The federal public service’s largest union has filed official complaints asking the government to “cease the unilateral implementation” of its early retirement incentive program until its parameters are negotiated with the union.

In copies of the complaints filed with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board and obtained by Radio-Canada, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) alleges the government acted unfairly by announcing the program and argues it harms the union’s role of representing its members.

The federal labour relations board is an independent tribunal tasked with resolving disputes over collective bargaining and unfair labour practices.

By offering separation packages to public servants to reduce its workforce, the employer is “bargaining directly with PSAC members on terms and conditions of employment,” the union says.

This amounts to “interference,” according to PSAC.

Roughly 68,000 civil servants over the age of 50 were invited to check their eligibility for the program late last year. The federal government is predicting the early retirement program will cost $1.5 billion over five years, with about half of that expense coming in 2026.

The announcement of the program likely “shocked” the union, and it’s no surprise it wants to be involved in the process, said labour lawyer Marc Boudreau, who reviewed the complaints.

The complaints argue the government is “circumventing” the workforce adjustment process and preventing PSAC from “playing any role in how the planned [staff] reductions are accomplished.”

The early retirement program “has the same objectives and general design” as the workforce adjustment that was specifically bargained into collective agreements, PSAC added.

The union says it’s “left with no way to explain to its members how the program will be rolled out or implemented in conjunction with the existing workforce adjustment process.”

‘Actively undermining’

“By placing the Union in this position, [the government] is actively undermining its role as a bargaining agent and causing members to perceive the Union as uninformed and ineffective,” reads PSAC’s complaint.

In a French-language interview, Boudreau said PSAC “is losing face a bit” and “has been sidelined” from the process being put into place.

The federal government, however, “doesn’t seem to know where it’s going with this program either,” he added.

The details are expected to be unveiled when it comes into force, something that’s set to take place after the federal budget receives royal assent.

Boudreau added the union “has no interest in losing members, because it will eventually lose union dues.”

PSAC also believes that by announcing the early retirement program, the government is violating its duty to observe terms and conditions of employment while collective agreement negotiations are underway for certain groups of workers.

However, Boudreau noted that “changes to working conditions have not actually taken place.”

“What the union is doing right now is a bit like a lawyer standing up and shouting ‘Objection!’ to the judge before the other lawyer has even asked their question,” Boudreau said.

How are public servants impacted?

To support its arguments, PSAC has filed a copy of the proposals it made during ongoing negotiations concerning workforce adjustment. 

These proposals reveal that the union wishes to increase the education allowance — a support measure option for some employees affected by workforce adjustments — from $17,000 to $25,000.

Labour lawyer Malini Vijaykumar, partner at Nelligan Law, said even she and her colleagues have very few details about the federal early incentive program, despite representing several other federal public service unions. 

“It’s been this program that’s been sort of dangled, I guess, in front of workers, and there’s just not a lot of clarity on it,” said Vijaykumar.

She said the program is a “significant incentive” for some public servants near retirement age who are worried about layoffs.

Reviewing the complaints, she said PSAC appears worried its members may be “making these decisions without full knowledge of the terms” of the incentive. 

And while she believes the labour board will prioritize complaints like this, it could still be months before a conclusion is reached. 

“So until or unless the labour board says that something improper has gone on here, it’s probably the status quo in terms of the government offering the [incentive],” she explained.

That means individual public servants might decide to take the incentive in the meantime. The process, Vijaykumar said, is unlikely to retroactively “claw back or affect” any benefits that workers may get by accepting the incentive. 

But she advises workers to thoroughly consult finance, tax or legal professionals before making any decisions. 

“At the end of the day, these are decisions that affect your life, your job, your finances,” she said. 

Both PSAC president Sharon de Sousa and the office of the president of the Treasury Board declined to comment on the matter.

Once the government responds to the complaints before the labour relations board, the board will determine next steps.