The 2007 survey participants were made up of clients who had used PSLRB services between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Respondents had an opportunity to specify their satisfaction level in areas such as timeliness, quality of service and communications with, among others, adjudication services, mediation services and registry operations services.

The Executive Summary outlines the major findings of the 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB).

Methodology

The survey was undertaken between October 23 to December 13, 2007 and results of the survey were compared with key measures of the 2004, 2001 and 1998 waves of the survey. A mixed mode approach was used in which respondents had a choice of four methods to complete the survey. They could mail it back, send it by fax (toll free), respond online or participate in a telephone interview with a representative of the consultants conducting the survey.

Participants included clients who had dealt with the PSLRB during the period under review. A field survey was conducted with 30 clients to determine if changes should be made to the survey instrument before proceeding with the full administration of it. The full survey administration (including field survey participants) involved a mail-out survey to 376 clients, with telephone follow-up.

Survey Response Rates and Demographics

In total, 234 completed surveys were compiled, garnering a valid response rate of 82.9%. The largest portion of client respondents (45%) were representatives of employers, with the remainder consisting of representatives of bargaining agents (39%), case coordinators for employers (12%), outside counsel representing applicants (7%), outside counsel representing bargaining agents (5%), case coordinators for a bargaining agent (6%), and outside counsel representing an employer (1%).

Experience with PSLRB Services

When asked which PSLRB services they had made use of, client respondents indicated that they had accessed the PSLRB web site (68%), used mediation services (grievance/complaint) (66%), and appeared at an adjudication hearing (in person) (51%). Fewer clients indicated that they had used the PSLRB’s library services (18%), mediation (collective bargaining) (13%) or undertaken mediation training (12%).

Client respondents generally indicated positive levels of satisfaction with all PSLRB services. Clients were most satisfied with mediation training (93%), library services (93%), and mediation (preventive) (90%).

Little variation was noted among client groups for levels of satisfaction with mediation and other proceedings. However, a greater share of bargaining agent representatives (75%) were satisfied/very satisfied with mediation (collective bargaining) services than the proportion for employer representatives (54%).

Registry Operations and Policy Services

Overall, most clients were satisfied/very satisfied with the various service elements of the registry operations. The highest satisfaction ratings were associated with aspects of communication. Clients were most often satisfied/very satisfied with the ability to obtain service in the language of their choice (92%) and with courtesy of the service provided (91%). Service elements related to timeliness were least often felt to be satisfactory, with only 65% of clients stating they were satisfied/very satisfied with the timely issuance of a notice of hearing and fair and impartial treatment (75%).

Variation was noted among client groups. Overall, in all 11 aspects of Registry Operations and Policy Services, employer representatives were consistently more satisfied in comparison to bargaining agents. The greatest difference was observed for timely issuance of notice of hearing; 49% of bargaining agents were satisfied/very satisfied compared to 82% of employer representatives.

Adjudication and Other Types of Hearings

Client respondents (who had appeared at an adjudication or other hearing in the past 18 months) most often stated they were satisfied with all of their appearances. Overall, 64% of clients stated they were 91 to 100% satisfied with the hearing process. Most clients (85%) 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 positive about the various service elements. Of note, timeliness and scheduling received the lowest satisfaction ratings: only 57% of clients stated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments, and only 45% with the issuing of decisions in a timely manner. Bargaining agent representatives were less satisfied with the timeliness and scheduling than were representatives of employers.

Approximately 14% of clients reported that they had been involved with an expedited adjudication process in the past 18 months. Among those that reported involvement in an expedited adjudication process, clients were also asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the procedural aspects of the process. The majority of clients (79%) reported that they were satisfied/very satisfied.

Dispute Resolution Services

Within those clients who had stated they had used dispute resolution services in the past 18 months, clients appear to be, overall, satisfied with the services. Clients indicated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with training in interest-based negotiation and mediation (labour relations) (95%), preventive mediation (90%), and collective bargaining mediation (86%).

Service aspects associated with communication received the highest satisfaction ratings (90%) in comparison to those associated with the quality of dispute resolution services overall (82%). The lowest rated resolution services were the ability to manage difficult situations (80%) and timeliness of services (75%).

Library Services

When asked if they had used the PSLRB library services over the past 18 months, less than one quarter of clients (22%) reported the use of this service. Clients who had made use of library services tended to request copies of decisions (90%) or had reference questions (52%).

Overall, clients indicated high satisfaction levels with library services. Over ninety percent (94%) of clients using these services stated that they were satisfied/very satisfied with the PSLRB library services overall. All service elements rated high among respondents including timeliness (94%), accuracy (98%), completeness (96%), service in language of choice (98%), accessibility (98%), responsiveness (95%), courtesy (95%), and knowledge (95%).

External Communications

When asked if they had used the PSLRB web site in the past 18 months, over eighty percent (88%) of clients indicated that they had. The largest proportions of client respondents searched for decisions (90%), consulted newly released decisions (76%) or consulted summaries of decisions (74%) while using the web site.

Clients who had used the PSLRB web site were asked to rate their level of agreement with ten statements regarding the content and navigation of the web site. In general, there was a high level of agreement with each of the statements. Of particular note include statements relating to information accuracy (93%), the ability to find the web site (93%) and the ease with which clients understood information on the web site (91%). Further, clients rated their satisfaction with the web site overall quite high, at 90% satisfied/very satisfied.

Respondents were also asked to rate their satisfaction with the PSLRB’s other information resources. They were satisfied/very satisfied with FAQ’s (90%), Fact Sheets (91%), Practice Notes (84%) and Guides (84%).

Fostering Labour Relations

Between one-half and two-thirds of client respondents agreed/strongly agreed to statements regarding the ability of the PSLRB to foster labour relations. Slightly stronger levels of agreement were noted for statements regarding the impartiality of PSLRB processes (67%) and the ability of the PSLRB to foster collaboration efforts among parties to resolve differences on their own (63%).

Overall Assessment of PSLRB Services

Among those valid responses, over one-third of clients felt that PSLRB services had improved since the last survey. Approximately one-half felt services had remained the same and a small number of clients claimed services had declined. Clients who felt a change (either negative or positive) were asked to elaborate on their response. Positive comments include improvements in communications and accessibility of PSLRB services as well as a perceived positive focus on mediation efforts to resolve disputes/grievances. Other clients felt that some services had become overly bureaucratic and that timeliness was still an issue. Concerns were also raised with the neutrality and competence of the PSLRB.

SECTION 1: Project BACKGROUND

The Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal responsible for the administration of the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the federal public service and Parliament. Under its new mandate, the PSLRB is also responsible for providing compensation analysis and research services. The Board’s objective is to administer the legislative framework within which labour relations are conducted in the federal public service and Parliament 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.

The PSLRB conducts a Client Satisfaction Survey every three years. The purpose of the survey is to provide the PSLRB with current and reliable information on the degree of satisfaction of clients with its services. This information will be used to measure and report on the PSLRB’s performance. The 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey results are compared against the baseline information collected during previous client satisfaction surveys conducted in 2004, 2001 and 1998.

Section 2: Research activities and scope of work

Specific research activities completed by R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. for the 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey included:

Ø Sample selection;

Ø Development of cover letters (from the PSLRB Chairperson and R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.) inviting contacts to participate in the survey;

Ø Development of the survey instrument;

Ø Programming, review, and testing of the instrument for survey administration;

Ø Field-testing of the survey instrument;

Ø Full survey administration utilizing a mixed-mode approach:

· Administration of the survey and telephone follow-up;

· Response rate enhancement activities;

Ø Data analysis; and

Ø Development of this report.

2.1 Sample Selection

The Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) provided the Consultant with listings containing contact information (mailing address and telephone number) for PSLRB clients, consisting of employer representatives/third party employer representatives, bargaining agent representatives/third party bargaining agent representatives and third party representatives for applicants, that had an interaction with the Board during the 18 month period covered by the survey (January 2006 to June 2007). In total, 376 cases were available for mail out and uploaded into the CallWeb Computer Assisted Telephone and Web-based Interviewing (CATI / CAWI) 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 PSLRB Chairperson to be sent out by the PSLRB 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 the 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, telephone and online survey administration with individuals listed in the Client’s administrative database. The survey instrument was designed to take approximately 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 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey were based on the 2004 survey instrument. However, the format of the 2004 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 and the option for online completion). As with the 2004 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:

Ø Inclusion of additional client roles;

Ø Further specification of ‘mediation’ services (i.e. grievance/complaint, preventive etc.);

Ø Widening of the time period covered by the questionnaire. Previous surveys included a twelve month period. The 2007 survey included an 18 month period;

Ø Inclusion of fields to collect respondent experiences and opinions on training on Interest-Based Negotiation and Mediation (Labour Relations) and other information resources available on the PSLRB’s web site;

Ø Inclusion of a new section on the PSLRB’s ability to foster labour relations;

Ø Creation of separate sections for library services and external communications; and

Ø 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 channeling 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 September 10, 2007 and September 30, 2007. In total, 23 surveys were completed for the field-test from a sample of 30. (2 completed by telephone, 2 respondents submitted via toll-free fax, 15 by mail, and 4 were completed online). The responses of the field test participants have been integrated with those from the full administration for purposes of survey response rates and data analysis.

Upon completion of the field-test, very minor revisions 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. Each letter also included the survey URL and a unique identification number, with which potential client respondents could complete the survey online. 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.

Full survey administration activities were conducted between October 23, 2007 and December 23, 2007. 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 234 survey completions were obtained, which represents an overall response rate of 62.2%. 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 82.9%. This figure is greater than the valid response rate of 67.6% obtained for the 2004 Survey campaign.

Table 2-1

Call Status and Response Rates – Full Survey Administration

Call Status	Count	Percent of Sample (Valid Response Rate¹)
Survey Completions	234	62.2% (82.9%)
Refusal	24	6.4%
Left Message/ No Answer/ Busy²	24	6.4%
Subtotal	282	75.0%
Non-Qualifier¹	61	16.2%
Not in Service/Fax line, Wrong Number, Call Blocked, etc.	14	3.7%
Other	19	5.1%
Total Sample Accessed	376	100.0%

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 PSLRB.

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.

As the information in Table 2-1 indicates, the Consultant was unable to establish contact (i.e. the number was not in service/fax line, wrong number, call blocked etc.) with approximately four percent (3.7%) of the contact entries listed in the administrative database.

Although the majority (54%) of client respondents returned their surveys via mail, many respondents chose to complete the survey online (35%). Telephone surveys accounted for 9% of completions and submitted surveys by toll-free fax accounted for 2% of completions. Table 2-2 displays the completion results of the survey by mode of completion.

Table 2-2

Survey Completion by Mode of Completion

Mode of Completion	Count	Percent of Completions
Mail	127	54%
Online	81	35%
Telephone	22	9%
Toll-free Fax	4	2%
Total Completions	234	100%

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:

Ø Staggered calling patterns to establish initial contact;

Ø Fielding/responding to questions and concerns of client respondents;

Ø Sending of survey packages to potential client respondents utilizing new contact information;

Ø Re-sending of survey packages to individuals who reported non-receipt during the initial mail out; and

Ø Provided a total of 7 weeks for survey completion (originally 5 weeks with a 2 week extension).

2.6 Research Limitations

As the sample size was increased considerably compared to the previous surveys, and the timeframe allowed for responses was adequate (at approximately 6 weeks), it is felt that there were no identifiable limitations to the research in this survey.

section 3: Overview of reporting

This report presents the key findings of the 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey, organized in accordance with the structure of the survey instrument. The survey instrument consisted of the following eight sections:

Ø Demographic data;

Ø Experience with the PSLRB;

Ø Registry operations and policy services;

Ø Adjudication and other types of hearings;

Ø Dispute resolution services;

Ø Library services;

Ø External communications;

Ø Fostering Labour Relations; and

Ø Overall assessment of the PSLRB’s services.

Survey analysis makes use of several techniques to enhance the analysis. For example, 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”.

Additionally, client groups were collapsed into three smaller categories: for a bargaining agent, for an employer and for an applicant. This allowed for analysis of data that would have otherwise been statistically invalid. The table below illustrates the collapsed and recoded variables.

For A Bargaining Agent	For An Employer	For An Applicant
· A representative of a bargaining agent	· A representative of an employer	· An outside counsel representing an applicant (not represented by a bargaining agent)
· Outside counsel representing a bargaining agent	· Outside counsel representing an employer
· A case coordinator for a bargaining agent	· A case coordinator for an employer

It should be noted that outside counsel representing applicants represents only fifteen responses. Any data analyses that examine this group should be taken with caution.

Finally, only valid responses are presented in this report. Statistical tables displaying valid responses (e.g., excluding “Don’t Know”, “Not Applicable”) are presented in Appendix C.

SEction 4: Demographic Characteristics

The distribution of client respondents by client representation group is presented in Chart 4-1. As this chart demonstrates, most clients indicated that they were representatives of an employer (45%) or a representative of a bargaining agent (39%). Twelve percent (12%) of client respondents indicated they were a case coordinator for an employer, only 1% indicated they were outside counsel representing an employer.

Chart 4-1

Survey Response by Client Group

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QA1 (n = 269) Multiple responses were allowed for this question

The geographical distribution of client respondents is presented in Chart 4-2. As this chart illustrates, the overwhelming majority of clients (70%) reported that they are located in 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: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QA2 (n = 232), (2 clients responded ‘do not know’ for location)

section 5: Experience with PSLRB

Client respondents were asked about their use of PSLRB services over the past 18 months and their level of satisfaction with these services.

5.1 Use of PSLRB Services in the Past 18 months

Chart 5-1 illustrates the reported proportion of client respondents using PSLRB services in the past 18 months. As the information in the chart indicates, the greatest proportion of clients (68%) had made use of the PSLRB’s web site. In contrast, only 12% of clients reported that they had participated in mediation training. Survey findings for each of these services are displayed in the following chart.

Chart 5-1

Reported Use of PSLRB Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB1a (n = 153), QB1b (n = 48), QB1c (n = 29), QB1d (n = 27), QB1e (n=58), QB1f (n=119), QB1g (n=55), QB1h (n=54), QB1i (n=41), QB1j (n=157), QB1k (n=10).

5.2 Satisfaction with PSLRB Services

Clients were asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with the types of proceedings they were involved with in the past 18 months; their responses are presented in Chart 5-2. As indicated below, the majority of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with all PSLRB services overall. Clients who made use of mediation training (93%) were equally as satisfied/very satisfied as those who used library services (93%).

Chart 5-2

Level of Satisfaction with PSLRB Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QB2 (n=41-209)

Comparing the satisfaction ratings by client group reveals relatively little variation for mediation and other proceedings. However, a greater share of bargaining agent representatives (75%) were satisfied/very satisfied with mediation (collective bargaining) services than the proportion for employer representatives (54%). Conversely, a greater share of employer representatives (80%) were satisfied/very satisfied with other hearings (complaints, applications) than the proportion for bargaining agent representatives (68%).

Section 6: Registry Operations AND POLICY SERVICES

6.1 Satisfaction with Registry Operations and Policy Services

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

Chart 6-1

Level of Satisfaction with the Registry Operations and Policy Services of the PSLRB

PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QC1a-QC1k (n=188-204)

As the information in the chart indicates, the highest satisfaction ratings were associated with aspects of communications with registry employees. Clients were satisfied/very satisfied with services provided in the language of their choice (92%), courtesy (91%), and availability (84%). Clients were less satisfied with the timely issuance of a notice of hearing (65%) and fair and impartial treatment (75%).

Further analysis by client type or group reveals variation in the satisfaction ratings. Overall, in all 11 aspects of Registry Operations and Policy Services, employer representatives were consistently more satisfied in comparison to bargaining agents. The greatest difference was observed for timely issuance of notice of hearing; 48% of bargaining agents were satisfied/very satisfied compared to 82% of employer representatives. Further, a greater share of representatives of employers (91%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the responsiveness of the registry operations and policy services in comparison to bargaining agents (72.4%).

Client respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with their interactions with Registry Operations and Policy Services. The results of this question are presented in Chart 6-2. As the information in the chart demonstrates, the majority of clients (80%) reported they were satisfied/very satisfied, 16% reported they were neutral and the remaining 4% claimed they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with their interactions with Registry Operations and Policy Services.

Chart 6-2

Overall Satisfaction with Interaction with Registry Operations and

Policy Services

PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QC2 (n=213)

Those respondents who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with registry operations and policy services were asked to explain their response. Several clients indicated that they felt the process was not non-partisan. A sample of the comments includes:

· “Some officers of the registry accept all requests from the representatives of the employer”

· “The PSLRB knew that I was not represented (the union had washed it's hands of the matter) and that this was my first experience/contact with the grievance system and that I had specifically asked it for guidance with respect to the process - yet it never came”

Further analysis by client group reveals some variation in overall satisfaction with Registry Operations and Policy Services. According to the chart below, representatives of applicants and employers were more satisfied in comparison to the overall calculated mean of 4 (or satisfied). Representatives of bargaining agents were the least satisfied in comparison to the overall calculated mean.

Chart 6-3

Overall Satisfaction with Interaction with Registry Operations and

Policy Services

Mean Value on a Scale of 1 to 5

By Client Group

Very Satisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QC2 (n = 213)

section 7: Adjudication and OTHER TYPES OF Hearings

7.1 Appearances at an Adjudication or a Board Hearing

Approximately 52% of clients (who were not case coordinators) reported that they had been involved with PSLRB adjudication and other types of hearings in the past 18 months. Most clients had appeared at an adjudication or other type of hearing once (26%) and approximately half (59%) had attended three times or less. These clients were then asked to estimate the percentage of appearances in which they were satisfied with the hearing process. The valid responses for this question are presented in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1

Reported Range of Satisfaction With Appearances at Adjudication or Board Hearings

Share of Appearances With Which Respondents Were Satisfied With Adjudication & Other Types of Hearings	Count	Proportion of Respondents
(% Satisfied)	Count	Proportion of Respondents
0 –10	3	3%
11 – 20	0	0%
21 – 30	2	2%
31 – 40	2	2%
41 – 50	7	8%
51 – 60	2	2%
61 – 70	5	5%
71 – 80	9	10%
81 – 90	3	3%
91 – 100	59	64%
Total	92	100%^†

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD1_sat and QD1_dis (n = 92).

^†Numbers do not add to 100% due to rounding

As the information in the table indicates, the majority of clients (64%) indicated that they were 91% to 100% satisfied with the adjudication and/or hearing process.

For those clients that appeared at an adjudication or board hearing more than once, they were also asked if they felt that there is consistency in the manner in which the hearings are conducted. The vast majority (85%) stated there was consistency in the manner in which hearings are conducted. Response levels across the groups were very similar.

Further, 15% 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, clients outlined specific problems associated with the lack of uniformity in adjudication procedures and the flexibility of procedural guidelines. A sample of the comments includes:

· “Procedures are not consistent. Sometimes it is very formal and sometimes not.”

· “Each member has their own style.”

· “Some are overly formal while others are more flexible and responsive in terms of process.”

· “The procedural rules were not always followed; witnesses not always sworn.”

· “Approaches differ according to the committee members.”

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, decisions, hearing sites, and communications. Chart 7-2 illustrates the proportion of clients who reported being satisfied/very satisfied for each aspect of the hearing process service elements.

Chart 7-2

Level of Satisfaction with the Hearing Process

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD3a - QD3m (n = 94-135).

As the information in Chart 7-2 indicates, the satisfaction ratings were relatively high. The highest rated service elements were the opportunity to present case (85%), Board member attentiveness (83%), and personal security (83%).

The service elements that received the lowest satisfaction ratings were scheduling of hearings and adjournments (57% satisfied/very satisfied) and decisions issued in a timely manner (45% satisfied/very satisfied).

Varying levels of satisfaction across the client groups were observed. For example, while 60.6%% of employer representatives were satisfied/very satisfied with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments, just less than one-half of bargaining agent representatives indicated that they were either neutral (20.6%) or dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (28.5%) with the scheduling of hearings and adjournments. Bargaining agent representatives were also less satisfied (37.9% satisfied/very satisfied) with the timely issuing of decisions than employer representatives (53% satisfied/very satisfied). Overall, in 9 of the 15 aspects of the adjudication or other hearing processes, representatives of bargaining agents were consistently less satisfied in comparison to employer representatives.

Chart 7-3 illustrates client respondent’s overall level of satisfaction with the hearing process by client group.

Chart 7-3

Overall Satisfaction with the Hearing Process

Mean Value on a Scale of 1 to 5

Very Satisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD4 (n = 141)

According to the chart above, representatives for applicants and employers were more slightly satisfied in comparison to the overall calculated mean of 3.9. Representatives of bargaining agents were less satisfied in comparison to the overall calculated mean.

7.3 Involvement and Satisfaction with the Expedited Adjudication Process

As illustrated in the following chart, approximately 14% of clients reported that they had been involved with an expedited adjudication process in the past 18 months (n=20). Among those that reported involvement in an expedited adjudication process, clients were also asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the procedural aspects of the process. The majority of clients (79%) reported that they were satisfied/very satisfied. Most clients who had appeared at an expedited adjudication process had appeared one or two times (79%).

Chart 7-4

Percent of Clients Who Reported Involvement in an

Expedited Adjudication Process & Their Level of Satisfaction

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD5 (n = 143), QD7 (n=19)

Client respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with aspects of the expedited adjudication process. Chart 7-5 illustrates the proportion of clients who reported being satisfied/very satisfied for each aspect of the expedited adjudication process.

Chart 7-5

Level of Satisfaction with the Expedited Adjudication Process

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QD6a – QD6e (n=16-19)

As the information in Chart 7-5 indicates, the satisfaction ratings were relatively high. The highest aspects were decisions issued in a timely manner (100%), procedural fairness (84%), and opportunity to present case (84%).

section 8: Dispute Resolution Services

8.1 Use of Dispute Resolution Services

More than two-thirds (67%) of clients indicated that they had used the PSLRB’s dispute resolution services in the past 18 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 18 months were grievance/complaint mediation (83%), preventive mediation (25%) and collective bargaining mediation (14%). Relatively few clients reported use of mediation in any other PSLRB procedures (6%) over the course of the past 18 months.

Chart 8-1

Use of PSLRB Dispute Resolution Service(s)

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE1a – QE1e (n = 155)

Further analysis by client type or group revealed slight variations. Employer representatives (76.7%) were more likely to use the PSLRB’s Dispute Resolution Services in comparison to bargaining agent representatives (62.1%) and applicant representatives (40%).

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 18 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 training in interest-based negotiation and mediation (labour relations) (95%), preventive mediation (90%), and collective bargaining mediation (86%).

Chart 8-2

Level of Satisfaction with the PSLRB’s Dispute Resolution Service(s)

Used in the Past 18 Months

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE2a - QE2e (n = 10-131).

It should be noted that there was considerable variation in the response rates for satisfaction with dispute resolution services. For instance, while 131 clients provided a response for their level of satisfaction with mediation (grievance/complaint), only 10 provided a response for mediation in any other PSLRB process. Data results for this question should be carefully considered given the low response rate.

Client respondents were asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with eleven service aspects of the PSLRB’s dispute resolution services. The results of these measures are illustrated in Chart 8-3.

As indicated below, the survey data indicates that service aspects associated with communication received higher satisfaction ratings overall (90%) than those associated with the quality of dispute resolution services overall (82%). Ninety percent of clients or greater reported being satisfied/very satisfied with service in language of choice (95%) and courtesy (94%). The lowest rated dispute resolution services were ability to manage difficult situations (80%) and timeliness of services (75%).

Chart 8-3

Level of Satisfaction with Service Aspects of PSLRB’s Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE3a - QE3k (n = 146-155).

Comparison by client group reveals moderate variation. As evidenced by the chart below, employer representatives were consistently more satisfied with the service aspects of dispute resolution services. For example, 89% of employer representatives were satisfied or very satisfied with availability of services compared to 84% of bargaining agent representatives.

Chart 8-4

Level of Satisfaction with Selected Service Aspects of PSLRB’s Dispute Resolution Services by Client Groups

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE3a - QE3k (n = 52-82)

Employer representatives were more satisfied with the suitability of meeting rooms than bargaining agent representatives. More than ninety percent (92%) of employer representatives reported being satisfied/very satisfied, while (1%) were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. In contrast, 84% of bargaining agent representatives indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the suitability of meeting rooms, and 5% indicated they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied.

Employer and bargaining agent representatives were relatively equally satisfied with services in language of choice (95% and 94% respectively), courtesy (95% and 94% respectively) and timeliness of services (76% and 75% respectively). Representatives of applicants were consistently less satisfied with Dispute Resolution Services in comparison to employer and bargaining agent representatives.

8.2.1 Satisfaction with Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services

Clients were also asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with staff mediators and private sector mediators who offer dispute resolution services on behalf of the PSLRB. Chart 8-5 illustrates the results of this question.

Chart 8-5

Level of Satisfaction with Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE4a – QE4b (n = 56-152)

As the information in the chart above indicates, clients were much more satisfied with staff mediators (86%) who provided dispute resolution services than private sector mediators (52%).

Chart 8-6

Level of Satisfaction with Groups Who Offer Dispute Resolution Services by Client Group

Mean Value on a Scale of 1 to 5

Very Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE4a – QE4b (n = 56- 152)

Review of the survey data by client group revealed some variation. As evidenced in the chart above, employer representatives and bargaining agent representatives scored satisfaction with staff mediators similarly and in comparison to client groups overall. Representatives for applicants scored much lower, at 3.8. Further, private sector mediators were also scored similarly across client groups with the exception of representatives of applicants. However, the low rate of responses (n=2) for this question within the applicant representative client group limits the validity of the data.

8.2.2 Other Dispute Resolution Services Suggested by Client Respondents

Twenty client respondents indicated that there are other dispute resolution services that they would like to see offered by the PSLRB. The most commonly cited response was the interest in a more informal venue for addressing grievances as well as concerns with harassment:

· “Complaints of harassment and informal conflict management”

· “Dispute resolution for harassment complaints”

· “Mediation services that don’t necessarily include management and the union”

Other clients suggested preventative approaches to dispute resolution:

· “Coaching of managers to prevent grievances/hearings”

· “…coaching workshops for managers in management / conflict prevention”

· “Perhaps an earlier intervention similar to pre-hearing mediation done within the court system”

8.2.3 Training on Interest-Based Negotiation and Mediation (Labour Relations)

As illustrated in the following chart, 75% of clients reported that they were aware of the training on interest-based negotiation (n=117). Among those that claimed to be aware of the training on interest-based negotiation and mediation (labour relations), clients were also asked whether themselves or any member of their staff had attended one of these training sessions in the past. The majority of them (78%) reported that they had.

Chart 8-7

Awareness of and Participation in Interest-based Negotiation and Mediation Training

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE6a – QE6b (n = 155), QE6b (n=117)

Approximately 74% of clients felt that there were a sufficient number of interest-based negotiation and mediation sessions being offered annually. The majority of clients also believed that there were enough training sessions being offered across the country (71%). Finally, all clients felt that the course curriculum for interest-based negotiation and mediation sessions was good (100%).

Among those clients (or a member of their staff) who have attended an interest-based negotiation and mediation training session, they were also asked if they felt the PSLRB should expand its training programs to include other courses related to dispute resolution.

Slightly more than half of respondents (54%) did not feel that the PSLRB should expand its training services and 46% felt that it should. The results of this question are illustrated in the chart on the next page.

Chart 8-8

Percent of Clients Who Believe PSLRB Should Expand Training to Include Other Courses Related to Dispute Resolution

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE6f (n = 81)

For those that felt that the PSLRB should expand its training program to include other courses related to dispute resolution, respondents were asked to suggest possible topics.

Several clients were interested in more advanced training in areas such as adjudication, mediation and arbitration. Many others suggested courses on conflict resolution or prevention to avoid having to go through the dispute proceedings process altogether. A sample of the suggested topics includes:

· “Difficult conversations “

· “An advanced course in conflict resolution”

· “Conflict management training”

· ”Different dispute resolution techniques ”

· ”Dispute prevention”

Client respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with the PSLRB's dispute resolution services. Over eighty percent of clients reported that they were either satisfied/very satisfied with dispute resolution services (84%), 10% reported they were neutral and the remaining 6% claimed they were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied.

Further analysis by client group revealed some variation in overall satisfaction with dispute resolution services. According to the chart below, employer representatives (88%) were more satisfied in comparison to bargaining agent representatives (84%) and the total across all client groups (84%). Representatives of applicants were equally dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (50%) and satisfied/very satisfied (50%).

Chart 8-9

Overall Satisfaction with Dispute Resolution Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QE7 (n = 156)

section 9: Library Services

9.1 Use of PSLRB Library Services

When asked about their use of the PSLRB’s library services, the vast majority of clients (78%) reported that they had not used the library services in the past 18 months. Those who had used the services (22%, n =51) 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 PSLRB’s Library Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF1 (n = 51).

Clients who had used PSLRB’s library services, in the past 18 months, tended to request copies of decisions (90%) and had reference questions (52%).

It should be noted that clients who reported using ‘other’ library services indicated that they used the library services for web-based decisions and reference or annual reports.

9.2 Satisfaction with PSLRB Library Services

Client respondents who used PSLRB’s library services were asked to rate their satisfaction with eight service elements associated with the quality of library services. The results of these measures were very positive with clients reporting over 90% satisfaction in all areas. Respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with timeliness (94%), accuracy (98%), completeness (96%), service in language of choice (98%), accessibility (98%), responsiveness (95%), courtesy (95%), and knowledge (95%).

Chart 9-2

Satisfaction with PSLRB’s Library Service Areas

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF2 (n = 42-48).

Client respondents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with the PSLRB's library services. The results of these measures are illustrated in Chart 9-3.

As indicated below, the survey data suggests a very high level of satisfaction with library services. Ninety-four percent of clients reported being satisfied/very satisfied with the PSLRB's library services and 6% were neutral.

Chart 9-3

Overall Satisfaction with PSLRB Library Services

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QF3 (n=51)

section 10: EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

10.1 Use of the PSLRB Web Site

Clients were asked if they had visited the PSLRB's web site in the past 18 months. The results of this survey question are illustrated in Chart 10-1. In total, over eighty percent (88%) reported that they had accessed the web site, while 12% had not. In addition, clients who had accessed the web site were asked to specify how often they visited the site. As indicated in the chart below, the frequency with which clients accessed the PSLRB's web site varied considerably. The greatest proportions of clients indicated that they used the site once a week (27%), once a month (22%), or less than once a month (23%). To a lesser extent, clients reported using the site once a day (12%) or once every two weeks (15%).

10-1

Use & Frequency of Use of the PSLRB's Web Site in the Past 18 Months

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG1a – QG1b (n = 206-234).

10.1.1 How Clients Learned of the PSLRB Web Site

Clients who reported using the PSLRB web site were asked how they had learned about the site. The responses for this question are presented in Chart 10-2. The majority of clients indicated that they had known about the PSLRB web site for some time (68%). To a lesser extent, clients reported seeing the web site address on a PSLRB publication (18%) or through a general purpose or government search engine (both 12%). Few were referred by a government employee (9%) or PSLRB member/employee (8%).

Chart 10-2

How Clients Learned of the PSLRB Web Site

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG2a – QG2h (n = 206).

When asked to specify the ‘other’ methods through which they learned of the PSLRB web site, several client respondents indicated that it was through a colleague that they had learned of the site. Other clients stated that it made sense for the PSLRB to have a site while others said that it was part of their job to know about PSLRB activities.

10.1.2 Client Use of the PSLRB Web Site

In addition to gauging how clients learned of the PSLRB web site, clients were asked to identify their activities while on the web site. The results of this question are presented in Chart 10-3. As the chart illustrates, clients who visited the web site tended to search for decisions (90%), consult newly released decisions (76%) or consult summaries of decisions (74%).

Chart 10-3

What Clients Did While on the PSLRB Web Site

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG3a – QG3n (n = 206).

The distribution of responses by client group reveals some variation. A greater share of representatives for employers (60%) than bargaining agent representatives (45%) reported searching the web site for information on the PSLRB. Representatives of employers were also more likely to search for decisions (95%) compared to bargaining agent representatives (85%).

A relatively small proportion (6%) indicated that they accessed the site for ‘other’ activities or searches. A sample of the ‘other’ activities reported includes the following:

· “Consulted biographies of Board members.”

· “Used forms for referral to adjudication.”

· “Researched legislation.”

Client respondents were also asked if they found the information that they were searching for. The survey data indicates that the vast majority (94%) of Client respondents found the information they sought on the PSLRB web site. In contrast, 6% 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, three clients indicated that they were looking for older cases or decisions. Two other clients were interested in the names of PSLRB employees.

10.1.3 Client Assessment of Elements of the Web Site

Clients who had used the PSLRB web site were asked to rate their level of agreement with ten statements regarding the content and navigation of the web site. The results of this question are presented in Chart 10-4. As the information in the chart indicates, in general, there was a high level of agreement with the statements among clients.

Chart 10-4

Level of Agreement with Statements Regarding Content & Navigation of Web Site

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG5a – QG5h (n = 196-203).

There was a slightly higher level of agreement with statements regarding content than for statements associated with navigation. In terms of content, more than three-quarters of clients agreed/strongly agreed that they received accurate information (93%), the information was easy to understand (91%), and the information was complete (87%). Alternatively, over eighty percent of clients agreed/strongly agreed that it was easy to find the PSLRB web site (93%) and that, once on the web site, it was easy to move from one page to another (88%). Further, client respondents did not agree as strongly with statements regarding the usefulness of the search engine (77% agreed/strongly agreed) or that it was easy to find what they were looking for (77%).

Clients that disagreed with any of the statements were asked to elaborate on their response. Many respondents claimed that the web site search engine displays results by reference number or citation rather than by subject. Their key word searches had to be very specific as a result. A sample of these responses includes the following:

· “Cases are listed by citation and reference number and don’t provide information on what the case is about”

· “The ordered relevance of search results is not logical”

· “It was difficult to find decisions – the search engine did not help”

Other clients felt that some of the content was inaccurate or not up-to-date. A sample of these responses includes the following:

· “Content is not up-to-date or complete for some bargaining units”

· “Decisions I was interested in were prior to the database”

· “Information regarding the negotiation status was inaccurate”

10.1.4 Overall Satisfaction with the PSLRB’s Web Site

Clients were asked to provide a rating for their overall satisfaction with the PSLRB’s web site and to provide suggestions on what would make the PSLRB’s web site more useful.

Chart 10-5

Overall Satisfaction with the PSLRB’s Web Site

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG6 (n = 81-204)

As the information in the chart indicates, the vast majority (90%) of client respondents reported that, overall, they were satisfied/very satisfied with the PSLRB’s web site. Comparing the client groups revealed some variation between representatives for employers and bargaining agent representatives. Employer representatives were slightly more satisfied with the PSLRB web site (93%) in comparison to bargaining agent representatives (88%).

Eighty-nine clients provided suggestions for improving the usefulness of the PSLRB's web site. The single largest area of suggested improvement was the web site search engine. A selection of comments on the search engine includes:

· “We should be able to do a search in all decisions without having to go through each year.”

· “Being able to search decisions by topic area.”

· “Better indexing; cross referencing of cases under the topical index.”

· “I found the decision search engine a little difficult to utilize.”

Other suggestions included more detailed information on hearings and past cases. A selection of comments about these issues includes:

· “Archive access needs to be improved.”

· “More extensive past decisions.”

· “Availability of historical PSLRB decisions.”

· “More practical information on hearing procedures.”

· “Location of mediation/arbitration hearings.”

10.2 Other Information Resources

Clients were asked if they had made use of any of the PSLRB’s other information resources over the past 18 months. These resources are intended to help clients better understand how the PSLRB’s services operate and are available on the web site. More than one-third (39%) of respondents indicated that they had used the online resources, while the majority (61%) had not. Among those who reported using the resources, respondents were asked to specify which type of information they had used. Chart 10-6 illustrates the reported types of information sources used by clients.

Chart 10-6

Use of Other Information Resources Available on PSLRB Web site

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG8a – QG8e (n = 88-206)

As the chart illustrates, there was some variation in the type of information resources used by clients. Fewer clients reported using practice notes (43%) than FAQ’s (67%), Guides (60%) or Fact Sheets (53%).

The information in the chart also indicates that bargaining agent representatives were consistently more likely to use all types of information resources in comparison to employer representatives with the exception of Fact Sheets. For example, the share of bargaining agent representatives (67%) who made use of guides was greater than for employer representatives (49%). Further, while 50% of bargaining agent representatives used online practice notes, this was only the case for 33% of employer representatives.

A relatively small proportion (10%) of clients overall indicated that they accessed ‘other’ online information resources. A sample of the ‘other’ activities reported includes videos on adjudication and mediation as well as information on legislation.

10.2.1 Satisfaction With Other Information Resources

Client respondents who used PSLRB’s other information resources were asked to rate their satisfaction with the specific type of resource they had used. The results of these measures were very positive with clients reporting over 85% satisfaction in all areas. Respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with FAQ’s (90%), Fact Sheets (91%), Practice Notes (84%) and Guides (84%).

10.2.2 Access to the PSLRB’s Decisions Through E-databases

Client respondents were asked if they had accessed the PSLRB’s decisions through electronic databases maintained by private firms. The majority (67%) of clients indicated they did access decisions through these sources. Chart 10-7 illustrates the results from this survey question.

Chart 10-7

Access of PSLRB Decisions Through Electronic Databases

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QG11 (n = 234)

By client group, 72% of employer representatives reported accessing decisions through electronic databases compared to 67% of bargaining agent representatives and 36% of representatives of applicants.

Client respondents who made use of electronic databases were asked to indicate which specific databases they had used. Over 94% of client respondents claimed to use QuickLaw, Qualisult or both to access PSLRB decisions through electronic databases.

10.2.3 Awareness and Use of PSLRB’s Training Videos

In total, one hundred and ten client respondents indicated they were aware of the PSLRB’s training videos (or 48% of clients). When asked if they had used one of the training videos in the past year, approximately one-third (36%) indicated that they had used the videos. Specifically, 80% of respondents indicated that they had used “Best Interests – An Introduction to Grievance Mediation”, while 69% reported using “Hearing Both Sides – Formal and Expedited Adjudication at the PSLRB.”

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 preparatory training purposes with clients, staff and/or colleagues. Comments on usage provided by clients included the following:

· “To prepare employee for adjudication and mediation.”

· “Watched to prepare for expedited adjudication process.”

· “To prepare a management representative enrolled in a mediation.”

· “To brief employer representatives on how formal adjudication session will be conducted and expectations of them.”

· “Training sessions for labour relations officers.”

· “Steward training.”

These clients were also asked if they thought the PSLRB should consider developing training videos on any other labour relations topics. Among the 110 client respondents, more than thirty percent (37%) indicated that there were some areas that could benefit from video development. Specific topics suggested by clients included:

· “For self-represented individuals.”

· “How to prepare for formal arbitration.”

· “Litigation - witnesses, documentary evidence - what is required or useful to determining cases from an adjudicator's perspective.”

· “Accessing/using/presenting case law.”

· “Interest-based bargaining”

· “The union-management consultation process.”

· “Information conflict resolution”

section 11: FOSTERING LABOUR RELATIONS

Clients were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the PSLRB’s ability to foster labour relations. Respondents were presented with four statements and were asked about their level of agreement for each statement. The results of this survey question are presented below.

Chart 11-1

Level of Agreement with Statements Regarding the PSLRB’s

Ability to Foster Labour Relations

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QH1a – QH1d (n = 209-225)

As evidenced in Chart 11-1, between one-half to two-thirds of client respondents (53-67%) agreed/strongly agreed with each of the statements. Statements ‘a’ and ‘c’ were rated more favourably among clients in comparison to statements ‘b’ and ‘d’. Negligible variation was noted among client groups.

section 12: Overall Assessment of PSLRB Services

12.1 Perceived Changes in Level of Service

Client respondents were asked, based on their experiences with the PSLRB in the past 18 months, to rate the status of the service(s) since the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey. It should be noted that 44% of respondents stated that they did not respond to the 2004 survey and thus, data presented in the chart below only reflects valid responses. As the information in Chart 12-1 indicates, the majority of clients (54%) felt that the service had remained the same. Alternatively, 33% or clients felt the service had improved and 13% felt it had deteriorated.

Chart 12-1

Overall Perspective on the Service Since the Last Survey (2004)

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QI1 (n=130)

Those who indicated that the service had either improved (33%) or deteriorated (13%) were asked to describe how the services had changed since the 2004 Client Satisfaction Survey. Clients who indicated that the services had improved provided an array of descriptions including:

· “More focus on preventative mediation/early resolutions.”

· “Greater emphasis on mediated outcomes.”

· “Mediation Services have improved.”

· “Staff are more numerous, mediation has become more uniform but remains very flexible.”

· “Focus on conflict resolution and enhanced role in mediation.”

· “Availability and quality of mediation services have improved.”

· “In 2005 I had to wait 6 months and three days after the hearing before the issuance of the decision. The deadlines seem more reasonable now.”

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

· “The registry staff is quite quick in responding to correspondence from parties.”

· “Registry operations are more responsive to the clients.”

· “The web site has been improved. The library services continue to be excellent.”

· “More resources available to public.”

· “Increased awareness on all services and information available.”

· “I believe the mediation services have become more user friendly and useful.”

· “Better web site, more up-to-date info.”

Clients also provided a variety of examples of how the services have deteriorated. Clients cited difficulties with the Registry Office services.

· “Services have become bogged down by excessive bureaucracy - the Board's new regulations are cumbersome, excessive amounts of unnecessary correspondence are being sent out. It is often difficult to get guidance on the new legislation and regulations.”

· “They have deteriorated in their service and quality of their work in reference to referring to adjudication process. A vast improvement needs to be made both in quality and timelines.”

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

· “Resources have diminished and decisions are increasingly politicized”

· “New personnel are not well trained. Lack of clarity in terms of the new procedures.”

· “The PSLRB is increasingly skewed in favour of trade unions, especially in the arbitration decisions”

12.2 Overall Satisfaction with PSLRB Services in Past 18 Months

At the conclusion of the survey, client respondents were asked to provide an overall satisfaction rating for the PSLRB services in the past 18 months. The results are presented in Chart 12-2. In total, more than three-quarters (76%) reported being satisfied/very satisfied, overall, with the services provided in the past 18 months.

Chart 12-2

Overall Satisfaction with the PSLRB Services in Past 18 Months

Source: PSLRB Client Satisfaction Survey – QI2 (n = 227)

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 18 months than representatives for bargaining agents. Approximately eighty–five percent of respondents indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with the services, while 70% of bargaining agent representatives reported being satisfied/very satisfied and 67% of representatives of applicants reported being satisfied/very satisfied.

12.3 Client Recommendations for the Improvement of PSLRB Services

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

Many clients felt that case scheduling and decision making needed to be done in a more timely manner.

· "Takes much too long to schedule grievance hearings."

· "Schedule hearings more expeditiously.”

· "Quicker turn-around time for grievances/adjudications."

· "I highly recommend that the Board be more vigilant in ensuring the timely production of decisions following the completion of hearings - In one particular instance, hearings were completed over two (2) years ago and we are still awaiting the adjudication."

· "The mediation was an inefficient process - it took 2 full days when 1/2 day was more then enough. The mediator spent a further 1/2 day with me and my client in advance of the mediation. In the result my client incurred legal costs of 2 and a half days when a 1/2 day would have sufficed."

· "Improved timeliness in responses to adjudications once hearings are completed."

Other clients felt that that services provided by mediators were substandard and questioned their neutrality:

· "Mediators need more training/awareness of appearing biased (I've felt both preferred and neglected by the mediator and neither is useful). "

· "Disappointed with the PSLRB mediator – unreliable and difficult time getting in touch with her - did not return calls and was not a neutral 3rd party."

· "Mediation services are slow and ineffective. PSLRB mediators see themselves as messengers between the parties rather than pushing for settlements."

· "I will never ever use its 'services' again. Based on this sad experience, I have the impression that this outfit is on the side of the employer, taking advantage of one's lack of experience/knowledge to perpetuate and facilitate injustice…"

Some respondents requested more information about the PSLRB and the services it provides:

· "More information about training material available, maybe send out some newsletter or something to notify about services.”

· "More info, clear and concise -step-by-step in how to file individual/group grievance."

· "Better communication of the services available."

section 13: Comparison with 2004, 2001 and 1998 Surveys

This section presents the comparison of results from the 2007 Client Satisfaction Survey with the baseline data collected in 2004, 2001 and 1998. As noted in the methodology section, some modifications and revisions were 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).

13.1 Demographic Data

13.1.1 Response Rates by Client Role and Group

The survey response rates for the PSLRB Client Satisfaction Surveys by client role are presented in Table 13-1. As the information in the table indicates, the 2007 survey sample consists of smaller proportions of representatives of bargaining agents and higher proportions of representatives of employers than the 2004, 2001, and 1998 surveys. Further, the share of outside counsel representing a bargaining agent (5%) is smaller than the proportion in the 2004 survey (9.6%), the 2001 survey (9.8%) and the 1998 survey (12%).

Table 13-1

Survey Response Rates by Client Role

	Survey Year
	2007		2004		2001		1998
Client Role	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Representative of a Bargaining Agent	90	39	40	55	33	54	23	44
Representative of an Employer	104	45	25	34	18	30	14	27
Outside Counsel representing a Bargaining Agent	11	5	7	10	6	10	6	12
Outside Counsel representing an Employer	3	1	1	1	3	5	1	2
Outside Counsel representing an Applicant	15	7	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Case Coordinator for an Employer	17	12	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Case Coordinator for a Bargaining Agent	14	6	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
All Others	5	2	-	-	-	-	-	-
Neutral Third Party	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1	2	8	15
Total	269¹	117.0	73	100.0	61	100	52	100.0

¹ Figure is larger than number of respondents (n=234) as multiple responses for client group was permitted.

When comparing the survey response rates by client group or representation, the 2007 survey with respect to the proportion of responses from representatives for bargaining agents (39%), is less than the proportion for the 2004 survey (55%), the 2001 survey (54%), and the 1998 survey (44%). In terms of the responses from representatives for employers, the share of these individuals has been consistently growing since the 1998 survey. In 2007, employer representatives accounted for 45% of respondents and 34%, 30%, and 27% for the 2004, 2001 and 1998 surveys respectively. It should be noted that multiple responses were permitted for client role designation in the 2007 survey – this was not an option for the previous surveys. This limits comparisons from the 1998, 2001 and 2004 survey to the 2007 survey.

13.1.2 Response Rates by Geographic Location and Region

The survey response by geographic location and region are presented in Table 13-2. 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 is more equitable in terms of provincial representation. However, the survey response for the NCR and outside the NCR in the 2007 survey is more comparable to the levels in the 2004 and 2001 surveys than the 1998 survey. Additionally, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Yukon are represented in the 2007 survey – locations that were not present in any of the previous surveys.

Table 13-2

Survey Response Rates by Geographic Location and Region

	Survey Year
	2007		2004		2001		1998
Province	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Newfoundland and Labrador	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Nova Scotia	13	6	2	3	3	5	3	6
Quebec (Outside NCR)	20	9	2	3	4	7	5	10
National Capital Region (NCR)	162	70	54	74	45	74	30	58
Ontario (Outside NCR)	14	6	10	14	3	5	5	10
Manitoba	4	2	0	0	1	2	1	2
Alberta	4	2	2	3	3	5	2	4
British Columbia	10	4	3	4	2	3	5	10
New Brunswick	3	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Prince Edward Island	1	0.4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Yukon	1	0.4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	232^‡	100	73	100.0	61	100	52	100

Region	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
National Capital Region (NCR)	162	70	54	74	45	74	30	58
Outside NCR	70	30	19	26	16	26	22	42
Total	232^‡	100	73	100	61	100	52	100

^‡Two (2) clients responded ‘do not know’ for location.

13.2 Experience with PSLRB

Measures of client’s experience with the PSLRB are presented in Table 13-3.

Table 13-3

Measures of Experience with PSLRB

Experience with PSLRB	Survey Year
	2007		2004^‡		2001^‡		1998^‡
	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n
B2a. Satisfaction – mediation (grievance/complaint)	80.6%	121	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2b. Satisfaction – mediation (preventive)	89.5	43	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2c. Satisfaction – mediation (collective bargaining)	64.0	16	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2d. Satisfaction – mediation training	92.5	25	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2e. Satisfaction – Pre-hearing conference	61.4	35	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2f. Satisfaction – Adjudication hearing (in person)	69.0	78	71.87	40	77.90	43	N/A	N/A
B2g. Satisfaction – Other hearings (complaints, applications)	70.9	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2h. Satisfaction – Hearing based on written submissions (or portion of hearing)	62.7	32	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2i. Satisfaction – Library services	92.5	37	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2j. Satisfaction – PSLRB web site	88.8	135	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
B2k. Satisfaction – Other	66.6	14	56.25	24	58.82	17	N/A	N/A

^‡2004, 2001 and 1998 surveys encompassed a twelve month period

Variations in the text of questions that measure respondent experiences with the PSLRB limit the comparison across surveys. For example, previous surveys that measured satisfaction with mediation were not further specified as they were in the 2007 survey. Mediation was categorized as ‘grievance/complaint’, ‘preventive’ and ‘collective bargaining’ in the 2007 survey while mediation was a category on its own in the 1998, 2001 and 2004 surveys. Further, additional questions were added to this year’s survey that are not directly comparable to previous years.

13.3 Registry Operations Services

Measures of aspects of the Registry Operations Services are presented in Table 13-4. As the information in the table indicates, overall, the CMT scores for the 2007 survey were greater than those for the 2004 survey. In nine of the ten service elements, satisfaction levels rose in 2007 in comparison to 2004. Alternatively, satisfaction levels in nine of the ten service elements were lower for 2007 in comparison to 2001 and 1998.

The satisfaction scores for the 2004 survey range from 59.09 to 85.71, for the 2001 survey scores range from 80.31 to 92.02, and those for the 1998 survey range from 75 to 95.45. By comparison, the satisfaction scores for the 2007 survey range from 64.7 to 91.7. It should be noted that the varying sample sizes for each measure may be an intervening factor in the differences between satisfaction scores. As a general rule however, increases in sample size increase the validity of data results.

Table 13-4

Measures of Aspects of Registry Operations Services

Registry Operations Services	Survey Year
	2007		2004		2001		1998
	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n
C1a. Satisfaction - timely issue of acknowledgement letter	81.2	165	59.09	55	85.00	45	82.57	33
C1b. Satisfaction - timely issue of notice of hearing	64.7	127	65.00	55	82.06	46	75.00	33
C1c. Satisfaction - accuracy of information	79.4	162	65.27	54	80.31	47	82.81	32
C1d. Satisfaction - timeliness of information	75.4	154	60.45	55	84.78	46	76.56	32
C1e. Satisfaction - completeness of information	78.2	158	67.85	56	81.52	46	79.83	31
C1f. Satisfaction - fair and impartial treatment	75.2	152	66.81	55	82.29	48	81.25	32
C1g. Satisfaction - service in the language of choice	91.7	179	85.71	56	92.02	47	94.53	32
C1h. Satisfaction – availability¹	83.5	158	73.63	55	85.32	46	88.63	33
C1i. Satisfaction - responsiveness	80.5	153	66.81	55	86.41	46	90.90	33
C1j. Satisfaction - courtesy	90.5	172	81.69	56	89.58	48	95.45	33
C1k. Satisfaction - knowledge	80.8	152	70.08	56	83.33	48	87.12	33
C2. Overall satisfaction - Registry Operations Services	79.8	170	64.54	55	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

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

13.4 Adjudication and Board Hearings

Table 13-5 illustrates the measures of aspects of adjudication and other hearings across the four surveys. According to the table below, the percentage of clients appearing at adjudication or other hearings had displayed a marked decrease. It should be noted that the 2007 survey covered a period of 18 months while the 2004, 2001 and 1998 surveys encompassed a one-year period.

Table 13-5

Measures of Aspects of Adjudication and Other Hearings

Adjudication and Other Hearings	2007		2004		2001		1998
Adjudication and Other Hearings	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n	% / CMT	n
D1. In past 18m, appeared at adjudication / other hearing¹	51.9%	95	65.6%	61	77.8%	54	66.7%	39
D3a. Satisfaction with procedural fairness	78.9	105	71.71	38	80.81	43	76.92	26
D3b. Satisfaction with opportunity to present case	84.8	112	76.97	38	82.92	41	79.00	25
D3c. Satisfaction with scheduling of hearings & adjournments	57.0	77	59.61	39	73.83	43	N/A	N/A
D3d. Postponements	60.3	73	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
D3e. Satisfaction with Board member/adjudicator attentiveness¹	83.0	108	75.64	39	82.55	43	81.25	24
D3f. Satisfaction with decisions issued in a timely manner	45.3	59	57.89	38	61.62	43	72.91	24
D3g i) Clarity of the decision(s)	67.9	87	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
D3g ii) Usefulness of the decision(s)	71.8	92	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
D3g iii) Completeness of the decision(s)	63.7	81	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
D3h. Suitability of hearing rooms	78.5	106	71.79	39	82.38	44	N/A	N/A
D3i. Sufficient number of sites	71.3	92	74.34	38	84.52	42	72.72	22
D3j. Accessibility of sites	79.5	105	76.28	39	84.65	44	N/A	N/A
D3k. Personal security