Archived Content Contenu Archivé
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN CANADIAN POLICE FORCES A Reno= of Research conducted for and with the support of the Office of Solicitor-General for Canada. October 179 Dennis Forcese Deoartment of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University Ottawa, Canada HV ews expreseed iA this report are those of the author, and (b 7936 Solicitor-General of C:inada. .C7b ;essorily reflect the vicw3 of the F6 1979 c.2 Government Gouvernement 1+ of Canada du Canada MEMORANDUM NOTE DE SERVICE SECURITY - CLASSIFICATION - DE SÉCURITÉ TO ResPrch Projects Committee I> OUR FILE/NOTRE RÉFÉRENCE 62-6/5-189 YOUR FILE/VOTRE RÉFÉRENCE - Chief FROM Police Research DE Research Programs DATE Research & Statistics Division January 14, 1980 SUBJECT OBJET Management-Labour Relations in Canadian Policing - D. Forcese, Principal Investigator Attached please find a copy of the final report submitted in respect to the above contract, together with a critique prepared by my former assistant, Dr. M. Lioy, and a copy of my letter to Dr. Forcese. am disappointed with the quality of this report, although I am confident that it can be edited and sharpened for publication in the Canadian Police College Journal. The report does contMn a lot of information which is not generally available, and although it did not meet our expectations, it is nevertheless a significant contribution to the literature. I will be recommending to appropriate Ministry officials that Dr. Forcese be gIven permission to publish the report. Dr. Forcese and Mb Martin, of the Canadian Police College, have discussed the idea of revising the report for publication in the Canadian Police College Journal. Peter Engstad Attach. Solicitor General Solliciteur général Canada Canada 340 Laurier Ave. West Ottawa, Ontario KlA OP8 January 14, 1980 Our File: 62-6/5-189 Professor D. Forcese Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University Ottawa, Onta rio K1S 5D6 Dear .Professor FOrcese: Re: Management-Labour Relations in Canadian Policing By this letter I accept your final report sdbmitted in fulfillment of our contract and have authorized the release of money owed to you. I regret to say that I am somewhat disappointed in the report and will not be recommending that it be published by this Ministry. (A detailed critique of the report has been appended for your information and consideration.) However, I will be recommending to appropriate Ministry officials that you be given authorization to publish the report or segments thereof yourself and I encourage you to discuss with M. Martin the question of publishing in the Canadian Police College'Journal. I anticipate that authorization to publish the report will be forthcoming in about six weeks. Meanwhile, I should be grateful if you would review and observe the contract publication clauses - 4.(1) to 4.(4). Thank you for submitting the report and for your patience in awaiting this reply. Sincerely, / Peter Engstad Chief Police Research Encl. cc: B. Taroque, Branch Administration S. Shuster, Planning & Liaison novernment Gouvernement of Canada du Canada MEMORANDUM NOTE DE SERVICE SECURITY - CLASSIFICATION - DE SÉCURITÉ TO Chief Police Research OUR FILE/NOTRE RÉFÉRENCE _J 62-6/5-189 r- YOUR FILE/VOTRE REFERENCE -- FROM Michèle Liqy DE DATE January 7, 1980 SUBJECT OBJET Review of the Final Report - "Employee- Management Relations in Canadian Police Forces" This draft of the report shows some improvements. The bibliography is good; the report has been clearly typed (format and typing); and there are very few typing errors. However, there are still same problems with it and I doit that any changes short of a complete rewrite will make it good enough to be published. General Comments 1. The quotes in section 3 are still too long and too numerous. 2. A section discussing the National Association and the provincial associations, their roles, their organization, etc., seems necessary. After finishing reading this report one may have a composite picture of police unions in Canada, but certainly not a comprehensive picture of police unionism in Canada. The postcript tries to do so but I feel that it should not be an afterthought; the points made in the postscript should be part of a section on the national picture. 3. In the same way, the role of the various police commissions is never clearlyexplained e nor is the relationships between the various associations within one force when appropriate (i.e., rank and file association and command officers association). 4. For same provinces, i.e., B.C. and Alberta, the only forces discussed are in the main cities. What about the other police forces? 5. The conclusion is not general enough and presents points which should have, but have not been, discussed in the text. 6. The sub-sections entitled "issues" in section 5, are not clearly organized. The issues should be identified clearly. Y. There is still an overall bias against unions in spite of a few "disclaimers" stating that unions are not bad (see for instance p. 149 and 153). 8. The "adversary" relationship is always characterized as "bad, negative, tension creating, etc." It is never acknowledged as a necessary basis for bargaining, which does not obligatorily lead to conflict (see p. 59). 9. Many statements are made without being substantiated (see in specific comments below for specific statements). 10. The author has not talked to any rank and file PCMP officers, only to command officers and Division Representatives (see list , section 2). This is still unclear in the text of section 6, where many statements are made which seem to be based on the feelings of rank and file officers. Further, although he mentions it, the author does emphasize the fact that if police unions did not exist the DSP,R system would not function at all; the DSRR needs the unions to have sorte - bargaining power. If only DSRR type system existed, no one would have any bargaining power. As a consequence of this, it is difficult to argue in favour of a DSER system. 11. A minor point, but one which needs to be considered before publication by the Solicitor General, is the sexist language used in the text, i.e., referring to police officers as "the men" or "policemen". 12. itbrds such as "ineptness" (p. 83), "odious (p. 93), and other loaded words should be deleted. Specific Comments - p. 6, The first footnote seems to contradict the statement made in the text where the author says "the Americans have been engaged in C. •a the analysis of police unions." The footnote makes the point that this analysis is almost non-existent. The sentence in the text should be replaced. - p. 7-10, The section on history seems all right. It is not clear, however, what "successful strike action" means (p. 10). Does it mean that they obtained what they wanted? - p. 10-19, The section on present character of unions is too long and the quotes are too long. 3 - p. 19, The first statement in the section on police strikes should be backed pp by a reference. p. 25, The quote is too long and not really necessary. - p. 28-31, The overview of the Canadian situation is clearly done in point form; however, it is in this section that mention should be made of the CPA, the provincial organizations, their relationship (see above in general comments). - p. 32, Why is it significant that the police of the Maritimes have traditionally been the least well paid police in the country? - p. 32, last paragraph. "But also working conditions afiliation" This sentence is very awkward. - p. 33, The last sentence of the first paragraph should read " the Brotherhood was recognized...." A definition of tripartite arbitration should be provided in the text. Who is the third party? - p. 34, What is a "cooling-off period"? Is it a period of time which bas to elapse between the time the strike notice is issued and the time officers can effectively go on strike? We may know, but readers are not familiar with labour-management bargaining and would probably not know. It should be specified in the text. - p. 34, section on issues - CUPE should be sp■elled out - how can one start a new section with "not unrelated... III - this section is confusing, the issues should be identified clearly. -. p. 36, The statement made in the last paragraph is more "an issue" than an "implication".