Under an open bargaining model, members will receive more regular updates about what is happening at the bargaining table than they have in past rounds of bargaining. CAPE’s goal is to make bargaining more transparent, participatory, and member-driven, while still protecting the bargaining team’s ability to negotiate strategically. This means members can expect updates on major developments, employer proposals, CAPE’s proposals, key issues under discussion, and moments when member action may be needed to strengthen the bargaining team’s position. Some details may still need to remain confidential during negotiations, especially when sharing them publicly could weaken CAPE’s leverage. But the overall direction is clear: members should not be left in the dark while decisions about their contract are being made. The exact way in which the updates will be sent to you and posted will be coming in the next few months.

The employer should not target, punish, intimidate, or treat members differently because CAPE is bargaining or because members are participating in union activity. Bargaining can sometimes make the workplace feel more tense. Managers may receive direction from Treasury Board or departments about communications, operations, or labour relations. But that does not give management the right to retaliate against members or interfere with lawful union activity. Your day-to-day rights at work still apply. The collective agreement still applies. Normal workplace rules still apply. If you experience pressure, threats, unusual scrutiny, discipline, or retaliation connected to bargaining or union participation, document what happened and contact CAPE.

Members have the right to participate in their union and in lawful bargaining-related activity. The employer cannot discipline, threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against members simply because they are members of CAPE, participate in union activity, vote, attend union meetings, support bargaining priorities, or exercise their rights. That said, members should make sure their participation is lawful and appropriate. For example, members should not engage in illegal strike activity, block access to workplaces, threaten anyone, misuse employer resources, or participate in union activity during working time unless they are on approved leave or otherwise authorized. If a manager threatens you, pressures you, discourages you from participating, asks how you voted, or treats you differently because of union activity, contact CAPE: representation@acep-cape.ca

The Rootham decision, involving the Alliance at Parliament, is an arbitral award that clarified some of the telework issues that can be negotiated. It has become an important reference point on telework. However, it unfortunately comes from a different jurisdiction than CAPE members. While that jurisdiction is similar to the FPSLREA framework, it is not exactly the same.

There is no path where concessions are impossible. No matter which dispute resolution process members choose, the employer will likely come to the table looking for concessions, and CAPE will have to fight to protect members’ rights, working conditions, and wages. The difference is not that one path guarantees losses, and the other prevents them. The difference is where your power comes from. Under conciliation, members keep more collective leverage. If the parties cannot reach a deal, conciliation can lead to job action, but only if members vote for it. That does not mean a strike is automatic. It means members preserve the ability to increase pressure on the employer if needed. That pressure can be an important tool for resisting concessions and pushing for stronger gains. So, the question is not simply, “Which path has fewer risks?” Both paths carry risks. The question is: Which path gives members the best chance to build power, push back on concessions, and win the strongest possible agreement CAPE’s position is that member participation will be critical either way. The stronger and more organized members are, the better our chances of resisting concessions and winning improvements at the table.

Under conciliation, members’ power comes from collective pressure. Conciliation keeps more options on the table if the employer refuses to move. That can include public pressure, workplace organizing, coordinated member action, work-to-rule, strategic or rotating strikes, or a broader strike — but only if the legal requirements are met and members vote for that step. This matters because some issues are hard to win through arguments alone. Issues like telework, workload, AI protections, job security, and stronger worker voice may require visible member support and pressure outside the bargaining room. Conciliation gives members more leverage to push back against concessions and fight for a stronger agreement.

In collective bargaining, a placeholder is a proposal under an existing article or a new article being proposed stating something along the lines of "The Association reserves the right to table further proposals about ….” It allows the union to indicate its intention to address the issue later in bargaining while maintaining the flexibility needed to further define its position and submit a detailed proposal at the appropriate moment.