2004 CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB)
2004 Client satisfaction Survey

Final Report

Prepared for the:
Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB)

Prepared by:
R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.

400 – 294 Albert Street Ottawa ON K1P 6E6 Tel: (613) 688-1847 Fax: (613) 288-1278

858 Pandora Avenue Victoria BC V8W 1P4 Tel: (250) 384-2770 Fax: (250) 384-2774

806 – 10050 112th Street Edmonton AB T5K 2J1 Tel: (780) 448-9042 Fax: (780) 448-9047

January, 2005

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1:  PROJECT BACKGROUND

SECTION 2:  RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND SCOPE OF WORK

2.1  SAMPLE SELECTION
2.2  DEVELOPMENT OF COVER LETTERS/ CORRESPONDENCE
2.3  DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2.4  FIELD-TESTING OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2.5  FULL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES UTILIZING MIXED-MODE APPROACH
     2.5.1  Response Enhancement Activities
2.6  RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

SECTION 3:  OVERVIEW OF REPORTING

SECTION 4:  DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

SECTION 5:  EXPERIENCE WITH PSSRB

5.1  INVOLVEMENT WITH PSSRB IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
5.2  SATISFACTION WITH PSSRB PROCEEDINGS

SECTION 6:  REGISTRY OPERATIONS SERVICES

6.1  SATISFACTION WITH REGISTRY OPERATIONS SERVICES

SECTION 7:  ADJUDICATION AND BOARD HEARINGS

7.1  APPEARANCES AT AN ADJUDICATION OR A BOARD HEARING
7.2  SATISFACTION WITH HEARING PROCESS SERVICE ELEMENTS

SECTION 8:  DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES

8.1  DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES
8.2  SATISFACTION WITH DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES
    8.2.1  Satisfaction with Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services
    8.2.2  Other Dispute Resolution Services Suggested by Client Respondents
    8.2.3  Overall Satisfaction with the Dispute Resolution Services

SECTION 9:  LIBRARY SERVICES

9.1  USE OF PSSRB LIBRARY SERVICES
9.2  SATISFACTION WITH PSSRB LIBRARY SERVICES
9.3  USE OF PSSRB WEB SITE
    9.3.1  How Clients Learned of the PSSRB Web Site
    9.3.2  Client Use of the PSSRB Web Site
    9.3.3  Client Assessment of Elements of the Web Site
    9.3.4  Overall Satisfaction with the PSSRB’s Web Site and Library Services

SECTION 10:  OTHER PSSRB INFORMATION SERVICES

10.1  USE OF THE PSSRB SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
10.2  USE OF OTHER PSSRB INFORMATION SERVICES
    10.2.1  Access to the PSSRB’s Decisions Through E-databases
    10.2.2  Awareness and Use of PSSRB’s Training Videos

SECTION 11:  OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF PSSRB SERVICES

11.1  PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LEVEL OF SERVICE
11.2  OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PSSRB SERVICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS
11.3  CLIENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PSSRB SERVICES

SECTION 12:  COMPARISON WITH 2001 AND 1998 SURVEYS

12.1  DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
    12.1.1  Response Rates by Client Role and Group
    12.1.3  Response Rates by Geographic Location and Region
12.2  EXPERIENCE WITH PSSRB
12.3  REGISTRY OPERATIONS SERVICES
12.4  ADJUDICATION AND BOARD HEARINGS
12.5  DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES

SECTION 13:  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
13.2  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SURVEYS

APPENDIX A: CORRESPONDENCE DOCUMENTS*
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
APPENDIX C: OPEN-ENDED SURVEY RESPONSES*

* AVAILABLE FROM THE PSLRB LIBRARY UPON REQUEST (webmaster-webmestre@pslrb-crtfp.gc.ca)

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

---

The Executive Summary outlines the major findings of the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey of the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB). The survey was undertaken during November/December 2004, and results of the surveys were compared with key measures of the 2001 and 1998 waves of the survey.

Survey Response Rates and Demographics

Survey administration involved a mail-out survey to 114 clients, with telephone follow-up. In total, 73 completed surveys were compiled, garnering a valid response rate of 67.6%. A majority of client respondents (54.8%) were representatives of bargaining agents, with the remainder consisting of representatives of employers (34.2%), outside counsel representing a bargaining agent (9.6%) or outside counsel representing an employer (1.4%).

Most clients indicated that they had been involved with PSSRB proceedings including mediation and adjudication (83.6%), accessed the PSSRB web site (76.7%), used dispute resolution services (68.9%), and appeared at an adjudication or Board hearing (65.6%). Fewer clients indicated that they had used PSSRB training videos (54.3%), used PSSRB Summary of Decisions (34.2%) or used PSSRB’s library services (17.8%).

Overall Satisfaction with PSSRB Proceedings

Client respondents generally indicated positive levels of satisfaction with PSSRB proceedings. Almost three-quarters (71.2%) of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with PSSRB proceedings including mediation and adjudication, 15.3% stated they were neutral and 13.6% stated they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. Representatives from employers more often stated they were satisfied/very satisfied (87.0%) than did representatives from bargaining agents (61.1%).

Overall, clients more often stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with mediation (81.4%) than with adjudication (70.0%) or other services (50.0%).

In terms of satisfaction with specific aspects of decisions issued by PSSRB, clients were most often satisfied/very satisfied with the length of decisions (70.6%) and clarity of the decisions (64.7%). Clients less often stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the completeness of the decisions (56.0%) and the timeliness of the decisions (51.0%).

Registry Operations

Overall, most clients were satisfied/very satisfied with the various service elements of the registry operations. Clients were most often satisfied/very satisfied with the ability to obtain service in language of their choice (94.6%) and with courtesy of the services (91.1%). Service elements related to timeliness were least often felt to be satisfactory, with only 60.0% of clients stating they were satisfied/very satisfied with the timeliness of information, 61.8% for timeliness of issuance of acknowledgment letter, and 61.8% for responsiveness.

Overall, 63.6% of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the registry operations services overall. Representatives from employers were more likely to state they were satisfied/very satisfied (76.2%) than were representatives from bargaining agents (55.9%).

Adjudication and Board Hearings

Client respondents (who had appeared at an adjudication or Board hearing in the past 12 months) most often stated they were satisfied with all of their appearances. Overall, 85.0% of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the hearing process. Most clients (70.0%) also stated that there was consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted.

When asked to rate their satisfaction with the hearing process, clients were overall positive about the various service elements. Of note, timeliness and timing were the two apparent issues with clients: only 47.4% of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the timeliness of decisions, and only 53.8% with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments. Bargaining agents were less satisfied with the timeliness and scheduling than were employers.

Dispute Resolution Services

Within those clients who had stated they had used dispute resolution services in the past 12 months, clients appear to be, overall, satisfied with the services. Over three-quarters (79.5%) of clients were satisfied/very satisfied with the dispute resolution services.

Clients were more often satisfied/very satisfied with the mediation (90.9%) and grievance mediation (82.8%) than with collective bargaining mediation (71.4%). Again, timeliness was rated lower overall than most other service elements. Clients were more often satisfied/very satisfied with their ability to receive service in the language of their choice (95.2%) and the courtesy (95.2%), knowledge (92.7%) and accessibility (90.2%) of communications, and least often with M or C Reports issued in a timely fashion (58.3%), and ability to manage difficult situations (63.4%).

When asked their level of satisfaction with groups who offer dispute resolution services, clients were more often (75.0%) satisfied/very satisfied with staff mediators, and least often with part-time Board members (60.0%).

Library Services and Web site

Only 17.8% of client respondents (n = 13) had used the library services of the PSSRB. Of those who had, most specified that they had used the library for copies of decisions (84.6%) and for reference (69.2%). All client respondents who had accessed the library services were positive about the services.

Among the client respondents who used PSRB’S library services, and who responded to the questions (n = 13), 100% were satisfied/very satisfied with seven of the eight service elements. Similarly, 90.9% were satisfied/very satisfied with the eighth service element.

Although only those who had used library services should have responded to the question with respect to their overall satisfaction with these services, 34 client respondents commented. In order to get a true value for overall satisfaction, all responses from non-users (n = 23) were eliminated in the analysis. All of the 11 client respondents (100%) who had used the services and provided a valid response reported that, overall, they were satisfied/very satisfied with the library services.

More than three-quarters (76.7%) of client respondents reported that they had accessed the PSSRB web site. Clients most often stated that they accessed the web site once per week. Clients most often used the web site to search for newly released decisions (85.7%) and for previous decisions and summaries (78.6%).

Clients were overall very positive about the PSSRB web site, although they were least likely to agree or strongly agree that the PSSRB’s website is “visually interesting” (53.8%), the site has useful links to other sites (52.2%) and that links to other sites are easily accessible (48.9%). Among those clients who had used it, 87.5% were satisfied/very satisfied, overall, with the PSSRB web site.

Other PSSRB Information Services

Only about a third (34.2%) of client respondents stated that they had used the PSSRB Summary of Decisions in the past 12 months. Of those that had, most (52.0%) used both electronic and paper formats.

Less than one-half (47.9%) of clients indicated that they were aware of either of PSSRB’s training videos. Among those who had used them, training videos were most often used for training purposes with clients, staff and/or colleagues.

Overall Assessment of PSSRB Services

Over three-quarters (78.5%) of clients stated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with PSSRB services in the past twelve months. Only 10.8% of clients stated they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the services (another 10.8% stated they were neutral).

Clients overall felt that the PSSRB services had remained the same since the last survey (60.0%), with 20.0% stating it had improved and 20.0% stating it had deteriorated.

---

SECTION 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

---

The Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal responsible for the administration of a system of collective bargaining and grievance adjudication in the Public and Parliamentary Service. The Board’s objective is to administer the legislative framework within which labour relations are conducted in the federal Public and Parliamentary Service in a fair, expeditious and efficient manner. Within this context, the Board strives to provide a flexible and multi-faceted array of tools and services to assist its clients.

In order to track client satisfaction, and to help improve the quality of services provided, the PSSRB conducts a Client Satisfaction Survey every three years. The purpose of the survey is to provide the PSSRB with reliable information on the degree of satisfaction with PSSRB services and on client concerns. The 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey results are compared against the baseline information collected during previous client satisfaction surveys conducted in 1998 and 2001.

---

SECTION 2: RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND SCOPE OF WORK

---

Specific research activities completed by R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., in conjunction with Circum Network Inc., for the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey included:

• Sample selection;
• Development of cover letters (from the PSSRB Chairperson and R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.) inviting contacts to participate in the survey;
• Development of the survey instrument;
• Programming, review, and testing of the instrument for survey administration;
• Field-testing of the survey instrument;
• Full survey administration utilizing a mixed-mode approach:
  • Administration of the survey and telephone follow-up;
  • Response rate enhancement activities;
• Data analysis; and
• Development of this report.

2.1 Sample Selection

The Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) provided the Consultant with listings containing contact information (mailing address and telephone number) for PSSRB clients, consisting of employer representatives/third party employer representatives and bargaining unit representatives, that had an interaction with the Board within the previous 12 months. In total, 114 cases were available for mail out and uploaded into the DASH Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system.

2.2 Development of Cover Letters/ Correspondence

R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., in collaboration with the Client, developed two sets of cover letters for mail outs associated with the field test and full survey administration. One set was designed for the PSSRB Chairperson to be sent out by the PSSRB outlining the nature of the study and inviting potential client respondents to participate in the research. The second set of letters, from the Consultant, reiterated that purpose and nature of the research and included detailed contact information to address any questions or concerns of potential client respondents. Letters from the Consultant were included in survey packages along with the survey instrument for both field-test and full survey administration. Appendix A includes copies of the correspondence.

2.3 Development and Preparation of Survey Instrument

In consultation with the Project Authority, the Consultant developed a survey instrument to be used for mail and telephone survey administration with individuals listed in the Client’s administrative database. The survey instrument was designed to take approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete and was available in French and English.

It should be noted that the questions and measures included in the survey instrument for the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey were based on the 2001 survey instrument. However, the format of the 2001 Survey was modified, several questions were deleted and several new questions were added to facilitate the mixed-mode approach (mail out with telephone follow-up). As with the 2001 survey instrument, modifications were made, to the extent possible, in accordance with the Common Measurement Tool (CMT) [1] . Key measures were identified for inclusion in the survey to facilitate comparison across past surveys. Specific modifications included the following:

• Exclusion of questions associated with having client respondents recall the number of times they had used PSSRB services in the past 12 months to avoid the potential for recall bias noted in the report for the 2001 Client Satisfaction Survey [2] ;
• Exclusion of measures of importance linked with satisfaction questions for each service area/aspect to reduce client respondent fatigue and time required to complete survey;
• Revision of question order to channel client respondents from specific to overall assessments to enhance ease with which client respondents provide overall ratings;
• Reduction in number of open-ended response questions to reduce time required to complete survey;
• Inclusion of fields to collect respondent recommendations for service improvement;
• Inclusion of measures to collect information regarding use and impressions of the PSSRB web site; and
• Others as determined in consultation with the Project Authority.

Once developed and approved, the survey instrument was programmed into the DASH CATI system and tested to verify skip patterns and channelling correspondence with the hard copy. Appendix B includes copies of the survey instruments.

2.4 Field-testing of Survey Instrument

Field-testing of the survey instrument was conducted between October 12 and 26, 2004. In total, 6 surveys were completed for the field-test (3 completed by telephone, 3 respondents submitted via toll-free fax).

Upon completion of the field-test, minor revisions [3] were made to the survey instrument.

2.5 Full Survey Administration Activities Utilizing Mixed-Mode Approach

The Consultant used a mixed-mode survey approach that included the mail out of survey packages with telephone follow-up. Potential client respondents were sent survey packages and a follow-up telephone call was placed seven days later to confirm receipt and provide potential client respondents with the option of a survey with trained telephone interviewers. This approach contributed to the total number of completions for this research project. Although the majority (61.6%) of client respondents returned their surveys via mail, more individuals completed telephone surveys (20.5%) than those who submitted surveys by toll-free fax (17.8%).

Full survey administration activities were conducted between November 8 and December 10, 2004. The overall response rates are summarized in Table 2-1 with a breakdown of the final call status codes. As the information in this table indicates, a total of 73 survey completions were obtained, which represents an overall response rate of 64.0%. However, excluding the cases in which initial contact was not established (i.e., telephone contact number not in service, e-mail delivery failure, contact unavailable during survey period, duplicate entries, etc.), the valid response rate is 67.6%. This figure is greater than the response rate (55.0%) obtained for the 2001 Survey campaign.

Table 2-1
Call Status and Response Rates – Full Survey Administration

¹Valid response rate defined as (total completions)/(valid sample). The valid sample excludes cases that were not in service, incorrect telephone number, call blocks, as well as self-identified non-qualifiers or those identified as non-qualifiers in consultation with the PSSRB.
²This category includes cases in which a message was left with a person or with voice-mail technology, appointments in which the client was not available, etc.
³This category represents those individuals who are no longer employed by the organization specified in the administrative database provided by PSSRB.

As the information in Table 2-1 indicates, the Consultant was unable to establish contact with approximately four percent (3.5%) of the contact entries listed in the administrative database. It should be noted that the rate of refusal for this project (0.9%) is well below the estimated rate typically experienced for similar surveys.

2.5.1 Response Enhancement Activities

Proven response rate enhancement techniques were employed by the Consultant in order to facilitate the achievement of target completions within the specified timelines. Some of these techniques included:

• Staggered calling patterns to establish initial contact;
• Fielding/responding to questions and concerns of client respondents;
• Sending of survey packages to potential client respondents utilizing new contact information; and
• Re-sending of survey packages to individuals who reported non-receipt during the initial mail out.

2.6 Research Limitations

In addition, given the limited amount of time available for completion of this study, it was not possible for all of PSSRB clients, employer representatives/third party employer representatives and bargaining unit representatives to participate in the research. In this context, the reader should interpret the research findings with the following caveats:

Limited Sample Size: Although the valid response rate was 67.6%, it should be noted that the survey results are based on a very small (n = 73) sample size and may not be representative of the total PSSRB client population. For example, in terms of representation, approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of client respondents indicated that they represent a bargaining agent, while 35.6% indicated that they represent an employer. Geographically, the majority (74.0%) of survey completions were submitted by individuals within the National Capital Region (NCR). These characteristics, as well at the channelling patterns may tend to magnify or inflate the proportional values of survey and limit the reliability of analysis. As such, the results of this research may not be viewed as a generalization of the views of all clients.

---

SECTION 3: OVERVIEW OF REPORTING

---

This report presents the key findings of the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey, organized in accordance with the structure of the survey instrument. The survey instrument consisted of the following eight sections:

• Demographic data;
• Experience with PSSRB;
• Registry operations services;
• Adjudication and Board hearings;
• Dispute resolution services;
• Library services;
• Other PSSRB information services; and
• Overall assessment of PSSRB’s services.

Survey analysis makes use of several techniques to enhance the analysis. For example, a five point scaled measures of satisfaction and agreement were collapsed into three-point scales response categories. Specifically, response categories “satisfied” and “very satisfied” were collapsed into “satisfied/very satisfied”, neutral responses remained the same, and “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” were collapsed into “dissatisfied/very dissatisfied”.

It should be noted that only valid responses are presented in this report.

---

SECTION 4: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

---

The distribution of client respondents by client representation group is presented in 4-1. As this chart demonstrates, the majority of clients indicated that they were representatives of a bargaining agent (54.8%) or an employer (34.2%). Approximately ten percent (9.6%) of client respondents indicated they were outside counsel representing a bargaining agent, only (1.4%) indicated they were outside counsel representing an employer.

Chart 4-1
Survey Response by Client Group

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QA1 (n = 73)

The geographical distribution of client respondents is presented in Chart 4-2. As this chart illustrates, the overwhelming majority of clients (74.0%) reported that they are located in the National Capital Region (NCR). This figure is more than five times greater than the proportion of clients (13.7%) who reported their location as Ontario (outside of the National Capital Region (NCR)). This distribution is understandable given the number of client respondents located in the NCR (specifically Ottawa, ON) in the sample database.

Chart 4-2
Survey Response by Reported Geographical Location

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QA2 (n = 73)

Chart 4-3 illustrates the reported proportion of client respondents using PSSRB services in the past 12 months. As the information in the chart indicates, the greatest proportion of clients (83.6%) had been involved with PSSRB proceedings, including mediation and adjudication. In contrast, less than twenty percent (17.8%) of clients reported that they had used the PSSRB’s library services. Survey findings for each of these services are examined in the following sections.

Chart 4-3
Reported Use of PSSRB Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB1 (n = 73), QD1 (n = 61), QE1 (n = 61), QF1 (n = 73), QF3 (n=73), QG1 (n=73), QG6 (n=35).

---

SECTION 5: EXPERIENCE WITH PSSRB

---

Client respondents were asked about their involvement with the PSSRB in the past 12 months, the services used, levels of satisfaction with these services, as well as levels of satisfaction with respect to specific aspects of the decisions issued by the PSSRB.

5.1 Involvement with PSSRB in the Past 12 months

The majority of clients (83.6%) reported that, in the past 12 months, they had been involved in PSSRB proceedings, including mediation and adjudication. In terms of the services used, more clients reported using mediation (72.1%) than adjudication (67.2%). It should be noted that approximately one-half (47.5%) of client respondents reported use of “other” services in the past 12 months. Clients who reported use of “other” services were asked to specify the type of service. Services such as conciliation and arbitration were the main services cited. However, clients also identified Section 27 hearings, complaints, petitions, and accreditation.

5.2 Satisfaction with PSSRB Proceedings

Clients were asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with the types of proceedings they were involved with in the past 12 months; their responses are presented in Chart 5-1. As indicated, a greater proportion of clients who used mediation services (81.4%) were satisfied/very satisfied than those who used adjudication (70.0%) or other (50.0%) services.

Chart 5-1
Level of Satisfaction with PSSRB Proceedings

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB2a - QB2c (n = 24-43).

Comparing the satisfaction ratings by client group reveals relatively little variation for mediation and other proceedings. However, a greater share of employer representatives (78.9%) were satisfied/very satisfied with adjudication proceedings than the proportion for bargaining agents (61.9%).

Clients were also asked to rate their satisfaction with specific aspects of decisions issued by PSSRB. The results of this set of measures are illustrated in Chart 5-2. As the information in the chart indicates, the length (70.6%) and clarity of decision(s) (64.7%) exhibit the highest shares of satisfied/very satisfied clients. Clients were least satisfied with the timeliness of decision(s): although one-half (51.0%) of client respondents indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied, one-third (33.3%) reported that they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the timeliness of the decision(s).

Chart 5-2
Level of Satisfaction with Aspects of the Decisions

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB3 (n=50-51 )

Approximately 12 percent (11.8%) of clients indicated that they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the length of decision(s). These individuals were asked to explain their response. The data indicates that there may have been some confusion associated with the wording of the question. Only one client commented on the length of the decisions issued in terms of the length and content of the decision document:

• “The decisions seem to be drawn up at the last minute. The decisions do not relate to the arguments that are made. A two day hearing should not translate into a decision that is three pages long.”

The comments of other clients were directed at the length of time required to reach a decision, or the fairness of the timelines.

• “The complaint took over a year before the decision was made. To leave unresolved complaints for a long period of time creates all kinds of other problems.”
  
• “Very long between the hearing and the decision.”
  
• “In all fairness, they do not have the staff to accommodate the length of the decision. In either case, the persons involved do not have the expertise to expedite the decisions.”
  
• “PSSRB has timelines that favour the employer. They favour the employer in every sense of the word.”

Chart 5-3 illustrates the overall satisfaction with PSSRB proceedings, as well as by client type. When asked to provide an overall satisfaction rating, approximately seventy percent (71.2%) of clients indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with PSSRB proceedings, including mediation and adjudication. In contrast, only 13.6% indicated they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the PSSRB proceedings.

Chart 5-3
Overall Satisfaction with PSSRB Proceedings, including Mediation and Adjudication

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB5 (n=59)

Comparison of the representation categories indicates that a greater share of employer representatives (87.0%) than bargaining agents (61.1%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the PSSRB proceedings.

---

SECTION 6: REGISTRY OPERATIONS SERVICES

---

6.1 Satisfaction with Registry Operations Services

Client respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with service elements associated with the Registry Operations Services from initial contact up to, but excluding, the Board hearing, in the following areas: scheduling of hearings, quality of service, and communications. Chart 6-1 illustrates the proportion of client respondents who reported being satisfied/very satisfied for each Registry Operations Services service element.

Chart 6-1
Level of Satisfaction with the Registry Operations Services of the PSSRB

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QC1a-QC1k (n=54-55)

As the information in the chart indicates, the highest satisfaction ratings were associated with aspects of communications. More than 75 percent of clients were satisfied/very satisfied with service provided in the language of their choice (94.6%), courtesy (91.1%), and accessibility (76.4%). Clients were less satisfied with responsiveness (61.8%), timely issue of an acknowledgement letter (61.8%) and timeliness of information (60.0%).

Further analysis by client type or group reveals little variation in the satisfaction ratings. However, the data indicates that a greater share of representatives of employers (95.5%) were satisfied/very satisfied with courtesy than bargaining agents (88.2%). Conversely, a larger proportion of bargaining agents (82.4%) than employer representatives (59.1%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the completeness of information.

It should be noted that there was some variation in terms of levels of dissatisfaction by client group. For example, the dissatisfaction ratings for the timely issue of an acknowledgement letter were greater among bargaining agents (35.3%) than employer representatives (14.3%). There was also a larger proportion of bargaining agents (32.4%) than employer representatives (19.0%) who were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the timeliness of information.

Client respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with their interactions with Registry Operations Services. The results of this question by representation category are presented in Chart 6-2. As the information in the chart demonstrates, the majority of clients (63.6%) reported they were satisfied/very satisfied. The same proportions of clients reported they were ‘neutral’ (18.2%) as reported they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (18.2%) with their interactions with the Registry Operations Services.

Chart 6-2
Overall Satisfaction with Interaction with Registry Operations Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QC2 (n = 55)

It should be noted that ratings provided by bargaining agent client respondents were significantly lower than employer representatives. More than twenty percent (23.5%) of bargaining agents indicated that, overall, they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with their interactions with the Registry Operations Services. This figure is more than twice the share of employer representatives (9.5%).

---

SECTION 7: ADJUDICATION AND BOARD HEARINGS

---

7.1 Appearances at an Adjudication or a Board Hearing

Among the clients who indicated that they had been involved with PSSRB proceedings in the past year (n = 61), approximately two-thirds (65.6%) reported they had appeared at an adjudication or Board hearing. These clients were asked to estimate the percentage of appearances in which they were satisfied, and dissatisfied, with the hearing process. The valid responses for this question are presented in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1
Reported Proportions of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Appearances at a Hearing Process

Reported Percentage of Appearances (% Satisfied vs. % Dissatisfied)	Count	Percent
100 – 0	18	45.0%
85 – 15	2	5.0%
80 – 20	8	20.0%
75 – 25	1	2.5%
70 – 30	3	7.5%
60 – 40	2	2.5%
50 – 50	3	2.5%
40 – 60	1	2.5%
33 – 67	1	2.5%
20 – 80	1	2.5%
Total	40	100.0%

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD1_sat and QD1_dis (n = 40).

As the information in the table indicates, the greatest proportion of clients (45.0%) indicated that 100 – 0 was the percentage breakdown for the appearances in which they were satisfied vs. dissatisfied with the hearing process. In essence, these clients reported being satisfied with the hearing process for 100% of their appearances and dissatisfied with the process for 0% of their appearances. Alternatively, 20.0% of clients indicated that 80 –20 was the percentage breakdown for the appearances in which they were satisfied vs. dissatisfied with the hearing process.

Clients were also asked if they felt that there is consistency in the manner in which the hearings are conducted. The vast majority (70.0%) stated there was consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted. Response levels across the groups were very similar.

More than one-quarter (30.0%) of clients indicated that they did not feel that there was consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted. When asked to explain their response, several clients generally indicated that the process tends to vary with the adjudicator. A sample of the comments include:

• “The process is too subjective.”

• “Variation according to the style of the Chairperson.”

• “Some adjudications [sic] will change hats from adjudicator to mediator when requested, while others will not.”

• “Full-time adjudicators do things consistently, but I had a bad experience with how a part-time adjudicator conducted the hearing.”

Others outlined specific problems associated with the lack of uniformity in adjudication procedures and the flexibility of procedural guidelines.

• “No uniformity in the procedures or the rules of proof. Too much tolerance towards the petitioners [sic] irrespective of the witness.”

• “Lack of rigour in the presence of the employer. Certain members selected from the employer’s side are not neutral, and those selected from the union are neutral.”

• “More latitude is needed to express yourself. The client needs to say their piece. It is not a yes or no process, people need to be able to express themselves. The person involved is the most important person there. They need to be more lenient.”

7.2 Satisfaction with Hearing Process Service Elements

Client respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with service elements associated with the hearing process in the following areas: procedural issues, hearing sites, and communications. Chart 7-1 illustrates the proportion of clients who reported being satisfied/very satisfied for each aspect of the hearing process.

Chart 7-1
Level of Satisfaction with the Hearing Process

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD3a - QD3i (n = 31-39).

As the information in Chart 7-1 indicates, the satisfaction ratings were relatively high. For six of the nine measures, three-quarters (75.0%) of clients indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with the service element. The highest rated service elements were opportunity to present case (86.8%), accessibility of sites (84.6%), and Board member attentiveness (82.1%).

The service elements that received the lowest satisfaction ratings were scheduling of hearings and adjournments (53.8% satisfied/very satisfied) and decisions issued in a timely manner (47.4% satisfied/very satisfied). The ratings for these elements are attributable to the varying levels of satisfaction across the client groups. For example, while 73.3% of employer representatives were satisfied/very satisfied with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments, more than one-half of bargaining agents indicated that they were either neutral (29.2%) or dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (29.2%) with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments.

Bargaining agents were also less satisfied with the timely issuing of decisions than employer representatives. Approximately sixty percent of bargaining agents reported that they were neutral (34.8%) or dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (26.1%) with decisions issued in a timely manner. This figure is significantly greater than the proportion of employer representatives who indicated that they were neutral (20.0%) or dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (20.0%).

Chart 7-2 illustrates client respondent’s overall level of satisfaction with the hearing process by client group. As the information in the chart indicates, levels of overall satisfaction among employer representatives and bargaining agents are similar.

Chart 7-2
Overall Satisfaction with the Hearing Process

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD4 (n = 40)

---

SECTION 8: DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES

---

8.1 Use of Dispute Resolution Services

More than two-thirds (68.9%) of clients indicated that they had used the PSSRB’s dispute resolution services in the past 12 months. The types of service that clients reported using are presented in Chart 8-1. As the information in this chart indicates, the services that clients used most in the past year were grievance mediation (71.4%), collective bargaining mediation/conciliation (35.7%) and mediation in any other PSSRB process (26.2%). Relatively few clients reported use of training in dispute resolution (7.1%) or managerial or confidential (M or C) exclusion examinations (7.1%) over the course of the past year.

Chart 8-1
Use of PSSRB Dispute Resolution Service(s)

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE1a – QE1e (n = 42).

In comparing the use of dispute resolution services across the client groups, the most significant variations are found in grievance mediation and collective bargaining mediation (conciliation). A larger proportion of bargaining agents (79.2%) made use of grievance mediation than employer representatives (61.1%). In contrast, a greater share of employer representatives (44.4%) used collective bargaining mediation than bargaining agents (29.2%).

8.2 Satisfaction with Dispute Resolution Services

Clients were asked to rate their satisfaction with the dispute resolution services they had used in the past 12 months. The results of this question are presented in Chart 8-2. Satisfaction ratings for the dispute resolution services were relatively high. More than seventy percent of clients indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with mediation in any other PSSRB process (90.9%), grievance mediation (82.8%), and collective bargaining mediation (71.4%).

Chart 8-2
Level of Satisfaction with the PSSRB’s Dispute Resolution Service
Used in the Past 12 Months

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE2a - QE2c (n = 11-29).

It should be noted that only three clients indicated they had used services not shown in Chart 8-2 (training in dispute resolution and managerial or confidential (M or C) exclusion examinations) in the past year. Among these clients, only two provided satisfaction ratings indicating that they were satisfied/very satisfied with training in dispute resolution and M or C exclusion examinations.

Client respondents were asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with thirteen service aspects of the PSSRB’s dispute resolution services. The results of these measures are illustrated in Chart 8-3. The survey data indicates that service aspects associated with communication received higher satisfaction ratings than those associated with the quality of dispute resolution services. Ninety percent of clients or greater reported being satisfied/very satisfied with service in language of choice (95.2%), courtesy (95.2%), knowledge (92.7%), accessibility (90.2%), and responsiveness (90.0%).

Chart 8-3
Level of Satisfaction with Service Aspects of PSSRB’s Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE3a - QE3m (n = 40-42).

As indicated above, service aspects associated with the quality of dispute resolution services received lower satisfaction ratings than those associated with communication. Clients were most satisfied with the availability of dispute resolution services (88.1% satisfied/very satisfied), while 58.3% were satisfied/very satisfied with M or C reports issued in a timely fashion.

Comparison by client group reveals considerable variation. For example, more than ninety percent of bargaining agents indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with service in language of choice (100.0%), courtesy (100.0%), responsiveness (100.0%), knowledge (100.0%), and accessibility (95.8%). In contrast, the proportions of employer representatives who were satisfied/very satisfied with these aspects ranged from 76.5% (responsiveness) to 88.9% (service in language of choice and courtesy).

Bargaining agent representatives were more satisfied with the suitability of meeting rooms than employer representatives. More than eighty percent (83.3%) of bargaining agents reported being satisfied/very satisfied, while (12.5%) were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. In contrast, 61.1% of employers indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the suitability of meeting rooms, and 22.2% indicated they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied.

Employer representatives were more satisfied with the expertise in mediation than the bargaining agents. More than three-quarters (77.8%) of employer representatives reported being satisfied/very satisfied compared to 63.6% of bargaining agents. It is interesting to note that a considerable proportion of bargaining agents provided neutral responses. More than one-quarter (26.1%) indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the expertise in mediation.

Employer representatives were also more satisfied with the timeliness of services than bargaining agents. More than eighty percent (83.3%) of employer representatives indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this aspect, compared to 58.3% of bargaining agents. In addition, one-quarter (25.0%) of bargaining agents reported being dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the timeliness of services compared to 5.6% of employers.

Finally, employers were more satisfied with the consistency of services than were bargaining agents. Among employer representatives, 72.2% reported being satisfied/very satisfied and 5.6% reported being dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. In contrast, 65.2% of bargaining agents indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied, while 18.2% reported being dissatisfied/very dissatisfied.

8.2.1 Satisfaction with Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services

Clients were also asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with groups who offer dispute resolution services on behalf of the PSSRB. Chart 8-4 illustrates the results of this question.

Chart 8-4
Level of Satisfaction with the Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE4a - QE4d (n = 24-36)

As the information in the chart indicates, clients were generally satisfied with the groups who provide dispute resolution services on behalf of the PSSRB. Sixty percent or more of clients reported being satisfied/very satisfied with staff mediators (75.0%), full-time Board members (68.6%), external professionals (62.5%), and part-time Board members (60.0%).

With the exception of external professionals, the reported levels of dissatisfaction were relatively similar. More than one-quarter (29.2%) of clients indicated that they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with external professionals.

Review of the survey data by client group reveals some interesting variations among clients who used dispute resolution services in the past 12 months. For example, a greater share of employer representatives (93.3%) indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with staff mediators than the proportion of bargaining agents (61.9%).

In addition, employer representatives were less satisfied with external professionals than bargaining agents. More than one-third (38.5%) of employers reported being dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with external professionals compared to 18.2% of bargaining agents.

8.2.2 Other Dispute Resolution Services Suggested by Client Respondents

Two client respondents indicated that there are other dispute resolution services that they would like to see offered by the PSSRB. One client respondent indicated that s/he would like to see informal conflict management systems offered by the Board. The other client respondent indicated that s/he would like to see dispute resolution services offered earlier to provide parties with an opportunity to resolve issues prior to referral to adjudication services.

8.2.3 Overall Satisfaction with the Dispute Resolution Services

Clients were asked to rate their satisfaction, overall, with the dispute resolution services. Chart 8-5 summarizes the survey responses.

Chart 8-5
Overall Satisfaction with the Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE6 (n = 39)

The vast majority of clients (79.5%) reported that, overall, they were satisfied/very satisfied with the dispute resolution services. Comparing this measure by client group indicates that there was relatively little variation between the two groups, although the share of employers (82.4%) who reported being satisfied/very satisfied was greater than the proportion for bargaining agents (77.3%).

---

SECTION 9: LIBRARY SERVICES

---

9.1 Use of PSSRB Library Services

When asked about their use of the PSSRB’s library services, the vast majority of clients (82.2%) reported that they had not used the library services in the past 12 months. Those who had used the services (17.8%, n =13) were asked to specify all the library services they used. The results of this question are presented in Chart 9-1.

Chart 9-1
Use of PSSRB’s Library Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF1a – QF1d (n = 13).

Clients who had used PSSRB’s library services, in the past twelve months, tended to request copies of decisions (84.6%) and had reference questions (69.2%) rather than other services (23.1%) or interlibrary loans (7.7%).

It should be noted that clients who reported using ‘other’ library services indicated that they used the library services for general referrals or to make inquiries regarding the rules and procedures.

9.2 Satisfaction with PSSRB Library Services

Client respondents who used PSSRB’s library services were asked to rate their satisfaction with eight service elements associated with the quality of library services and communications. The results of these measures were very positive. With the exception of the element accessibility (90.9%), all clients (100.0%) reporting being satisfied/very satisfied with timeliness, accuracy, completeness, service in language of choice, responsiveness, courtesy, and knowledge.

9.3 Use of PSSRB Web Site

Clients were asked if they had accessed the PSSRB web site in the past 12 months. In total, more than three-quarters (76.7%) reported that they had accessed the web site, while 23.3% had not. In addition, clients who had accessed the web site were asked to specify how often they accessed the site. The results of this question are presented in Chart 9-2.

Chart 9-2
Frequency of Accessing PSSRB Web Site in the Past 12 Months

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF3 (n=54)

As indicated, the frequency with which clients accessed the Board’s web site varied considerably. Clients most often (29.6%) stated they accessed the web site once per week. Similarly, approximately one-quarter of clients indicated that they accessed the site less than once per month (25.9%) or once per month (24.1%). Relatively few clients accessed the site once every two weeks (13.0%) or on a daily basis (7.4%).

In terms of variation between the client groups, review of the survey data indicates that employer representatives tended to access the site more frequently than bargaining agents. The majority of employers visited the site once per week (44.4%) or less than once per month (22.2%). Alternatively, the majority of representatives for bargaining agents visited the site once a month (27.8%) or less than once per month (27.8%).

9.3.1 How Clients Learned of the PSSRB Web Site

Clients who reported using the PSSRB web site were asked how they learned about the site. The responses for this question are presented in Chart 9-3. The greatest proportion of clients indicated that they learned of the Board’s web site following a link from another government web site (27.3%) or via an ‘other’ source (27.3%). To a lesser extent, clients reported learning of the site from referrals by a government staff member (23.6%). Relatively few clients indicated that they learned of the site through referrals by a Board member/PSSRB staff (16.4%) or through a general purpose search engine such as Google (16.4%).

Chart 9-3
How Clients Learned of PSSRB Web Site

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF4a – QF4d (n = 55).

When asked to specify the ‘other’ methods through which they learned of the PSSRB web site, several client respondents indicated that it was through ‘word of mouth’ or from a colleague. Other clients reported that they have known for some time/were generally aware of the web site or could not remember how they learned of the site. In addition, one client indicated that her/his organization tracks all web sites that pertain to tribunals in which it is involved.

9.3.2 Client Use of the PSSRB Web Site

In addition to gauging how clients learned of the PSSRB web site, clients were asked to identify their activities while on the web site. The results of this question are presented in Chart 9-4. As the chart illustrates, clients who visited the web site tended to search for newly released decisions (85.7%) or search for previous decisions and summaries (78.6%).

Chart 9-4
What Clients Did While on the PSSRB Web Site

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF5i – QF5v (n = 56).

The distribution of responses by client group reveals some variation. Employer representatives and bargaining agents tended to search for newly released decisions and previous decisions. However, a greater share of representatives for employers (33.3%) than bargaining agents (23.7%) reported searching the web site for information on the PSSRB. Alternatively, 42.1% of bargaining agents indicated that they reviewed hearing schedules while on the web site, compared to 22.2% of employer representatives.

A relatively small proportion (10.7%) indicated that they accessed the site for ‘other’ activities or searches. A sample of the ‘other’ activities reported include the following:

• “Looked at pictures of Board members.”

• “Used it as a source for training material.”

• “Searched for contact information.”

• “Researched the law itself.”

Client respondents were also asked if they found the information that they were searching for. The survey data indicates that the vast majority (89.3%) of Client respondents found the information they sought on the PSSRB web site. In contrast, 10.7% of clients reported they did not find the information they were looking for. When asked what type of information they sought, clients provided a range of responses. For example, two clients indicated that they were looking for older cases or decisions. Another client indicated that s/he was looking for a specific analytical index.

9.3.3 Client Assessment of Elements of the Web Site

Clients who had used the PSSRB web site were asked to rate their level of agreement with ten statements regarding the content, navigation and layout of the web site. The results of this question are presented in Chart 9-4. As the information in the chart indicates, in general, there was a high level of agreement with the statements among clients.

Chart 9-4
Level of Agreement with Statements Regarding Content, Navigation, Layout of Web Site

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF7a - QF7j (n = 46-56).

It should be noted that there was a higher level of agreement with statements regarding content and navigation than for statements associated with design. In terms of content, more than three-quarters of clients agreed/strongly agreed that they received accurate information (90.9%), they received complete information (87.3%), and the information was up-to-date (78.2%). Alternatively, eighty-five percent of clients agreed/strongly agreed that it was easy to find the PSSRB web site (85.7%) and that, once on the web site, it was easy to move from one page to another (85.5%).

Client respondents did not agree as strongly with statements regarding navigation. For example, approximately one-half of clients agreed/strongly agreed that the web site is visually appealing (53.8%), there were useful links to other sites (52.2%) and the links to other sites were easily accessible (48.9%).

With the exception of the statement concerning the visual appeal of the web site, there was little variation by client group. For this measure, more than two-thirds (66.7%) of representatives for employers agreed/strongly agreed that the web site was visually appealing compared to 47.1% of bargaining agents.

9.3.4 Overall Satisfaction with the PSSRB’s Web Site and Library Services

At the conclusion of the section, clients were asked to provide a rating for their overall satisfaction with the PSSRB’s web site, as well as for the Board’s library services. Given that the web site is maintained by the Library Services, it was anticipated that this would be the most appropriate channelling for the overall satisfaction measures. The results of these questions are presented in Charts 9-5 and 9-6.

Chart 9-5
Overall Satisfaction with the PSSRB’s Web Site

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF8 (n = 56).

As the information in the chart indicates, the vast majority (87.5%) of client respondents reported that, overall, they were satisfied/very satisfied with the PSSRB’s web site. Comparing the client groups reveals little variation on this measure.

Chart 9-6 illustrates clients’ overall satisfaction with the Board’s library services. Review of the information in the chart indicates that all (100%)of the 11 client respondents who had used the services were, overall, very satisfied (63.6%) or satisfied (36.4%). As the information in the table indicates there was some variation between representatives for employers and bargaining agents. However, again, all of these participants were satisfied/very satisfied with the Board’s library services.

Chart 9-6
Overall Satisfaction with the PSSRB Library Services

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF9 (n = 11).

It should be noted that 23 clients who did not report use of the library services but had accessed the web site provided overall satisfaction ratings for library services. The satisfaction ratings of these clients tend to distort this measure [4] . In order to get a true value for clients’ overall satisfaction with library services, all responses from non-users were eliminated in the analysis.

Given the response of these 23 client respondents, the channelling or skip patterns for this question were perhaps misleading. To avoid similar distortions in future surveys, the Project Team recommends that the overall satisfaction measures of the PSSRB’s library services and web site be treated exclusively as the data indicates that many of the clients were not aware that the web site is maintained by the PSSRB library services.

---

SECTION 10: OTHER PSSRB INFORMATION SERVICES

---

10.1 Use of the PSSRB Summary of Decisions

When asked if they had used the PSSRB Summary of Decisions in the past 12 months, more than one-third (34.2%) of client respondents indicated they had, while 65.8% reported they had not. Those who reported using the Summary of Decisions were asked to identify the formats they had used in the past 12 months. Chart 10-1 illustrates the reported formats used by clients.

Chart 10-1
Format of the PSSRB Summary of Decisions Used in Past 12 Months

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG1a (n = 25)

As the chart illustrates, more than one-half (52.0%) of clients indicated they had used both electronic and paper formats of the Summary of Decisions. While very few (12.0%) clients reported using the paper format only, more than one-third (36.0%) indicated they had only used the electronic format.

The information in the chart also indicates that the proportion of representatives for employers (55.6%) who had used only the electronic format was greater than that for bargaining agents (25.0%). In contrast, the share of bargaining agents who had used both formats (56.3%) is greater than that for employers (44.4%). It should be noted that 18.8% of bargaining agents indicated that they had used the paper format only, while none (0.0%) of the employer representatives had used only the paper format.

Although the vast majority of clients (92.0%) indicated that the PSSRB’s plans to issue summaries in electronic format only would not cause a problem, 8.0% reported it would cause a problem. Given the formats of the decisions used by clients, it is not surprising that those who indicated it would be a problem were bargaining agents. However, both of these clients indicated that any problems could be avoided if the electronic format could be printed or, if clients are provided with notice prior to the switch to electronic format only.

10.2 Use of Other PSSRB Information Services

10.2.1 Access to the PSSRB’s Decisions Through E-databases

Client respondents were asked if they had accessed the PSSRB’s decisions through electronic databases maintained by private firms. The majority (70.8%) of clients indicated they did access decisions through these sources. By client group, more than eighty percent (84.6%) of employer representatives reported accessing decisions through these sources compared to 63.0% of bargaining agents

10.2.2 Awareness and Use of PSSRB’s Training Videos

In total, thirty-five client respondents indicated they were aware of the PSSRB training videotapes. When asked if they had used one of the training videos in the past year, more than one-half (54.3%) indicated that they had used the videos. Specifically, 51.4% indicated that they had used “Best Interests – An Introduction to Grievance Mediation”, while 28.6% reported using “Hearing Both Sides – Formal and Expedited Adjudication at the PSSRB.”

Clients who had used one or both of the training videos were asked to describe the context in which the videos were used. Clients provided an array of scenarios. However, most indicated that the videos were used for training purposes with clients, staff and/or colleagues. Comments on usage provided by clients included the following:

• “Client preparation.”

• “Showing the video to my team members and especially to new recruits to familiarize them with PSSRB’s mediation [sic] process.”

• “Under the framework of the internal information sessions.”

• “To provide information for the offices [sic].”

• “Assisting parties preparing for mediation.”

These clients were asked if they were any ‘other’ areas that could benefit from the development of a training video. Among the 35 client respondents, more than thirty percent (31.4%) indicated that there were some areas that could benefit from video development. Specific topics suggested by clients included:

• “Harassment and women’s right issues.”

• “Informal conflict resolution, PS moderation [sic], highlighting changes and new processes, procedures, and union policy grievances.”

• “The conciliation processes and the Conciliation Board.”

• “How to prepare for adjudication hearings and on PSSRB procedures.”

• “Employer and employee relations, health and security in the work environment, negotiation, and grievances.”

• “How to be an effective witness, including the ‘do’s’ and ‘do nots ’ [sic] from an arbitrator’s perspective.”

• “A video from initiation to adjudication in a visual presentation of the procedure would be beneficial.”

---

SECTION 11: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF PSSRB SERVICES

---

11.1 Perceived Changes in Level of Service

Client respondents were asked, based on their experiences with the PSSRB in the past 12 months, to rate the status of the service(s) since the 2001 Client Satisfaction Survey. The results of this question are presented in Chart 11-1. As the information in this chart indicates, the majority of clients (60.0%) felt that the service had remained the same. Alternatively, 20.0% or clients felt the service had improved and 20.0% felt it had deteriorated.

Chart 11-1
Overall Perspective on the Service Since the Last Survey (2001)

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QH1 (n=60)

Those who indicated that the service had either improved (20.0%) or deteriorated (20.0%) were asked to describe how the services had changed since the 2001 Client Satisfaction Survey. Clients who indicated that the services had improved provided an array of descriptions including:

• “Enhanced access to mediated services.”

• “Greater emphasis on mediated outcomes.”

• “The mediation services themselves have improved a little.”

• “Greater emphasis on mediated outcomes.”

• “Mediation – the mediators are competent, more available, more human and most of all there are more of them. For the most part the mediators [sic] qualities are much more superior than before.”

Others cited improvements in communications, visibility, and accessibility associated with PSSRB services or the staff in general.

• “There is better communication and exposure.”

• “Communication and scheduling.”

• “Direct accessibility, more people friendly.”

• “I am impressed with some of the part-time Board members and the respectful treatment of the grievors and lighter approach to the hearing process.”

• “Availability of personnel.”

Alternatively, improvements to the PSSRB web site and library services were cited by a couple of clients.

• “The library and web sites are amazing.”

• “The web site searching has improved. The web site as well as the library services have improved.”

Clients also provided a variety of examples of how the services have deteriorated. Several clients cited difficulties with the Registry Office services and the scheduling of hearings:

• “The services have deteriorated. The registry did not indicate a delay in the request until the respondent phoned to find out the reason for the delay.”

• “The quality is excellent. But the wait times for scheduling of cases is very long. I also feel that the PSSRB needs more resources to meet the demands on them.”

• “The overall services are good. The scheduling of adjudications, however, has become a problem and, in certain cases, are not scheduled.”

• “The process of application and scheduling is not good. We applied four months ago and have not heard from them at all. Another area of concern and dissatisfaction arises when more than one file is sent in and they get mixed up or there is more than one file sent back to us in the same package.”

A couple of clients cited concerns with the neutrality and competence of PSSRB.

• “Serious concerns regarding the neutrality and credibility of the PSSRB based on actions taken by the PSSRB during a recent round of agency negotiations.”

• “Incompetent Presidents of the Bureau of Conciliation. Arbitration decisions are based in favour of the employees because of commissioners who want to act as judiciaries or others whose competence is doubtful.”

11.2 Overall Satisfaction with PSSRB Services in Past 12 Months

At the conclusion of the survey, client respondents were asked to provide an overall satisfaction rating for the PSSRB services in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Chart 11-2. In total, more than three-quarters (78.5%) reported being satisfied/very satisfied, overall, with the services provided in the past year.

Chart 11-2
Overall Satisfaction with the PSSRB Services in Past 12 Months

Source: PSSRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QH2 (n = 65)

The chart also displays the variation in satisfaction levels by client group. Representatives for employers were more satisfied, overall, with the services in the past year than representatives for bargaining agents. More than ninety percent (95.7%) indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the services, while 69.0% of bargaining agents reported being satisfied/very satisfied.

11.3 Client Recommendations for the Improvement of PSSRB Services

Client respondents were given an opportunity to provide recommendations to improve the services of the PSSRB. Recommendations covered a wide variety of topic areas, but were most often focused on the area of timeliness.

Many clients felt that the hearing process is too lengthy, and made recommendations related to speeding up the process:

• “Proceed more rapidly with the exchange of information, for example notify parties upon receiving complaint or grievance.”

• “Timeliness around acknowledgement letter, scheduling of hearings and of decisions.”

• “Speed up or improve the delay to obtain a decision after a hearing. A decision that takes six months or more is unreasonable.”

• “Quicker issuing of decisions. It is unconceivable for government members to take four to six months to issue a decision.”

Some clients specifically made suggestions related to the timeliness of scheduling:

• “Faster scheduling of cases – They should be scheduled in one to two months, and in no more than three months.”

• “Termination grievances, as well as indefinite suspension, were not always scheduled within an acceptable timeframe.”

Other recommendations suggested by only a few clients each were related to the following areas:

• A few clients were concerned with the impartiality and credibility of the Board itself and suggested steps be taken to improve the Board in those areas;

• A few clients felt that the mediation service should be reinforced and mandatory; and

• A couple of clients also felt that the mediator should take a more active role in the mediation process.

---

SECTION 12: COMPARISON WITH 2001 AND 1998 SURVEYS

---

This section presents the comparison of results from the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey with the baseline data collected in 2001 and 1998. As noted in the methodology section, there were a number of modifications and revisions made to the survey instrument used for the current research. However, key measures were maintained for comparison purposes.

It should be noted that the Common Measurement Tool (CMT) scores were utilized to analyze and interpret the satisfaction measures across the surveys. The CMT scores may range between 0.0 (very dissatisfied) and 100.0 (very satisfied) and represent the mean or average score of survey responses. Please note some of the following tables present the proportional values for categorical responses and CMT scores for scaled responses (i.e., satisfaction measures.

12.1 Demographic Data

12.1.1 Response Rates by Client Role and Group

The survey response rates for the PSSRB Client Satisfaction Surveys by client role and group are presented in Table 12-2. As the information in the table indicates the 2004 survey sample consists of higher proportions of representatives of bargaining agents and employers than the 2001 and 1998 surveys. While the share of outside counsel representing a bargaining agent (9.6%) is similar to the proportion in the 2001 survey (9.8%) it is somewhat smaller than that in the 1998 survey (11.5%).

Based on the recommendations within the 2001 Survey Report and the instructions of the the Project Authority, there were no Neutral Third Party representatives included in the sample.

¹Based on the recommendations within the 2001 Survey Report and the instructions of the Project Authority, Neutral Third Party representatives were not included in the sample universe.

When comparing the survey response rates by client group or representation, the 2004 survey, with respect to the proportion of responses from representatives for bargaining agents (64.4%), is similar to the proportion for the 2001 survey (63.9%) and greater than the proportion for the 1998 survey (55.8%). In terms of the responses from representatives for employers, the share of these individuals in 2004 survey (35.6%) is similar to the 2001 survey (34.4%) and greater than the 1998 survey.

12.1.3 Response Rates by Geographic Location and Region

The survey response by geographic location and region are presented in Table 12-3. As the information in the table indicates there was variation across the surveys in terms of survey responses across the provinces. The distribution of responses in the 1998 survey are more equitable in terms of provincial representation. However, the survey response for the NCR and outside the NCR in the 2004 survey is comparable to the levels in the 2001 survey.

12.2 Experience with PSSRB

Measures of client’s experience with the PSSRB are presented in Table 12-4.

As the table illustrates, more than eighty percent of 2001 (85.2%) and 2004 (83.6%) client respondents were involved with PSSRB proceedings in the past 12 months, while 66.7% of the 1998 clients reported being involved with PSSRB proceedings.

The CMT scores for satisfaction measures within 2004 and 2001 are comparable. However, the scores tend to indicate that 2001 client respondents reported, on average, being slightly more satisfied than 2004 client respondents with mediation, adjudication and other services.

12.2 Registry Operations Services

Measures of aspects of the Registry Operations Services are presented in Table 12-5. As the information in the table indicates, overall, the CMT scores for the 2001 and 1998 surveys are greater than those for the 2004 survey. The satisfaction scores for the 2001 survey range from 80.31 to 92.2, while those for the 1998 survey range from 75.00 to 95.45. By comparison, the satisfaction scores for the 2004 survey range from 59.09 to 85.71. It should be noted that the varying sample sizes for each measure may be an intervening factor in the differences between satisfaction scores.

12.4 Adjudication and Board Hearings

Table 12-6 illustrates the measures of aspects of adjudication and Board hearings across the three surveys. As indicated in this table, the 2001 survey (77.8%) exhibits the highest proportion of clients who had appeared at an adjudication or Board hearing in the past year.

¹ Note: Variations in the text of this question and similar questions in previous surveys limit the comparison across surveys.

With the exception of one measure (decisions issued in a timely manner), 2001 client respondents exhibit the highest CMT scores for all comparable survey questions. Focussing on the overall satisfaction with the hearing process, it is interesting to note that 1998 client respondents were least satisfied as a group. The CMT score for the 1998 survey (24.03) is within the range between very dissatisfied (0.00) and dissatisfied (25.0) indicating that, on average, clients were dissatisfied with the hearing process.

12.5 Dispute Resolution Services

The CMT scores for measures of aspects of dispute resolution services are presented in Table 12-7. There were very few comparable measures across all surveys. However, the CMT scores for the 2004 and 2001 surveys are quite similar.

¹ Note: Variations in the text of this question and similar questions in previous surveys limit the comparison across surveys.

Comparing measures of Library Services and Other PSSRB Information Sources across the three survey instruments was limited by variations in the use of and wording of questions. For example, the 2004 survey includes more measures of library services and other information sources than the previous surveys. Similarly, the comparison of related questions is limited by variations in text. For example, questions in the 2004 survey refer to use of services in the past 12 months, while questions in the 2001 and 1998 surveys tend to be less specific, referring to use of services in general.

---

SECTION 13: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

---

The following section provides a summary of overall findings of the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey, as well as recommendations for future surveys.

13.1 Summary of Findings

Overall Satisfaction with PSSRB Proceedings

Clients generally indicated positive levels of satisfaction with PSSRB proceedings. Almost three-quarters of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with PSSRB proceedings. Representatives from employers more often stated they were satisfied/very satisfied than did representatives from bargaining agents.

Overall, clients more often expressed satisfaction with mediation than with adjudication or other services.

In terms of satisfaction with specific aspects of decisions issued by PSSRB, clients were most often satisfied/very satisfied with the length of decisions and clarity of the decisions. Clients less often stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the completeness of the decisions and the timeliness of the decisions.

Registry Operations

Overall, most clients were satisfied/very satisfied with the various service elements of the registry operations. Service elements related to timeliness were least often felt to be satisfactory.

Overall, most clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the registry operations services overall. Representatives from employers were more likely to state they were satisfied than were representatives from bargaining agents.

Adjudication and Board Hearings

Client respondents (who had appeared at an adjudication or Board hearing in the past 12 months) most often stated they were satisfied with all of their appearances. Overall, an overwhelming majority of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the hearing process. Most clients also stated that there was consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted.

When asked to rate their satisfaction with the hearing process, clients were overall positive about the various service elements. Of note, timeliness and timing were the two apparent issues with clients, including timeliness of decisions and scheduling of hearings and adjournments. Bargaining agents were less satisfied with the timeliness and scheduling than were employers.

Dispute Resolution Services

Within those clients who had stated they had used dispute resolution services in the past 12 months, clients appear to be, overall, satisfied with the services.

Clients were more often satisfied/very satisfied with the mediation and grievance mediation than with collection bargaining mediation. Again, timeliness was rated lower overall than most other service elements. Clients were more often satisfied/very satisfied with their ability to receive service in the language of their choice and the courtesy, knowledge and accessibility of communications, and least often with M or C Reports Issued in a timely fashion, and ability to manage difficult situations.

When asked their level of satisfaction with groups who offer dispute resolution services, clients were more often satisfied/very satisfied with staff mediators, and least often with part-time Board members.

Library Services and Web Site

Few client respondents had used the library services of the PSSRB. Of those who had, most specified that they had used the library for copies of decisions and for reference. All clients who had accessed the library services were positive about the services.

More than three-quarters of client respondents reported that they had accessed the PSSRB web site. Clients most often used the web site to search for newly released decisions and for previous decisions and summaries.

Clients were overall very positive about the PSSRB web site, although clients were least likely to agree that the PSSRB web site is “visually interesting,” that the site has useful links to other sites and that links to other sites are easily accessible.

Other PSSRB Information Services

Only about a third of client respondents stated that they had used the PSSRB Summary of Decisions in the past 12 months.

Less than one-half of clients indicated that they were aware of either of PSSRB’s training videos. Among those who had used them, training videos were most often used for training purposes with clients, staff and/or colleagues.

Overall Assessment of PSSRB Services

Over three-quarters of clients stated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with PSSRB services in the past twelve months.

Clients overall felt that the PSSRB services had remained the same since the last service.

13.2 Recommendations for Future Surveys

Based on the survey administration process used for the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey, the Consultant suggests the following recommendations for future waves of the survey:

• Allow full survey administration to take place over a period of approximately six to eight weeks. While the Consultant was able to obtain a valid response rate of 67.6% over the course of its allotted survey administration period of approximately one month, further response could be obtained through lengthening the survey administration period to accommodate the schedules of busy stakeholders.
• Mail-out/email of reminder from the PSSRB mid-way through survey administration. Further contact with prospective client respondents from PSSRB within the survey administration period may ensure a higher level of participation from stakeholders.
• Survey instruments should be marked by Consultants with identifiers (i.e., identification numbers) on each page to facilitate data entry of completed surveys. Future waves of the survey should ensure that I.D. numbers on mail-out surveys are included on each page of the survey, rather than only on the cover/introductory pages. This will ensure that faxed and sent back surveys can be clearly identified for data entry.
• The overall satisfaction measure of the PSSRB’s library services should be exclusive to those who have used the library services and not include those clients who have accessed the web site only. As the web site was maintained by PSSRB library services, clients who did not use library services but accessed the web site were asked to provide an overall satisfaction rating for the library services. To avoid distortions in future surveys, the Project Team recommends that the overall satisfaction measures of the PSSRB’s library services and web site be treated exclusively.

---

Footnotes

---

[1] Schmidt and Strickland, Client Satisfaction Surveying: Common Measurement Tool, Citizen-Centred Service Network, Canadian Centre for Management Development, December 1998, and the Common Measurement Tool: CMT Question Bank, Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, 2003.

[2] Consulting and Audit Canada, Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) Client Satisfaction Survey 2001, p. 53.

[3] The most significant revision was the addition of “Qualisult” as an example for Question G4.

[4] Among the clients who had not used library service but provided an overall satisfaction rating, more than one-half (60.9%) responded ‘neutral’.

---

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

---

	PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD
	2004 Client Satisfaction Survey

The Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal responsible for the administration of a system of collective bargaining and grievance adjudication in the Public and Parliamentary Service. In order to service you better, the PSSRB would like to measure your level of satisfaction as a client.

 The purpose of the survey is to provide the PSSRB with reliable information on the degree of satisfaction with PSSRB services and on client concerns. The PSSRB would like to know how well it is performing and identify possible areas for improvement. Results of this survey will be compared against the baseline information collected during previous client satisfaction surveys conducted in 1998 and 2001.

 Respondents may participate in this survey via several methods. You may complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. in the envelope provided or via the toll-free fax number 1-866-448-9047. In addition, R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. representatives will be conducting follow-up calls to confirm respondents’ receipt of the questionnaire and will be available to conduct telephone interviews. Alternatively, you may call one of our representatives, toll-free, at 1-877-665-6252, to participate in a telephone interview from November 5 to December 3, 2004 between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m (EDST).

 Please note that R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. will compile and analyze the survey data. All survey responses will remain strictly confidential. Only R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. will have access to the individual questionnaires, and the responses will be analyzed so that no individual can be identified.

If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this survey, please do not hesitate to contact:

Steven Lum, Senior Research Analyst	Monique Montgomery, Special Projects Officer
R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.	Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB)
Tel: (613) 688-1847, Toll Free: 1-888-689-1847	Tel: (613) 990-1804
Fax: (613) 288-1278, Toll Free: 1-866-288-1278	Fax: (613) 990-1849
e-mail: steven.lum@malatest.com	e-mail: monique.montgomery@pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca

---

SECTION A: demographic data

 A1.  Please indicate which of the following best describes you: (select ALL that apply)

	A representative of a bargaining agent
	A representative of an employer
	Outside counsel representing a bargaining agent
	Outside counsel representing an employer

---

 A2.  Where are you located? (select one response only)

	Newfoundland and Labrador
	Nova Scotia
	Prince Edward Island
	New Brunswick
	Quebec (outside the NCR)
	National Capital Region (NCR)
	Ontario (outside the NCR)
	Manitoba
	Saskatchewan
	Alberta
	British Columbia
	Yukon
	Northwest Territories
	Nunavut

---

SECTION B: experience with PSSRB

 B1.  In the past 12 months, have you been involved in PSSRB proceedings, including mediation and adjudication?

	No (if NO , go to Section F )
	Yes (if YES, please indicate ALL the services you have used)
		a. Mediation
		b. Adjudication
		c. Other (if other , please specify): ________________________________________

---

B2. Considering the proceedings indicated in Question B1, please circle a number that indicates how satisfied you were with the services you used.

Proceedings	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
a. Mediation	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Adjudication	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Other:	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

B3. With respect to the decisions issued by the PSSRB, please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the decisions.

Aspect	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
a. Length of the decision(s) issued	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Content(s) of the decision(s)
(i) Clarity of the decision(s)	na	1	2	3	4	5
(ii) Usefulness of the decision(s)	na	1	2	3	4	5
(iii) Completeness of the decision(s)	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Timeliness of the decision(s)	na	1	2	3	4	5
[If you were Very Dissatisfied/Dissatisfied with the length of the decision(s) –Question B3a, go toQuestion B4] [All other participants go to Question B5]

---

B4. If you were VERY DISSATISFIED/DISSATISFIED with the length of the decision(s), please explain your response.

---

B5. Please circle a number to indicate your overall satisfaction with PSSRB proceedings, including mediation and adjudication.

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

SECTION C: REGISTRY Operations services

C1. The following service elements apply to your interaction with the Registry Operations Services of the PSSRB, from first contact up to, but excluding, the Board hearing. For each aspect, please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the service. If you do not liaise with the Registry Operations Services personally, please have the staff member who conducts the liaison complete this section.

Service	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
Scheduling of Hearings
a. Timely issue of acknowledgement letter	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Timely issue of notice of hearing	na	1	2	3	4	5
Quality of Service
c. Accuracy of information	na	1	2	3	4	5
d. Timeliness of information	na	1	2	3	4	5
e. Completeness of information	na	1	2	3	4	5
f. Fair and impartial treatment	na	1	2	3	4	5
Communications
g. Service in the language of your choice	na	1	2	3	4	5
h. Accessibility	na	1	2	3	4	5
i. Responsiveness	na	1	2	3	4	5
j. Courtesy	na	1	2	3	4	5
k. Knowledge	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

C2. Please circle a number to indicate your overall level of satisfaction with your interaction with the Registry Operations Services.

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

SECTION D: adjudication and board hearings

D1. In the past 12 months, have you appeared at an adjudication or a Board hearing?

	No	(if NO, go to Section E )
	Yes	(if YES, please estimate the percentage of the total number of appearances with which you were satisfied and with which you were dissatisfied with the hearing process)
		Satisfied	___________ %
		Dissatisfied	___________ %
		TOTAL appearances	100.0 %

---

D2. Do you feel that there is consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted?

	No (if NO , please explain your response):
	Yes (if YES, go to Question D3)

---

D3. Please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the hearing process.

Aspect	Level of Satisfaction
	Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
Procedural issues
a. Procedural fairness	1	2	3	4	5
b. Opportunity to present your case	1	2	3	4	5
c. Scheduling of hearings & adjournments	1	2	3	4	5
d. Board member attentiveness	1	2	3	4	5
e. Decisions issued in a timely manner	1	2	3	4	5
Hearing sites
f. Suitability of hearing rooms	1	2	3	4	5
g. Sufficient number of sites	1	2	3	4	5
h. Accessibility of sites	1	2	3	4	5
Communications
i. Availability of simultaneous translation services when requested in advance	1	2	3	4	5

---

D4. Overall, how satisfied were you with the hearing process?

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

SECTION E: dispute resolution services

E1. In the past 12 months, have you used the PSSRB’s dispute resolution services?

	No (if NO , go to Section F )
	Yes (if YES, please indicate all the services you used in the past year)
		a. Collective Bargaining Mediation (conciliation)
		b. Grievance Mediation
		c. Mediation in any other PSSRB process
		d. Training in dispute resolution
		e. Managerial or confidential (M or C) exclusion examinations

---

E2. Considering the dispute resolution service(s) indicated in Question E1, please circle a number that indicates how satisfied you were with the service(s) you used.

Service Area	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
a. Collective Bargaining Mediation	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Grievance Mediation	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Mediation in any other PSSRB process	na	1	2	3	4	5
d. Training in dispute resolution	na	1	2	3	4	5
e. M or C exclusion examinations	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

E3. As a client of the PSSRB’s Dispute Resolution Services, please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the performance of the PSSRB in the following areas.

Service Aspect	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
Quality of Dispute Resolution Services
a. Availability of services	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Timeliness of services	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Consistency of services	na	1	2	3	4	5
d. Expertise in mediation	na	1	2	3	4	5
e. Ability to manage difficult situations	na	1	2	3	4	5
f. Suitability of meeting rooms	na	1	2	3	4	5
g. M or C Reports accurately reflect evidence	na	1	2	3	4	5
h. M or C Reports issued in a timely fashion	na	1	2	3	4	5
Communications
i. Service in language of choice	na	1	2	3	4	5
j. Accessibility	na	1	2	3	4	5
k. Responsiveness	na	1	2	3	4	5
l. Courtesy	na	1	2	3	4	5
m. Knowledge	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

E4. Please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the following groups who offer dispute resolution services on behalf of the PSSRB.

Group	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
a. Staff Mediators	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Full-time Board Members	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Part-time Board Members	na	1	2	3	4	5
d. External Professionals	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

E5. Are there any OTHER dispute resolution services that you would like to see offered by the PSSRB?

	No (if NO , go to Question E6 )
	Yes (if YES, please specify):

---

E6. Please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction, overall, with the dispute resolution services.

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

SECTION F: library services

F1. In the past 12 months, have you used the PSSRB’s Library Services?

	No (if NO , go to Question F3 )
	Yes (if YES, please select ALL the services you have used in the past year)
		Copies of Decisions
		Reference
		Interlibrary loans
		Other (If OTHER, please specify):

---

F2. Please circle a number to indicate your level of satisfaction with the performance of the PSSRB’s Library Services for the following service elements.

Service Element	Level of Satisfaction
		Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
Quality of Library Services
a. Timeliness	na	1	2	3	4	5
b. Accuracy	na	1	2	3	4	5
c. Completeness	na	1	2	3	4	5
Communications
d. Service in language of my choice	na	1	2	3	4	5
e. Accessibility	na	1	2	3	4	5
f. Responsiveness	na	1	2	3	4	5
g. Courtesy	na	1	2	3	4	5
h. Knowledge	na	1	2	3	4	5

---

F3. In the past 12 months, have you accessed the PSSRB web site (http://www.pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca)?

	No (If no , go to Question F9 ) [Participants who answered no for Questions F1 & F3 go to Section G ]
	Yes (if yes, approximately how often did you access the web site?)
		Once a day
		Once a week
		Once every two weeks
		Once a month
		Less than once a month

---

F4. How did you learn about this site? (select ALL that apply)

	Through a general purpose search engine such as Google or Yahoo
	Through a government search engine
	Following a link from another government web site
	The address was printed on a government publication or in the phone book
	Referred to the site by a government staff member
	Referred to the site by a Board Member or an employee of the Public Service Staff Relations Board
	Other (if other specify):

---

F5. What did you do on the site? (select ALL that apply)

	Searched for information about the PSSRB
	Searched for newly released decisions
	Reviewed Hearing schedules
	Searched for previous decisions and summaries
	Reviewed publications
	Other (Please specify):

---

F6. Did you find the information you were looking for?

	Yes (if yes , go to Question F7 )
	No (If NO , what were you looking for?):

---

F7. Please circle a number to indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the content, navigation, and layout of the website.

Statement	Level of Agreement
	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Content
a. I received accurate information	1	2	3	4	5
b. I received complete information	1	2	3	4	5
c. The information was up-to-date	1	2	3	4	5
Navigation
d. It was easy to find the PSSRB web site	1	2	3	4	5
e. When I got to the site, it was easy to find what I was looking for	1	2	3	4	5
f. It was easy to move from one page to another (forward and backward)	1	2	3	4	5
g. Search engine worked well	1	2	3	4	5
Site Design/Layout
h. The site is visually appealing	1	2	3	4	5
i. There were useful links to other sites	1	2	3	4	5
j. Links to other sites were easily accessible	1	2	3	4	5

---

F8. Overall, how satisfied were you with the PSSRB’s web site?

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

F9. Overall, how satisfied were you with the PSSRB’s Library Services?

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

SECTION G: other pssrb information sources

G1. In the past 12 months, have you used the PSSRB Summary of Decisions (the semi-annual publication summarizing decisions)?

	No (if NO , go to Question G4 )
	Yes (if YES, what format of this publication did you use?)
		Paper (only)
		Electronic (only)
		Both Paper and Electronic

---

G2. Did you find the publication useful?

	Yes (If yes , go to Question G3 )
	No (if NO, please explain how we could make it more useful):

---

G3. In the future, the PSSRB is planning on issuing summaries of decisions in electronic format ONLY. Would this cause you a problem?

	No (if NO , go to Question G4 )
	Yes (if yes, please explain):

---

G4. In the past 12 months, did you access the PSSRB’s decisions through electronic databases maintained by private firms (e.g., the Quick Law System, Qualisult or others)?

	No
	Yes

---

G5. The PSSRB has developed two training videos ( “Best Interests – An Introduction to Grievance Mediation”, and “Hearing Both Sides – Formal and Expedited Adjudication at the PSSRB”). Are you aware of either of these training resources?

	No (If no , go to Section H )
	Yes (if yes, go to Question G6 )

---

G6. In the past 12 months, have you used the PSSRB’s training videos?

	No (If NO , go to Question G8 )
	Yes (If YES , please indicate ALL of the training videos you have used)
		“Best Interests – An Introduction to Grievance Mediation”
		“Hearing Both Sides – Formal and Expedited Adjudication at the PSSRB”

---

G7. Briefly, describe the context in which you have used the PSSRB’s training videos.

---

G8. From your perspective, are there any other areas of interest at the PSSRB that you believe could benefit from the development of a training video?

	No (If NO , go to Section H )
	Yes (If YES , please briefly outline these areas):

---

SECTION H: overall assessment of PSSRB’s services

H1. Considering your experience(s) with the PSSRB during the past 12 months, from an overall perspective, do you feel that, since the last survey (2001), the service has….

	Improved (Go to Question H1a )
	Remained the same (Go to Question H2 )
	Deteriorated (Go to Question H1a )

---

H1a. Briefly, describe how the services provided by the PSSRB have changed (e.g., improved or deteriorated) since the last survey (2001).

---

H2. Please circle a number to indicate your overall satisfaction with the service(s) you received from the PSSRB in the past 12 months.

Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
1	2	3	4	5

---

H3. Considering the services discussed in this questionnaire, what improvements would you like to see the PSSRB make to improve the services you require?

Recommendation 1:

Recommendation 2:

Recommendation 3:

---

H4. That concludes the formal questions for this study. Do you have any comments you would like to contribute regarding any aspects discussed in this survey or the PSSRB in general?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS IMPORTANT QUESTIONNAIRE.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!

This report is also available in PDF