We don’t usually respond to CBC management’s communiqu?s on bargaining issues as we believe negotiations should take place at the negotiating table, but this time it’s just too hard to resist.

CBC claims our last communiqu? was “erroneous and misleading.” Both are pretty serious charges that do not stand up to a review of the facts.

FACT: CBC is proposing language (Article 1.5 of its proposal) that would mean a radical change to the current system by enabling the CBC to keep a permanent performance management record on an employee’s status and pay file. Right now, only the employee and the employee’s immediate supervisor keep documents.

FACT: The current “Review Process” deals with employees who are deemed unable to meet the minimum standards of their job. This is not a disciplinary process. It is a rarely-used, nine-month exercise that gives an affected employee the opportunity to be assigned or recalled to an adequate position if they still aren’t able to meet the standards at the end of the nine months. The CBC wishes to reduce this period to six months, at the end of which an employee could be let go without any opportunity for recall. This is a significant change from the current language. A layoff without displacement or recall rights can only be called a termination and can only be fairly viewed as a form of discipline.

FACT: CBC committed to the Guild that it would not use information gathered during the most recent Hay Survey on employee attitudes for the purposes of collective bargaining. However, the reference in the CBC’s communiqu? to the ineffective management of so-called ” poor performers” is taken from the survey. We believe the responses to this question have been taken entirely out of context and suggest that, in fact, the results question management’s ability to manage. We invite you to review the “Leadership” portion of the Hay survey and draw your own conclusions. (It is available on the CBC intranet at: http://intranet.cbc-radio-canada/employeesurvey/hay/index.htm )

FACT: CBC’s bargaining committee is well aware of the union’s priority to create an open process that will set clear thresholds for employees in the area of performance review. CBC instead continues to resist any objective standards.

The Guild bargaining committee stands by its communiqu?s. We have offered some compromises that would shorten the review process but, in the end, we will only agree if there are appropriate safeguards and objective methods for measuring achievement. We look forward to continuing negotiations on this issue. Overall, we are committed to continuing the negotiating process with the goal of having a fair resolution to *all* issues.

Dan Oldfield
Senior Staff Representative