Union's Request for Retroactive Pay Adjustments Pending New Classification Denied

File: 585-02-49530 IN THE MATTER OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SECTOR LABOUR RELATIONS ACT and a Request for Arbitration affecting the Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (Esquimalt) , as Bargaining Agent, and the [NAME], as Employer, in respect of the [NAME] composed of the [COMPANY]: [NAME], Chairperson, [NAME] nominee, [NAME], Bargaining Agent nominee For the Bargaining Agent: [NAME] For the Employer: [NAME] The matters in dispute proceeded by written submission . The Board met in Executive Session on April 7, 2026. Arbitral Award I. Introduction [ 1 ] On August 6, 2025, the Board issued an Award resolving issues in dispute between [NAME] and the Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (Esquimalt). At the request of the parties, the Board remains seized with respect to implementation and, as it happened, a dispute arose, which proceeded by written submissions.

II. The Issue [ 2 ] In issue is whether employees in the Pipefitter 8 (High Pressure - HP) classification are to be paid at the [COMPANY] rate retroactively and on an interim basis pending the implementation of a new PIP-9 classification (as had been agreed upon by the parties).

III. Union Submissions [ 3 ] The union began by noting that the Board retained jurisdiction over implementation and Pay Notes: “Existing Pay Notes on page 61 to be remitted to the parties to be revised as part of housekeeping consistent with pay grade and changes to rates, with board remaining seized”. The parties agreed that a new classification, PIP-9, would be created for the Pipefitter HP and that this classification would be placed in [COMPANY]. The union acknowledged that the Board had no jurisdiction to create a new classification; it was not requesting that it do so. It noted, however, that the process for creation of the PIP-9 classification has commenced. However, the union has been advised that it could take approximately 18-24 months to complete. In these circumstances, the union asked that the Board direct that affected Pipefitter HP employees be paid at the [COMPANY] rate pending implementation. It was not appropriate, in the union’s submission, given the length of time anticipated to implement, that affected employees receive a lower wage. After all, the union observed, the delay had nothing to do with the impacted employees – who now had to wait an extended period of time to benefit from the agreed-upon change – and it was never understood that the classification process would take so long as there was no suggestion at the arbitration hearing that it would take the employer months, or even years, to give effect to the parties’ agreement. [ 4 ] The union was also of the view that the order sought was not inconsistent with section 150(1) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA). The direction that the union now sought was akin to results frequently found in acting pay grievances; a result entirely within jurisdiction, in the union’s submission. Stated somewhat differently, the union was not asking for an order that would affect the classifications of persons employed in the public service (which it conceded would be outside jurisdiction). The union pointed out that the movement of other classifications was effective as of the date of the Award.

Accordingly, the union asked that affected employees – pending the completion of the classification process – receive retroactive – from date of award – and interim compensation increases pending the new classification. Finally, the union completely disagreed with any assertion that the Board was functus officio , pointing out that the Board specifically retained jurisdiction over the Pay Notes allowing it to now direct implementation of the new wage rates retroactively and prospectively.

IV. Employer Submissions [ 5 ] In the employer’s submission, the union’s request was beyond the Board’s jurisdiction per subsection 150(1) of the FPSLRA . Simply put, the employer argued, the outcome sought by the union might influence the classification of a position and the compensation structure ultimately attached to that classification, both of which were out of bounds. The fact of the matter, and stated somewhat differently, the employer argued, was that paying a Pipefitter 8 at [COMPANY] pending the implementation of the proposed PIP-9 classification, would constitute a modification of the compensation associated with a classification resulting, in effect, in a classification determination that was beyond jurisdiction. The case should be decided on this basis alone, in the employer’s view. Also leading to this result, the employer argued, was that the Board was functus officio . The Board did remain seized – cited above – but did so in a very limited fashion: solely to ensure administrative alignment with the restructuring of pay groups and the associated wage adjustments as provided for in the Award. The Board referred to “housekeeping” for a reason, and it was not to provide retroactive or interim compensation increases pending the implementation of the new PIP-9 classification. That process was understood by all concerned to be a time-consuming one, the employer observed, adding that it was currently underway with the timelines reflecting the normative requirements of the process (which were well known to the parties). For all these reasons, the employer asked that the union’s request be dismissed.

V. Decision [ 6 ] Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the union’s request for an immediate pay adjustment must be denied. We recognize that the Board remained seized with respect to Pay Notes understanding – as is specifically indicated in the Award, that Pay Note changes were a housekeeping process only. The Board did not remain seized to provide retroactive or interim relief pending the creation of the new PIP-9 classification. The Board, as it continues, however, remains seized with respect to our initial award. [ 7 ] More importantly, we accept the employer’s argument that granting the union’s request would be outside our jurisdiction given section 150(1), which is categorical: 150 (1) An arbitral award that applies to a [NAME] — other than a [NAME] determined under section 238.14 — must not, directly or indirectly, alter or eliminate any existing term or condition of employment, or establish any new term or condition of employment, if … e) doing so would affect the organization of the public service or the assignment of duties to, and the classification of, positions and persons employed in the public service. [Emphasis added]. [ 8 ] Providing for the requested retroactive and interim (ongoing) pay adjustment before the new classification is created would obviously constitute a modification of the compensation associated with a classification, in other words, a statutorily prohibited classification determination. This issue is not akin to an acting pay case. [ 9 ] The parties are familiar with this statutory provision. They also knew that that classification process – having experience in these matters – would be time consuming. There is no evidence of anyone being dilatory. While appreciating that, it is our expectation that this process be completed as soon as practicable so that the new rate can come into effect. We also recommend, from a fairness perspective, that serious consideration be given to paying retroactivity upon creation of the new classification. We note that employer and union agreed on the creation of this new classification and note again that the Board continues to remain seized with the implementation of our initial award. [ 10 ] Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the Board has concluded that the union’s request for relief prior to the new PIP-9 classification being created is denied. April 24, 2026. “[NAME]” [NAME], Chair of the arbitration board “[NAME]” [NAME] “[NAME]” [NAME], Bargaining Agent Nominee