Court Reporters Negotiations with MAG hit brick wall; union walks away from
table
November 10, 2008
More than two years after Vice-chair Randi Abramsky of the
Grievance Settlement Board handed down her decision that “the preparation
and certification of transcripts was bargaining unit work of the court
reporters,” the employer finally disclosed its planned model to the union’s
court reporting team on Oct. 17, 2008. After attempting to negotiate
improvements to the model, we gave up on discussions with the Ministry and
are returning to Vice-chair Abramsky for assistance.
The Ministry’s new “business model” takes half the work and
the income away from the CR1’s and CR2’s and sets up regional typing pools!
The Ministry wants to split the Court Reporter work into two
separate jobs – one position taking the record, the second creating the
transcript. These positions would be at the same or a lower classification;
the greatest impact would be to the current Court Reporter 2 positions.
The Ministry insists there will be 200 “new” jobs. We have
argued there will not be that many new jobs, since the Ministry’s model
takes the transcript production away from the Court Reporters and gives it
to someone else.
Abramsky stated that transcript production is rightly the
work of the court reporter. We feel strongly that the court reporter
classification has long been underclassified and that the employer continues
to undervalue the skills and responsibility of that work.
Here is what the Ministry is proposing:
-
Transcript production will NO LONGER be the work of the
Court Reporters and will NOT be done in the local courthouses.
-
Eight regional transcript centres will produce
transcripts. Locations are not confirmed but Thunder Bay, Sudbury,
Ottawa, Toronto, Newmarket, London, Scarborough and Milton are strong
possibilities. Access to that work will be limited to only those who
live within that geographic area.
-
A technology shift with digital recording devices (DRD)
and voice activated software in most courts.
-
The employer will keep the transcript fees. The Ministry
wants to keep the current system in place until the new system is
implemented in twelve to eighteen months.
-
There are three positions in the new model:
Electronic Court Monitor
Voice-Writer
Transeditor
-
These will be full-time positions at the OAD8 level,
which will be filled by restricted competition.
-
These positions will be working at the regional
transcription centres.
-
This is essentially a typing pool scenario. The sole
duty would be producing transcripts, and shift work is anticipated.
The Ministry said they will not direct assign the current
CR2’s or CR3’s to any position. These employees would have to compete for
the Voice-Writer and Transeditor positions.
All FPT Court Services Specialists will continue as CSS and
will provide Electronic Court Monitor duties.
The Ministry anticipates that it would take 12 to 18 months
to complete implementation.
We expected that the Ministry would have followed Abramsky’s
direction to make transcription work the work of the court reporters.
Instead they want to take it away.
What We Tabled
Here is what we proposed:
Court Reporter
-
This position would be classified at the Translator
1 level
-
This would be a full time position, with FPT and RPT
options.
-
The duties would include taking the record using a
digital recording device, as well as production of the transcript
Voice-Writer
-
This position would be classified at the Translator
2 level as a full-time position.
-
The duties would include taking the record using
voice recognition software, rough editing of the file, as well as
final transcript production.
-
Office space would be provided in each courthouse, or in
reasonable proximity, to facilitate transcript work.
-
A retroactive lump sum for each member affected by the
Hunt decision. This money is in compensation for retroactive pay and
pension contributions since the Hunt decision was rendered.
We also proposed a tariff increase in the interim. The
Ministry finally agreed that they would recommend to their principals that
the current tariff schedule be “reviewed”, but frankly this is so vague that
it’s meaningless. As well, the employer would not entertain any retro
payment proposal.
There are serious implications on members’ livelihood. Not
only do Court Reporters face losing about half of their income, the wage
rate for the transcriptionists at the regional centres is three dollars an
hour less than what the CR2’s currently make! The Ministry’s model does
little to recognize the importance of court reporting in the judicial
system.
The Ministry also told us that their model would also ensure
quality control in the production of the transcripts. However, since the
Ministry’s model separates taking the record and producing the transcript
between two different people in different locations, this means that if the
Employer has quality control problems now, it will be nothing compared to
the quality control problems they will have in the future!
We pointed out that the employer has better options. The
Hunt decision states that transcript work is the bargaining unit work of
court reporters.
We could not agree to their proposal. It is for that
reason that the team decided to leave the table and will return to
Vice-Chair Abramsky.
The parties had agreed to “status quo” for court reporting
while the Ministry reviewed court reporting in the province; that agreement
expired on June 1, 2008 and there is currently no agreement between the
Union and the Employer with regard to the production of transcripts in light
of Abramsky's decision.
Your court reporting team:
Julie Weber
Brenda Clapp
Helen Haggith
Linda Fudge
Paul Myers
Ruth Hamilton (staff)
Judith Marion (staff)
Court Reporting Review soon to be revealed
October 21, 2008
OPSEU’s Court Reporter Committee met with representatives
from the Ministry of the Attorney General Court Reporting Review Project on
Friday October 17, 2008.
The parties have tentative meeting dates set for the week of
October 27, 2008 to discuss the implications of the Hunt decision.
