Les politiques de négociation du gouvernement fédéral canadien, selon la loi et selon les décisions administratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: La Loi des relations de travail dans la fonction publique a inaugure, en 1967, un regime decentralise de negociation, dans lequel la solution des impasses se faisait normalement par arbitrage. La possibilite du recours a la greve, selon le choix exclusif du syndicat, fut introduite a la suite de greves par les employes des postes en 1965. La liste limitee des matieres sujettes a l'arbitrage, les concessions accordees a la suite de certaines greves, et surtout le controle des salaires de 1975 a 1978 et l'imposition des 6% et 5% de 1982 a 1985, ont pousse la majorite des unites a passer de l'arbitrage a la greve pour la solution des conflits. En 1985 et 1988, la negociation s'est faite de facon fortement centralisee et une greve quasi generale eut lieu en 1991. Pour differentes raisons, une politique salariale imerative a remplace la negociation des salaires ces dernieres annees. Ces changements radicaux se sont effectues sans modification aux dispositions fondamentales de la loi. Abstract: The Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1967 introduced an essentially decentralized collective bargaining system, in which impasses would normally be resolved by arbitration. The possibility for a union to select instead the conciliation-strike route was written into the act because of the 1965 strikes by postal workers. The restricted list of arbitrable matters, some important gains obtained through strike action, but mainly the 1975–78 wages control and the 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraint program of 1982–85 have convinced all important units to move away from arbitration to conciliation and strike for final settlement of conflicts. Units also regrouped for bargaining purposes. In 1985 and 1988 bargaining was conducted at a highly centralized level. In 1991 there was a close-to-general strike in the federal public service. Bargaining on wages has been replaced by an imposed unilateral wages policy. All these radical changes have happened without any important modification in the fundamental provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".