263 462 2047 3670 2066 8508
Total Percent 3% 5% 24% 43% 24% 100%
B Division 5% 7% 27% 42% See Table 13 – Note * 19% 231
C Division 2% 3% 12% 51% See Table 13 – Note 33% 459
D Division 3% 8% 26% 40% See Table 13 – Note * 22% 552
E Division 4% 6% 26% 42% See Table 13 – Note * 22% 2930
F Division 3% 6% 27% 44% See Table 13 – Note * 21% 625
G Division 0% 5% 28% 43% See Table 13 – Note * 24% 94
H Division 3% 4% 19% 46% See Table 13 – Note * 28% 474
J Division 3% 5% 20% 46% See Table 13 – Note * 26% 360
K Division 3% 4% 23% 47% See Table 13 – Note 22% 1303
L Division 0% 6% 13% 38% 42% See Table 13 – Note * 52
M Division 1% 3% 28% 43% See Table 13 – Note * 24% 74
National Division 3% 4% 23% 41% See Table 13 – Note * 30% 256
National Headquarters 2% 4% 22% 38% See Table 13 – Note * 33% 418
O Division 4% 6% 24% 40% See Table 13 – Note * 27% 550
T (Depot) Division 5% 7% 21% 39% See Table 13 – Note * 28% 75
V Division 5% 7% 27% 40% See Table 13 – Note * 20% 55
Ability to be Adversarial with Management
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 14 Notes

Table 14 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 14 – Footnote * referrer

Table 14 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 14 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 442 595 1961 2837 2669 8504
Total Percent 5% 7% 23% 33% 31% 100%
B Division 5% 5% 23% 33% See Table 14 – Note * 33% See Table 14 – Note * 230
C Division 4% 4% 14% 40% See Table 14 – Note * 38% 456
D Division 4% 8% 22% 31% 35% See Table 14 – Note * 553
E Division 5% 7% 23% 33% See Table 14 – Note * 32% 2929
F Division 4% 8% 28% 37% See Table 14 – Note * 24% 624
G Division 5% 7% 22% 36% See Table 14 – Note * 29% 94
H Division 5% 8% 24% 32% See Table 14 – Note * 32% See Table 14 – Note * 472
J Division 5% 6% 23% 38% See Table 14 – Note 29% 361
K Division 5% 7% 24% 35% See Table 14 – Note * 28% 1304
L Division 2% 8% 17% 38% See Table 14 – Note 35% 52
M Division 4% 8% 20% 39% See Table 14 – Note 28% 74
National Division 5% 6% 21% 31% 38% See Table 14 – Note 257
National Headquarters 8% 10% 26% 26% 30% See Table 14 – Note * 418
O Division 5% 6% 23% 29% 37% See Table 14 – Note * 550
T (Depot) Division 13% 9% 21% 29% See Table 14 – Note * 27% 75
V Division 4% 9% 20% 29% 38% See Table 14 – Note 55
Knowing how to make Complaints
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 15 Notes

Table 15 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 15 – Footnote * referrer

Table 15 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 15 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 152 463 1768 3188 2923 8494
Total Percent 2% 5% 21% 38% 34% 100%
B Division 2% 4% 19% 40% See Table 15 – Note * 35% 232
C Division 1% 4% 16% 43% See Table 15 – Note 36% 457
D Division 2% 6% 22% 35% See Table 15 – Note * 34% 550
E Division 2% 5% 21% 37% See Table 15 – Note * 35% 2930
F Division 3% 7% 24% 38% See Table 15 – Note * 28% 625
G Division 2% 7% 18% 37% See Table 15 – Note * 35% 94
H Division 1% 4% 19% 42% See Table 15 – Note * 33% 472
J Division 1% 5% 16% 42% See Table 15 – Note * 36% 360
K Division 2% 6% 24% 38% See Table 15 – Note * 31% 1302
L Division 0% 6% 21% 23% 50% See Table 15 – Note 52
M Division 4% 10% 30% 21% 36% See Table 15 – Note * 73
National Division 0% 5% 19% 34% 42% See Table 15 – Note * 256
National Headquarters 1% 6% 22% 32% 39% See Table 15 – Note * 416
O Division 2% 4% 16% 40% See Table 15 – Note * 39% 545
T (Depot) Division 7% 7% 24% 29% 33% See Table 15 – Note * 75
V Division 2% 4% 18% 35% 42% See Table 15 – Note * 55
Being listened to by Management
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 16 Notes

Table 16 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 16 – Footnote * referrer

Table 16 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 16 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 40 74 438 2705 5236 8493
Total Percent 0% 1% 5% 32% 62% 100%
B Division 1% 0% 4% 32% 62% See Table 16 – Note * 232
C Division 0% 1% 5% 30% 64% See Table 16 – Note 455
D Division 0% 2% 4% 30% 64% See Table 16 – Note 552
E Division 0% 1% 5% 30% 63% See Table 16 – Note * 2927
F Division 0% 1% 5% 35% 59% See Table 16 – Note * 623
G Division 0% 1% 4% 35% 59% See Table 16 – Note * 93
H Division 0% 1% 5% 34% 60% See Table 16 – Note * 472
J Division 1% 1% 6% 35% 57% See Table 16 – Note * 361
K Division 1% 1% 5% 34% 59% See Table 16 – Note * 1300
L Division 0% 0% 8% 31% 61% See Table 16 – Note * 51
M Division 0% 1% 7% 39% 53% See Table 16 – Note * 74
National Division 0% 1% 5% 32% 62% See Table 16 – Note * 257
National Headquarters 0% 1% 5% 33% 60% See Table 16 – Note * 420
O Division 1% 1% 5% 30% 64% See Table 16 – Note 547
T (Depot) Division 0% 0% 8% 33% 59% See Table 16 – Note * 75
V Division 2% 2% 2% 22% 72% See Table 16 – Note 54
Promoting the identity and reputation of the RCMP
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 17 Notes

Table 17 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 17 – Footnote * referrer

Table 17 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 17 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 436 529 1385 2602 3553 8505
Total Percent 5% 6% 16% 31% 42% 100%
B Division 5% 7% 16% 31% 41% See Table 17 – Note * 231
C Division 4% 7% 13% 34% 41% See Table 17 – Note * 457
D Division 6% 5% 17% 30% 41% See Table 17 – Note * 553
E Division 5% 7% 17% 29% 42% See Table 17 – Note * 2937
F Division 6% 5% 15% 36% 38% See Table 17 – Note * 627
G Division 4% 9% 16% 31% 40% See Table 17 – Note * 93
H Division 3% 6% 17% 32% 43% See Table 17 – Note * 470
J Division 4% 6% 14% 33% 43% See Table 17 – Note * 359
K Division 4% 7% 17% 34% 38% See Table 17 – Note * 1299
L Division 4% 2% 15% 23% 56% See Table 17 – Note 52
M Division 4% 10% 19% 33% 34% See Table 17 – Note * 73
National Division 6% 5% 18% 29% 42% See Table 17 – Note * 256
National Headquarters 4% 5% 13% 32% 46% See Table 17 – Note * 419
O Division 7% 6% 16% 22% 49% See Table 17 – Note 549
T (Depot) Division 11% 4% 17% 21% 47% See Table 17 – Note * 75
V Division 4% 4% 16% 31% 45% See Table 17 – Note * 55
Informing RCMP members of employment and workplace issues
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 18 Notes

Table 18 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 18 – Footnote * referrer

Table 18 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 18 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 29 145 850 3291 4201 8516
Total Percent 0% 2% 10% 39% 49% 100%
B Division 0% 1% 10% 40% 49% See Table 18 – Note * 232
C Division 0% 2% 8% 39% 50% See Table 18 – Note * 458
D Division 0% 2% 8% 40% 51% See Table 18 – Note * 554
E Division 0% 2% 11% 37% 50% See Table 18 – Note * 2937
F Division 0% 2% 13% 40% 44% See Table 18 – Note * 626
G Division 0% 4% 9% 43% 45% See Table 18 – Note * 94
H Division 0% 1% 7% 38% 54% See Table 18 – Note * 473
J Division 1% 1% 8% 43% 47% See Table 18 – Note * 360
K Division 1% 2% 12% 42% 43% See Table 18 – Note * 1300
L Division 0% 0% 10% 35% 56% See Table 18 – Note * 52
M Division 0% 3% 14% 41% 43% See Table 18 – Note * 74
National Division 0% 2% 8% 38% 51% See Table 18 – Note * 257
National Headquarters 0% 1% 8% 34% 57% See Table 18 – Note 419
O Division 0% 1% 8% 34% 58% See Table 18 – Note 550
T (Depot) Division 1% 0% 12% 37% 49% See Table 18 – Note * 75
V Division 0% 0% 9% 38% 53% See Table 18 – Note * 55
Avoiding conflict amongst RCMP members
  Not at all A bit Somewhat A lot Very much Total

Table 19 Notes

Table 19 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 19 – Footnote * referrer

Table 19 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 19 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 221 450 1771 2914 3151 8507
Total Percent 3% 5% 21% 34% 37% 100%
B Division 3% 6% 22% 38% See Table 19 – Note * 32% 232
C Division 2% 3% 12% 38% 45% See Table 19 – Note * 458
D Division 3% 6% 23% 31% 37% See Table 19 – Note * 554
E Division 3% 6% 22% 34% 36% See Table 19 – Note * 2930
F Division 3% 6% 24% 34% See Table 19 – Note * 34% See Table 19 – Note * 626
G Division 3% 9% 18% 39% See Table 19 – Note * 31% 94
H Division 2% 4% 18% 32% 44% See Table 19 – Note * 472
J Division 1% 3% 15% 37% 44% See Table 19 – Note * 358
K Division 3% 6% 23% 37% See Table 19 – Note * 30% 1304
L Division 4% 2% 17% 21% 56% See Table 19 – Note 52
M Division 3% 5% 30% 36% See Table 19 – Note * 26% 74
National Division 1% 5% 19% 38% See Table 19 – Note * 36% 256
National Headquarters 2% 3% 18% 30% 46% See Table 19 – Note 418
O Division 2% 4% 19% 32% 43% See Table 19 – Note * 550
T (Depot) Division 1% 5% 28% 32% 33% See Table 19 – Note * 75
V Division 6% 6% 28% 26% 35% See Table 19 – Note * 54
12. Of the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services? FIRST choice (top answers)
  Independence from Management Finding Best Solutions to Problems Together with Management Being listened to by Management Total number

Table 20 Notes

Table 20 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 20 – Footnote * referrer

Table 20 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 20 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 3013 1383 1510 8494
Total Percent 35% 16% 18% 100%
B Division 36% See Table 20 – Note * 15% 19% 232
C Division 34% See Table 20 – Note * 16% 14% 455
D Division 36% See Table 20 – Note * 14% 20% 551
E Division 40% See Table 20 – Note * 14% 17% 2930
F Division 24% See Table 20 – Note * 17% 23% 627
G Division 28% See Table 20 – Note * 17% 20% 94
H Division 27% See Table 20 – Note * 20% 19% 469
J Division 32% See Table 20 – Note * 20% 18% 360
K Division 31% See Table 20 – Note * 17% 22% 1299
L Division 21% 35% See Table 20 – Note * 19% 52
M Division 38% See Table 20 – Note * 16% 16% 74
National Division 39% See Table 20 – Note * 21% 12% 256
National Headquarters 34% See Table 20 – Note * 19% 12% 418
O Division 45% See Table 20 – Note 17% 12% 547
T (Depot) Division 41% See Table 20 – Note 17% 9% 75
V Division 33% See Table 20 – Note * 20% 20% 55
12. Of the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services? SECOND choice (top answers)
  Being listened to by Management Finding Best Solutions to Problems Together with Management Ability to be Adversarial with Management Total number

Table 21 Notes

Table 21 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 21 – Footnote * referrer

Table 21 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 21 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 1880 1264 1241 8475
Total Percent 22% 15% 15% 100%
B Division 24% See Table 21 – Note * 13% 15% 232
C Division 17% See Table 21 – Note * 17% See Table 21 – Note * 15% 455
D Division 21% See Table 21 – Note * 14% 15% 549
E Division 23% See Table 21 – Note * 14% 16% 2924
F Division 22% See Table 21 – Note * 16% 11% 623
G Division 22% See Table 21 – Note * 14% 10% 93
H Division 25% See Table 21 – Note 16% 13% 469
J Division 21% See Table 21 – Note * 15% 12% 360
K Division 23% See Table 21 – Note * 16% 13% 1298
L Division 25% See Table 21 – Note 13% 6% 52
M Division 23% 26% See Table 21 – Note 15% 74
National Division 22% See Table 21 – Note * 15% 15% 254
National Headquarters 18% See Table 21 – Note * 18% See Table 21 – Note * 13% 418
O Division 21% See Table 21 – Note * 13% 17% 544
T (Depot) Division 20% See Table 21 – Note * 16% 19% 75
V Division 20% See Table 21 – Note * 11% 15% 55
13. Looking at the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services? FIRST CHOICE (Top answers)
  Wages and benefits Working conditions Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment Total

Table 22 Notes

Table 22 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 22 – Footnote * referrer

Table 22 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 22 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 5667 661 642 8529
Total Percent 66% 8% 8% 100%
B Division 64% See Table 22 – Note * 10% 8% 233
C Division 56% See Table 22 – Note * 7% 11% 459
D Division 68% See Table 22 – Note * 10% 5% 553
E Division 69% See Table 22 – Note 7% 8% 2943
F Division 72% See Table 22 – Note 9% 4% 630
G Division 67% See Table 22 – Note * 9% 9% 95
H Division 62% See Table 22 – Note * 7% 7% 475
J Division 51% See Table 22 – Note * 15% 11% 362
K Division 67% See Table 22 – Note * 8% 6% 1302
L Division 62% See Table 22 – Note * 12% 6% 52
M Division 53% See Table 22 – Note * 16% 4% 74
National Division 64% See Table 22 – Note * 4% 8% 257
National Headquarters 63% See Table 22 – Note * 7% 11% 419
O Division 70% See Table 22 – Note 4% 8% 545
T (Depot) Division 72% See Table 22 – Note 7% 9% 75
V Division 65% See Table 22 – Note * 11% 9% 55
13. Looking at the list above, which are your two MOST IMPORTANT services? SECOND CHOICE (Top answers)
  Working conditions Protecting against unfair or arbitrary treatment Wages and benefits Total

Table 23 Notes

Table 23 – Note *

Highest percent response for all categories

Return to Table 23 – Footnote * referrer

Table 23 – Note †

Highest overall response percentage

Return to Table 23 – Footnote referrer

Total Number 1691 1220 1125 8510
Total Percent 20% 14% 13% 100%
B Division 22% See Table 23 – Note * 15% 10% 233
C Division 21% See Table 23 – Note * 11% 13% 457
D Division 28% See Table 23 – Note 13% 13% 554
E Division 19% See Table 23 – Note * 16% 14% 2932
F Division 27% See Table 23 – Note 10% 12% 628
G Division 14% 14% 12% 94
H Division 13% 13% 16% See Table 23 – Note * 474
J Division 22% See Table 23 – Note * 9% 14% 362
K Division 22% See Table 23 – Note * 12% 13% 1302
L Division 12% 15% See Table 23 – Note * 10% 52
M Division 14% 15% 12% 74
National Division 15% 16% See Table 23 – Note * 15% 255
National Headquarters 17% See Table 23 – Note * 17% See Table 23 – Note * 13% 418
O Division 11% 21% See Table 23 – Note * 11% 545
T (Depot) Division 21% See Table 23 – Note * 17% 11% 75
V Division 22% See Table 23 – Note * 11% 13% 55

Annex 4 – Sample answers to open-ended question 14

14. Is there anything else you feel it is important to communicate about the future of RCMP regular member labour relations?

Below is a selection of the most frequent comments out of approximately 600 pages of responses to question 14. The selection is based on judgment while rejecting political and politically incorrect statements.

  • The best you could do is propose a survey…
  • Executives have no credibility with membership.
  • We lack leaders.
  • We should not have to pay a union.
  • The current situation is a disgrace. The Commissioner should report to Parliament.
  • La syndicalisation permettra d’éviter les transferts non-désirés.
  • The SRR program has not worked.
  • Unions seem to protect a few that do not want to work and still get paid.
  • We need a way to get rid of the deadweight we have.
  • Independence from management is essential.
  • Independent employer status should be obtained.
  • Do not want a union.
  • Oppressive managers should be held accountable.
  • The Force is a mess.
  • Binding arbitration to be free from TB decisions.
  • The RCMP is handicapped by TB.
  • Get rid of promotions for people in SRR program.
  • J’ai choisi le GRC parce que nous n’avons pas de syndicat.
  • We need a union and a better promotion process.
  • Dangerously under staffed.
  • We are not public servants.
  • Being independent from the government.
  • Should not have to pay union dues.
  • With an association, the members involved with the DZIEKANSKY death would not have been charged with perjury.
  • Would prefer our own RCMP LR legislation and not PSLRA.
  • The RCMP should no longer be bullied by Treasury Board.
  • Representatives need to be independent from management.
  • We need an ombudsman.
  • Lack of proper discipline against members who do not work.
  • The div rep program too close to management.
  • I do not want an adversarial labor relation program.
  • I would agree with an enhanced SRR program with binding arbitration to settle the issues.
  • I am not paying union dues for a bunch of ex members who were on sick leave.
  • Independence from Federal government.
  • Joining a labor board that represent non police officers would be a dis service to members.
  • We need to have the ability to challenge management and TB.
  • SRR is a joke.
  • I am happy with the current system.
    • am NOT a supporter of union mentality.
  • We need a union similar to other police forces in Canada.
  • Many members feel that as a result of the decision by the -Supreme Court of Canada, our senior management dropped us like a sack of potatoes.
  • It is absolutely critical that we as a unique organization with such a vital role in Canada and abroad not turn into a dysfunctional unionized environment where poor performer and trouble makers are protected thereby tarnishing the reputation and good work done by the majority.
  • This is the first time in my career that I would tell someone looking to join a Police Force to join a Municipal Force.
  • We require an independent union.
  • The membership is overworked, understaffed and underpaid.
  • It is imperative that the RCMP be separate from the Public service unions.
  • Groups seeking to represent members should have access to GroupWise.
  • I WANT THE SRR PROGRAM.
  • I personally feel the SRR program with some modifications -would be a good form of labor relations.
  • The SCC was extremely critical of the SRRP. The program should be immediately disbanded.
  • We need representation that prevents management from treating members as second class citizens…
  • Members will not be militant if you DO something.
  • Avoir un système de promotions indépendant des superviseurs en place.
  • Absolutely NO union!!!!!!
  • I am very concerned that groups such as the Mounted Police Association will gain traction and power through member apathy.
  • Our management seems unable or unwilling to represent membership.
  • Lack of resources and members overworked.
  • We need to have a real voice at the table.
  • I never thought I would say this myself but we NEED a union.
  • I have tolerated the corruption, mismanagement and downright INCOMPETENCE of this outfit enough.
  • Quality of force housing in the north.
  • RCMP should have independent labor union.
  • If the RCMP unionizes I plan to quit.
  • We need an independent union, separate from management, the ability to strike or work to rule.
  • Liked the system the way it was.
  • The RCMP needs to stop protecting the members who are a disgrace to the organization.
  • Un syndicat pourra créer un équilibre des pouvoirs.
  • I don’t want to pay union dues.
  • I feel that management has lost touch with the reality of front line policing.
  • Separate employer status is needed.
  • I had no problem with the current system.
  • I am concerned about the impact on operations of an increased union mentality.
  • This organization is insanely top heavy.
  • Extreme shortage of front line members.
  • Union YES!!!!!
  • The membership is in need of representation independent from management.
  • Il faut arrêter d’abuser des membres.
  • There is a need for an RCMP solution to be found here.
  • I do NOT want a union I DO want binding arbitration.
  • I am opposed to a union style labour relation arrangement.
  • We cannot be seen as a puppet to government.
  • We need distance from government.
  • I don’t want to pay union fees. That is the most important.
  • Prefer to keep the SRR in place.
  • The last thing I want is a union.
  • Yes, union representation should be for non-commissioned ranks only.
  • I am tired of the way things are and welcome a change of any kind.
  • The lack of union is a thing I enjoyed about the RCMP
  • My experience with the SRR program is that they are tall on giving advice but short on taking actions.
  • The new labor regime must not be imposed on members but rather should be selected by members.
  • The representing group needs to have power going into negotiations.
  • The RCMP is a disrespectful workplace full of bullying and mistreatment of its employees.
  • I am satisfied with the current level of service provided by the SRR.
  • We need to be heard and have a role to play in what benefits we get instead of being told what we are getting.
  • We need a more efficient way of handling those who use the system to avoid work.
  • We need to stop encouraging poor and negligent members.
  • The new labor relations should be extremely aggressive.
  • The Commissioner should be reporting to a separate police board.
  • The biggest issue is the lack of personnel.
  • I would like an RCMP police association.
  • Duty to accommodate is abused by members.
  • There is a huge disparity between RCMP and other police forces.
  • Stop making excuses and let’s get it done.
  • There is a belief by some members that a union is the “be all”.
  • The RCMP needs to distance itself from the Office of the Prime Minister.
  • We are proud police officers who work hard at making a difference in this dangerous profession.
  • The force continues to do more with less. I would consider the RCMP to be the most watered down and weakest police force in the country.
  • I wish to have a labour relations regime that is working in cooperation with management.
  • We should be able to fire members that are not productive.
  • We simply need a bargaining team that is independent from management.
  • It already appears to be very difficult to get poor performers fired. Something like a union would protect these slugs even more.
  • Would I like to see and SRR program over a UNION-YES. -Would I like to see it continue in its current format NO”.
  • I HAVE BEEN TREATED INTOLERABLY AND I HAVE NO RECOURSE.
  • Members of the RCMP used to be proud.
  • Management has never been helpful and never will be.
  • A union would destroy the RCMP.
  • Members cannot get straight answers as to what are the minimum manpower.
  • The current system is set up as a dictatorship.
  • We will never forget that management did not support us when our wage increase was revoked by Treasury Board.
  • I would like to see regional collective bargaining.
  • Any formal arbitration process would be an improvement over the ludicrous and draconian system we are exploited under.
  • I believe it is impossible for anyone of us to communicate an educated opinion regarding our future when the RCMP is blocking our ability to seek out information that is outside the wall of the RCMP.
  • When it come to pay and benefits, it needs to be bargained and arbitrated independently.
  • I am currently happy with the SRR program and see its merits.
    • I am COMPLETELY OPPOSED to a union.
  • I am not a pro union person by any stretch however I no longer trust neither the executive management not the Government to be looking out for my well being.
  • We are experiencing a human resource and logistical crisis brought about by insufficient funding and reactionary policy making.
  • I believe MPPAC is best positioned to represent my interests.
  • I will seek an early retirement should a union come to fruition.
  • The present officer promotion process has no transparency what so ever and is built on the old boys club.
  • We must be represented by a fully independent body.
  • The questions in this survey further confirm the Federal Government just doesn’t get it.
  • Get on with it!!!!
  • RCMP members are not public servants. Anything to do with the Public Service including inclusion in the PSLRA will be detrimental to the membership.
  • Consultation is great but let’s focus on execution.
  • I feel strongly that the RCMP employees need their own independent representation.
  • There has been a miscarriage of process. No information has been allowed to flow.
  • Avoir la possibilité de gérer et d’administrer notre propre fond de pension.
  • I want a police association just like every other police force in the country.
  • Members in different areas of the country need different wages.
  • Unions protect the weak and those who don’t want to work.
  • I support the need for a union and would pay whatever is necessary to have someone help stop the current way of life in the RCMP.
  • There should be more town hall meetings, more discussions.
  • An independent union for the RCMP is crucial for morale in the force.
  • It is important that members be provided with the results of this survey.
  • The consultation process is eight months after the SCC decision, leaving only four months for a report and legislation tabled. Not enough time.
  • The results of this survey/town hall should be made available to all the membership.

Annex 5 – Town Halls Schedule

Date and Time Town Hall Location Participating
Divisions / Videoconference Sites

#1 1000 to noon
#2 1900 to 2100
 F Division HQ
Regina, SK
D, F, K, G and V divisions

#3 1400 to 1600
#4 1900 to 2100
E Division HQ
Surrey, BC
E and M divisions

#5 1000 to 1200
E Division HQ
Surrey, BC
E and M divisions

#6 1000 to noon
#7 1900 to 2100
K Division HQ
Edmonton, AB
D, F, K, G and V divisions

#8 1400 to 1600
C Division HQ
Montreal, QC
this presentation will be in French and is open to regular members across the country

#9 1400 to 1600
#10 1900 to 2100
Ottawa NHQ O Division

#11 1000 to 1200
Moncton, NB B, H, J and L divisions

#12 1400 to 1600
#13 1900 to 2100
H Division HQ
Halifax, NS
B, H, J and L divisions

Annex 6 – Sample comments from town halls

Town Halls – Main themes

Process

  • How was the decision to do the consultations made?
  • We need more consultation sessions
  • We need more time to make these decisions
  • Why is the education coming after the survey? The Consultations should have been scheduled before the survey
  • There should be a follow-up survey
  • Why is the consultation happening so late in the process? Why did Gov’t wait so long after the SCC?
  • Why so few sessions?
  • Why not more communication on the sessions?
  • Will you share the results of the survey? Your report? And when?
  • Why did they select you?
  • Why weren’t CMs included in the consultations?
  • Why weren’t MPPAC invited to the discussions?
  • We need more discussions – and they need to be focused discussions
  • We would like copies of the notes and presentation
  • C Division – complaints of the session in French only (complaints to operator, NOC, email)

Program

  • Concerns over being prevented from using RCMP email system to communicate on this topic – How do members discuss matters and communicate?
  • What happens on Jan. 17?
  • Why can’t members decide the future?
  • Why treat us like Public Servants? We are not public servants.
  • What will happen to the Pay Council report? And pay adjustment?
  • Who will write the legislation?
  • Can we “fix it”? i.e.; if something is put in place on Jan. 17 can we change it?
  • Would there be any difficulties with having multiple bargaining units?
  • How long will the interim regime last? What will it look like? Who will select it?
  • The PSLRA is the default – what are the main differences between that the status quo
  • What do we need to be concerned about in this process?
    • ANSWER: What do I want – and how do I get there
  • Has anyone started looking at legislation? Does it matter which government is in place?
  • How will Pay Council’s recommendations going to transfer over?
  • There is a lack of choice for the interim model (goes against principal of Supreme Court Ruling)
  • Exclusions from bargaining units – Detachment Commanders (in some of the smaller detachments there are Corporals that are detachment commanders) It’s not always clear who/ which positions are excluded
  • What it the process for a union to approach members?
  • Confusion between PSLRA & PSAC. – Members assume they will be forced to join a Public Service union

Annex 7 – Presentation slides for town halls

Slide 1

RCMP

LABOUR RELATIONS Post SCC DECISION For R.Ms.

Slide 2

TB session for Regular Members

  • The Government would like to consult Regular Members before the introduction of a legislation to frame a new labour relation regime for the RCMP following the recent Supreme Court decision.
  • Thank you for your views.

Slide 3

The session

  • The context
  • The current regime
  • The Government decision required
  • The PSLRA
  • Police LR legislations
  • The survey questions
  • Need for an interim model
  • Your views on everything

Slide 4

Canadian Context

  • Provincial legislations
  • Federal legislation (labour code)
  • PSLRA
  • RCMP/DND
  • Change in 2016

Slide 5

Current regime

  • Exclusion from PSLRA
  • SRRP
  • Aust reports
  • PC
  • Employer decides

Slide 6

Required Government Decision

  • Default Value = PSLRA almost as is.
  • Alternatives:
    • modified PSLRA
    • RCMP L.R. Legislation
  • Interim Regime in all cases.

Slide 7

PSLRA examples

  • Exclusions
  • NJC
  • PSLREB
  • Certification
  • Mediation / Conciliation
  • Bargaining units
  • Managerial positions

Slide 8

PSLRA examples

  • Succession rights
  • Bargaining
  • Dispute resolution
  • Two-tier bargaining
  • Good faith
  • Essential services
  • Arbitration boards
  • Strikes

Slide 9

LR legislations for police forces

  • Examples from
    • Vancouver
    • Edmonton
    • Winnipeg
    • Toronto
    • OPP
    • Montreal
    • SQ
    • Halifax

Slide 10

LR legislations for police forces

  • Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act ED
  • Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act OPP
  • Trade Union Act HZ
  • Police Services Act YZ
  • Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act VR

Slide 11

Examples of articles in P.L.R.L.

  • Cannot join trade union
  • Exclusively formed by members of the SQ
  • Association for police officers with a rank below that of Inspector
  • No strike/No lockout
  • Municipality may bargain:
    • Collectively with bargaining agent
    • Through a committee appointed to  bargain on its behalf
    • Authorize the municipal police commission to bargain collectively on its behalf

Slide 12

Bargaining inclusions for OPP

  • Rates of remuneration
  • Hours of work
  • Overtime
  • Other premium allowance
  • Mileage rate
  • Paid holidays
  • Paid vacations
  • Group life insurance
  • Health insurance
  • Long-term income protection insurance
  • Procedures applicable for processing grievances
  • Methods of effecting promotions, demotions, transfers, lay-offs or reappointments
  • Leaves of absence other than elective public office, political activities or training and

Slide 13

Bargaining exclusions for OPP Employer functions

  • employment, appointment, complement, organization, work methods and procedures;
  • kinds and location of equipment;
  • discipline and termination of employment;
  • assignment;
  • classification, job evaluation system, merit system, training and development, appraisal;
  • the principles and standards governing promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off and reappointment.

Slide 14

Other articles in P.L.R.L.

  • Grievances must be submitted to arbitration as established in the collective agreement.
  • Conciliation / Arbitration (1 or 3 person)
  • Considerations for arbitration Board

Slide 15

Survey

  • Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a representative organization?
    • RCMP members-only labour organization (64%)
    • RCMP members and other members of the federal public service in the labour organization (5%)
    • RCMP members and police officers of other forces (26%)
    • Don’t know (5%)

Slide 16

Survey

  • Which of the following answers best reflects your preference for a grouping of members that is appropriate for collective bargaining?
    • A single, national grouping that is consistent with the RCMP’s unique situation as a national police organization (61%)
    • A number of different RCMP groupings, perhaps divided by province or region (34%)
    • Don’t know (5%)

Slide 17

Survey

  • Is it important to you that your representative organization have as its principal mandate the representation of RCMP members only?
    • Not Important (3%)
    • A bit (3%)
    • Somewhat (11%)
    • A lot (21%)
    • Very important (61%)
    • Or: Don’t Know (1%)

Slide 18

Survey

  • Do you think there might be “conflicts of loyalties” if RCMP members were represented by labour organizations that also represent non-police workforces? 
    • Strongly Disagree (2%)
    • Disagree (6%)
    • Neither agree or Disagree (13%)
    • Agree (29%)
    • Strongly Agree (48%)
    • Or: Don’t Know (2%)

Slide 19

Survey

  • How important is it to you that the grouping of RCMP members that is appropriate for collective bargaining is a single, national unit?
    • Not Important (7%)
    • A bit (5%)
    • Somewhat (19%)
    • A lot (24%)
    • Very important (41%)
    • Or: Don’t Know (4%)

Slide 20

Survey

  • Should binding arbitration be the means by which bargaining impasses are resolved if there is no right to strike? (Binding arbitration uses an independent labour relations expert or panel to determine the outcome of a dispute.)
    • Strongly Disagree (2%)
    • Disagree (4%)
    • Neither agree or disagree (11%)
    • Agree (43%)
    • Strongly Agree (37%)
    • Or: Don’t know (4%)

Slide 21

Survey

  • Is it important, given the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization, that there be specific new labour relations legislation that is focused exclusively on RCMP members? (As opposed to the PSLRA amended to reflect the unique role of the RCMP as a police organization.)
    • Not important (3%)
    • A bit (2%)
    • Somewhat (10%)
    • A lot (22%)
    • Very important (59%)
    • Or: Don’t Know (4%)

Slide 22

Survey

  • How important is it to you that a tribunal other than the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to administer the labour relations legislation applicable to RCMP members in the future? (The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is the independent, neutral, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the administration of the PSLRA).
    • Not important (4%)
    • A bit (2%)
    • Somewhat (17%)
    • A lot (27%)
    • Very important (42%)
    • Don't know (8%)

Slide 23

Interim model

  • What elements would you like to see in the interim model?
    • Consultation
    • Co-development
    • Committees
    • Assistance in different areas, which ones?
    • Etc.

Slide 24

Thank You!

RCMP-LRTownhalls-AssembleesRT-GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Privacy statement

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: