Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Client Feedback on the Performance of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal

Prepared by Cultural Enterprises International/Entreprises Culturelles Internationale
Mireille F. Watson & Catherine M. Hurley, Principals
April 30th, 2000

Introduction
Comments from the Client Groups on the Tribunal’s Achievement of its Objectives and Priorities
Comments from the Client Groups on Measures and Targets for Evaluating the Achievement of the Objectives
General Observations from the Client Groups
Recommended Action
Concluding Remarks

Appendix A -Status of the Artist Act – Client Feedback and Recommendations

Appendix B - Performance Evaluation Questionnaire

Appendix C - List of Organizations Asked to Participate in the Survey

1. INTRODUCTION

The Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, “the Tribunal”, along with other Federal departments and institutions has been required since 1997 to submit an annual performance report to Parliament.

In order to meet this public reporting obligation and to improve its operation, the Tribunal has established operating objectives to guide its activities and instituted performance measurement standards to measure its efficiency and effectiveness. The Tribunal has published annual performance reports that are tabled in the Main Estimates to Parliament for each year ending March 31st. The findings of this client survey study will be used in the preparation of the Tribunal’s performance review for the year ending March 31, 2000.

1.1 Background

In 1992 the federal government enacted the Status of the Artist Act which recognizes the special role that artists play in Canadian society. The Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal was created in 1993 to assist in achieving the Act’s objectives, by administering the legal framework for collective bargaining between freelance artists and producers in the federal jurisdiction, as set out in the Status of the Artist Act. The Tribunal became fully functional in 1995. The producers covered by the Act are all broadcasting undertakings under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC), all federal government departments and most federal agencies and crown corporations.

The Tribunal’s responsibilities may best be described as:

Defining sectors of cultural activity that are suitable for collective bargaining between the artists’ associations and producers in its jurisdiction;
Certifying associations to represent independent entrepreneurs working in these sectors;
Hearing and deciding upon complaints of unfair practices filed by artists, artists’ associations and producers; and
Prescribing appropriate remedies for contraventions of the Status of the Artist Act.

Since the Tribunal began making certification decisions in 1996, it has defined 20 cultural sectors suitable for bargaining and certified various artists’ associations to represent artists in these sectors. As of March 31, 2000, the Tribunal had received 28 applications for certification and 22 of those had been dealt with. A total of six complaints, two applications for determination, four applications for review and one application for consent to prosecute had been received, and all but one had been dealt with.

1.2 Purpose of the consultation study

In order to improve its evaluation framework and performance, the Tribunal embarked on a consultative process with its client group and stakeholders, with a view to engaging in an open and honest discussion. This consultative study of client feedback marks the beginning of a process to seek the counsel and involvement of its client community in this objective.

The Tribunal, through these client interviews, particularly sought feedback on the following issues:

The appropriateness of its current performance objectives, namely:
1. To process applications, complaints and other matters and to make sound decisions promptly, professionally and in a cost-sensitive manner
2. To inform and assist artists and producers in resolving differences and taking advantage of the benefits of the Status of the Artist Act
3. To ensure visibility to the public of the aims, activities and impact of the Tribunal
4. To manage its resources with regard for the principles of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability
How to improve its performance measurement framework and to describe the impact of its activities on its clients. (The Tribunal wished to move beyond the current quantitative analysis of its client services derived from reporting on the efficiencies of its service delivery such as: the number of applications for certification, response timeframe, etc., to a qualitative measure of the value of its service).

As a result of these consultations, the Tribunal wishes to be in a better position over the longer term, to assess the impact of its work and decisions on the well-being of artists and on relations between artists and producers.

1.3 Methodology

To this end, an independent consulting company, Cultural Enterprises International was engaged to design a client evaluation questionnaire (Appendix B) and carry out the client consultations.

Letters of invitation to participate in the research project with an accompanying questionnaire were sent to 48 organizations out of an initial survey list of 75 identified by the Tribunal Secretariat. The consultants conducted interviews with 40 certified artists’ associations, broadcasters and federal government institutions.

As this was a first-time consultation with clients of the Tribunal, the selection of those to be interviewed was based upon those artists’ associations who had been certified, and producers that had entered into negotiations or had been issued a notice to bargain. Particular attention was paid to ensure that there was an appropriate sampling of those surveyed with respect to artistic discipline, the type of producer, and regional or geographic representation.

In-person versus telephone interviews were felt to encourage an open and in depth discussion with those surveyed. Therefore, whenever it was possible, and given the resources available, the consultants conducted in-person interviews. Of the 40 interviews conducted, 19 were held in-person. Client interest and participation was overall very high as reflected by the number of respondents.

Particular attention was placed by the consultants on eliciting from the Tribunal’s client base the following information:

Suggested improvements to the basic evaluation framework in order to strengthen the results-based reporting contained in the Tribunal’s annual Performance Report;
An assessment of the quality and timeliness of the services of the Tribunal; and
The client perceptions and assessments of the impact of the role and work of the Tribunal and Tribunal Secretariat on their organization (and members where applicable), which the consultants could record, summarize and use as a basis for their recommendations to the Tribunal.

2. COMMENTS FROM THE CLIENT GROUPS ON THE TRIBUNAL’S ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

2.1. Timely processing of applications for certification, complaints and other matters

On average, the satisfaction level is 8 out of 10.

There is a high level of satisfaction with the Tribunal and Tribunal Secretariat’s ability to process applications for certification, as well as deal with complaints and other matters in a timely manner.

2.2. Whether the decisions made by the Tribunal to date were felt to be appropriate and sound.

On average, the satisfaction level is 6.5 out of 10.

Generally the artists’ associations are satisfied with the Tribunal’s decisions. The producers are less satisfied and this we believe is due in part to a lack of knowledge of the adjudication process, which can be remedied by an increase in targeted communications.

It should be noted that this information is based upon a sampling received from artists’ associations and producers who had been involved in the adjudication process, or were aware of the decisions.

2.3. Imparting information and assistance to those parties involved in collective bargaining to benefit from the Act

On average, the satisfaction level is 7 out of 10.

For those organizations and individuals that have sought information and assistance from the Tribunal Secretariat, the level of satisfaction is very high. In those cases where there hasn’t been any contact with the Tribunal Secretariat, the lower level of satisfaction can best be explained by a lack of knowledge and awareness of the Tribunal’s role and the services available.

2.4. Ensuring the visibility of the Tribunal to its clients and the public On average, the satisfaction level is 5 out of 10.

Despite numerous past initiatives by the Tribunal Secretariat to raise its profile with its client groups, those interviewed do not recognize these efforts as significant. The concerns identified by the client groups surveyed were attributable to a need for improved communications by the Secretariat.

2.5. Managing its resources with regard for the principles of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability

The respondents on the whole felt that the Tribunal manages its resources well and noted the prudent return of unspent resources from its annual budgetary allocation. However, in light of the expressed need for improved communications, enhanced education and training in collective bargaining, it was frequently suggested that the Tribunal increase its resource allocation to these areas.

3. COMMENTS FROM THE CLIENT GROUPS ON MEASURES AND TARGETS FOR EVALUATING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES

The Tribunal’s performance targets appear realistic but there are insufficient explanatory notes when the targets are not reached.
The respondents often noted that the successful outcome of any given negotiation should not be the sole criteria for measuring the performance of the Tribunal. Rather, performance evaluations should also take into consideration information as to who calls upon their services and the quality of service provided.
Consideration should be given to introducing a cause and effect form of measurement in the Tribunal’s annual performance reporting, a measure that would somehow capture the correlation between the certification of artists’ organizations and improvements in the standard of living of artists.

There were no concrete suggestions for modifying the Tribunal’s objectives. This indicated to the consultants that the client groups’ priorities at this time appear to centre on achieving benefits that directly affect them.

4. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CLIENT GROUPS

The previous two sections dealt specifically with the client groups’ comments on the Tribunal’s achievement of its objectives and priorities, as well as the measures and targets used for evaluating the achievement of these objectives.

The overwhelming consideration for the client groups, however, was to discuss the relevancy of the Act and its effect on them (if at all). With respect to the artists’ associations, their preoccupation was invariably on how to maximize the rights afforded to them under the federal legislation and to bargain effectively. For broadcasters and federal government institutions, it was challenging for them to understand why they came under the Act and what effect the Act had on the way they have traditionally conducted business.

It was the a generally held view of all surveyed that the Status of the Artist Act was enacted in order to provide Canadian artists with increased status, a platform for engaging in collective bargaining and a means to increase their earning potential and conditions of work.

However, by the very nature of the description and purpose of the Act, this legislation and by association, the Tribunal and Tribunal Secretariat, are seen by producers (broadcasters and Federal government departments and agencies) as biased in favour of artists’ associations. This may have unknowingly resulted in a general distrust of the Tribunal’s role and mandate.

In the consultants’ view, the current relations between producers and artists’ associations are not as favourable as they might be. Unless there is a better understanding of:

the purpose of the Act, as it relates to both the artists’ association and the producer,
the mandate of the Tribunal and Tribunal Secretariat, and
the collective bargaining process,

this situation may be exacerbated with the increase in notices to bargain served to the producer group by artists’ associations within the past 12 months.

The consultants would like to stress that there were numerous comments and suggestions made which referred directly to the Act. Comments on the Act did not form part of the consultants’ original mandate when undertaking the study. However, because of the importance of these comments, the consultants have listed both the feedback and ensuing recommendations under Appendix A.

4.1. Common positions of artists’ associations

The Tribunal Secretariat was on the whole seen as very professional, prepared to go out of their way to assist artists’ organizations and very responsive.
The perception was that there was a lack of information going to the producers thereby making the task of identification and familiarization by both parties very difficult.
Information provided on the web should be concise.
Associations would like to see more para-legal services support.¹
The associations felt they would benefit from guidance on how to negotiate first and subsequent agreements, as well as assistance in interpreting the legislation and researching jurisdiction. Most thought that small workshops would be the preferred approach to learning.
Most associations found dealing with federal government institutions and agencies a constant source of frustration, and would appreciate help in identifying government producer contacts.
Almost all artists’ associations voiced the opinion that they lacked the time, resources and funding to address the negotiation of multiple collective agreements. They just did not have the resources required to negotiate producer organization by producer organization. It was recommended that this needs to be centralized with one federal government department responsible for overall contracting and procurement, and in the case of broadcasters, the formation of a broadcasters’ association with whom to negotiate.

4.2. Artists’ associations with little or no bargaining experience

These associations have yet to negotiate their first agreement and are having to deal with a shortage of resources, experience and money. With respect to their hopes for a more stable environment for their members and improved “status”, they have yet to see this happen.

Not all associations understood the Tribunal’s mandate and the services offered. Of those that did, they found the Secretariat helpful and supportive.
Most associations found the materials sent by the Tribunal too daunting.
There was limited use of the Tribunal website, mostly because of the lack of staff resources and sometimes hardware.
Some newly certified associations, who have not yet filed a notice to bargain, were not sure about the benefits of certification.
A few small associations felt that the Tribunal should be following up with them after certification and taking them to the next step.
Most small associations would like more information about the Tribunal services in a one-on-one session, or with similar associations who are more experienced in collective bargaining.²

4.3. Artists’ associations with bargaining experience

Most of these associations felt that overall the Act has formalized a previously existing relationship and might offer some protection with respect to re-negotiation of an existing agreement or when entering into negotiations with a new producer

Most associations have found the Tribunal staff very understanding, helpful and efficient.
Associations stated that generally decisions are well reasoned and thorough.
Several of the associations had to date not taken full advantage of the Tribunal’s services mainly because they were still planning their negotiating strategy and identifying the producers.
There was an interest in round table meetings between the artists’ associations to exchange information and discuss the particularities of associations representing self-employed artists.
The idea of a phone or web-based help-line for legislation interpretation was frequently suggested as a much-needed means of support.³
Many requested that all decisions be accessible via the Tribunal’s website.⁴
Some associations wanted to access the scale agreements.
Several comments were made with respect to the mediation services offered by the Tribunal, and a need was expressed for more effort on the part of the Tribunal to go to more of a conciliation process prior to mediation.⁵
The Tribunal should take into account the jurisprudence of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and other labour boards.⁶
Associations in the audio-visual sector found it difficult to reconcile to the notion of companies considered in the provincial jurisdiction which are wholly owned by federally legislated undertakings.
Some associations stated that they would like the Tribunal to take a more active role in reviewing new applications for certification with respect to overlapping jurisdiction.

4.4. Broadcasters

The mandate of the Tribunal is not well known by the broadcasters.
The Tribunal, where there has been an interchange, is seen as helpful and efficient.
Several comments were made as to the lack of information received from the Tribunal. There is also no access to the information through the usual case law reporters.⁷
There was concern from some broadcasters about a perceived bias by the Tribunal in favour of artists’ associations – that perception is somewhat based upon the title of the Act, i.e. Status of the Artist Act.⁸
These same broadcasters said it was not the role of the Tribunal to act as advocate for artists’ associations, as this did not create a “level playing field”.
For those broadcasters who have dealt on an informal basis with artists’ associations but have not as yet entered into formal negotiations to obtain a first agreement, concern was expressed that the sheer number of agreements and process could change the dynamics of their relationships.
Most broadcasters had few opinions about what the benefits of collective bargaining might be since few of them had actually engaged in negotiating first-time agreements.
Some of those who had been involved in cases before the Tribunal felt that the decisions were pro-artist whereas some labour boards are perceived as more neutral.
Concern was voiced over the Tribunal’s intent to enlarge the jurisdiction by including for example technicians and make-up artists.⁹
Many of those interviewed felt that the legislation lacked clarity; was silent on many issues; had no conciliation process which could lead to walk-outs or lock-outs; lacked defined case law compared to the CIRB and other labour boards that have been in existence for far longer than the Tribunal; overlapped in certain jurisdictions; and had no regulations to guide the parties.¹⁰
One major broadcaster was somewhat confused as to the definition of the artistic categories covered by the Act.
Adjustments have had to be made by producers when dealing with disparate artists’ associations; that is, some associations have had previous bargaining relationships while others have never bargained before.
Those who had had a relationship over many years, albeit on a “voluntary” bargaining level, did not see much change since the enactment of the Act.
With respect to the question about the reasons for bargaining, the frequent response was the need for a stable environment, clarity of jurisdiction and support for the artistic community.
The suggestion was made by some broadcasters represented by lawyers in the interview that the Tribunal might want to more closely examine the operations of other Tribunals who are perceived to operate more formally.
There was some concern that, at times during collective bargaining, some artists’ associations reflected the needs of individuals, as opposed to collective needs, in the positions put forward.
The Status of the Artist Act is limited to collective bargaining, whereas when first discussed, the goal had been to include measures which would deal with issues such as tax implications for the self-employed, access to training and employment insurance, as well as the responsibilities of the engagers.

4.5. Federal government institutions

There was a general lack of awareness of the Tribunal and its mandate, and some interviewed had never heard of the Tribunal.
Those who had had dealings with the Tribunal Secretariat were satisfied with the assistance and information they received, and viewed the Tribunal Secretariat as a resource for artists’ associations.
For the few that had attended the Tribunal Secretariat’s informal sessions, the response was positive. Many recall only one such session held in 1997, but nothing since.
In some cases it was felt that decisions did not reflect the concerns of the federal institutions.
There was concern from one of the government agencies about the lack of clarity with respect to whether certification of an artists’ association should be defined by language, geographic area, sector, etc.
For those government institutions that have made use of the website, they have found it useful and would like to see everything on it including decisions.¹¹
Where there were existing agreements in place, the Act has not had a major impact. (This may change if the Tribunal recognizes groups that are not deemed to be “artists” by the engager).
Many of the government institutions and agencies did not understand why the Act would apply to them. There was general confusion over the definition of which artists were covered by the Act.
Many of the government institutions that did contract with writers, performers, etc. did so through a third party most often in the provincial jurisdiction, and preferred third party contracting as a means of avoiding the collective bargaining process.
There was concern expressed that the burden of negotiating individual collective agreements for the few artists who were engaged, was disproportionate to the benefits directly enjoyed by the producer.
Most government institutions were not aware of the number of artists their departments engaged in any one year.
Many felt that it would be helpful to designate a lead federal department, such as Treasury Board or Public Works and Government Services, to serve as a single contact on behalf of departments for negotiating purposes.
The suggestion was made for the Tribunal to have an active presence at the professional development conferences for government procurement and contracts staff. A number of these were identified. Further it should approach Treasury Board to appear and present at regular interdepartmental meetings of senior procurement staff.

4.6. Common positions of artists’ associations, broadcasters and federal government institutions

Interviewees who were familiar with the Tribunal were pleased to have been given the opportunity to provide feedback, and said they would be happy to be contacted should further input or information be needed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal should make people aware of its role beyond the certification process.
There was concern about the time, funds, and resources necessary to pursue certification and collective bargaining. It was felt that this undertaking reduced the services which could be provided to the membership, i.e. training and promotion.
The government should continue to appoint Tribunal members who have in-depth experience in the cultural sector. Some of the audio-visual organizations felt that there should be a representative appointed to the Tribunal with film, television and broadcasting experience.
The Tribunal should promote its mediation role.¹²
From those who had already engaged in the bargaining process, a need for a conciliation mechanism was deemed to be necessary.
There was concern from some Quebec-based organizations about the line between provincial and federal status of the artist legislation.

5. RECOMMENDED ACTION

5.1. Communication

This is a tool that the Tribunal can use to inform and educate its clients, as well as give itself the visibility it requires to fulfill its mandate. In the opinion of the consultants, many of the following suggestions made by the respondents can be easily implemented by the Tribunal Secretariat.

Recommendation #1 – Tribunal newsletters and other information should be sent to broadcasters and federal government institutions, as well as to artists’ associations. This is especially important to artists’ associations. A commonly heard remark from this group was that the producer had no knowledge of the Tribunal, which made their task even more difficult.

Recommendation #2 – One-page sheets should be written describing the work of the Tribunal, including the type of assistance that client groups can access, and, the types of contract for services categories that fall under the sectors previously identified by the Tribunal.

The Secretariat might consider disseminating this information through the artist and producer associations themselves, by way of their association/industry newsletters.

Recommendation #3 – The Tribunal Secretariat should establish a dedicated help-line within the acceptable limits of the Act, to supplement/support the Tribunal procedure guide. This would also help first-time bargaining associations reduce their time spent in research and legal consultation (supplemented by 5.2 Recommendation #1).¹³

Recommendation #4 – The Tribunal should make its existing list of producers available to artists’ associations, to assist them in the identification of possible bargaining partners.

Recommendation #5 – Many organizations interviewed were interested in receiving information such as decisions, amendments, etc. It is the consultants’ recommendation that the Tribunal highlight the availability of such existing information, whether in paper format or on its website, in its communications.

Recommendation #6 – The distinction between federal and provincial jurisdiction seems to be a recurring problem for some Quebec-based artists’ associations and broadcasters. The Tribunal might want to issue a specific information bulletin with respect to this particular jurisdictional issue.

5.2. Education/Training

Numerous remarks were made about the need for a better understanding of the Act, the Tribunal’s role and the collective bargaining process. The following recommendations may be helpful in giving support, especially to organizations that do not have a bargaining tradition.

Recommendation #1 -There was an overwhelming demand from both artists’ associations and producer groups for the Tribunal Secretariat to conduct regional workshops. The consultants recommend that the Tribunal organize a series of workshops that will address subjects such as:

Basic principles of negotiations for newly certified associations
A Guide to the Act
Certification – What comes after
What producers should know about the Tribunal
Common concerns and information exchange between artists’ associations

Recommendation #2 - For workshops that address the particular needs of artists’ or producers’ organizations and the legal community, the Tribunal Secretariat, wherever possible, should conduct these during industry events, for example,

Canadian Conference of the Arts annual conference
Banff Television Festival
Canadian Association of Broadcasters Conference
Canadian Bar Association Entertainment Law Conference

Recommendation #3 – Prepare a kit for producers including information on their responsibilities under the Act, and a primer on the Act with respect to bargaining, which would include information such as time frame, recourse to Tribunal, etc.

5.3. Tribunal presence

Recommendation #1– The Tribunal should have a presence at major client group conferences and annual events. Information should be prepared for the uninitiated and wherever appropriate the Tribunal Secretariat should take part in cultural discussions. If funding is available for sponsorships, the Tribunal may want to consider that option; it is often possible to have sponsorship exposure for as little as $500.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Tribunal is the body mandated to certify artists’ associations and administer the collective bargaining regime under the Status of the Artist Act. As such, the Tribunal through its Secretariat should make a concerted effort to improve upon its communication and inform its client groups of their rights and responsibilities. The immediate challenge appears to be in finding workable solutions to promote the bargaining of scale agreements between artists’ associations and producers, improve materials to aid that process, and find the right target audience to promote and deliver the necessary information.

It is important to note that the interviews yielded very little comment on the Tribunal’s present evaluation framework but yielded numerous comments on the Act itself and its impact or perceived impact upon the client groups. The consultants believe that this may be the result of a general lack of collective bargaining experience under the Act of those interviewed, a lack of awareness of the role of the Tribunal, and inadequate time and resources to engage in the process. Therefore, client groups may have insufficient experience upon which to adequately assess the Tribunal and Tribunal Secretariat’s service delivery as per its current performance objectives.

Some problems that were identified, such as the lack of resources and knowledge about bargaining, can be addressed through increased communication and education. However with respect to the need for legal advice, the Tribunal Secretariat is unable to fulfill these demands, as it is not mandated to do so under the Act. This does not eliminate the need, however, and some further thought should be given as to how this support can be offered at a reasonable cost to artists’ organizations.

There was no dispute over the role of artists and their rights to fair compensation and collective bargaining. The implementation of some of the recommendations as noted should go a long way in supporting a positive relationship between the Tribunal’s client groups–certified artists’ organizations, and broadcasters and federal government departments and agencies.

1 The consultants note that the legal services department cannot give legal advice to clients of the Tribunal.

2 Please note that the Tribunal Secretariat does provide information meetings at the request of clients.

3 Please note that the legal services department cannot give legal advice to clients of the Tribunal, and that only the Tribunal may interpret the Act.

4 Please note that decisions have always been available on the Tribunal’s website.

5 The conciliation process being referred to is found under the Canada Labour Code where a conciliator or conciliation board is appointed by the Minister. This provision does not exist in the Status of the Artist Act.

6 Please note that section 18 of the Act requires the Tribunal to take into account applicable principles of labour law, which the Tribunal has done in a number of its decisions.

7 Please note that Tribunal decisions have been available on the QuickLaw database since 1997.

8 The full title of the Act is an Act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada.

9 The Tribunal has yet to render a decision regarding the additional categories of artists which are covered by the Act in the recently enacted regulations.

10 Please note that the Tribunal has in place procedural guidelines that have been amended since their inception as a result of experience and client feedback, and has initiated the process so that the guidelines will become procedural regulations.

11 Please note that all Tribunal decisions are available on its website and the QuickLaw database.

12 Please note that only the Minister of Labour can appoint a mediator to assist parties at the negotiating table. In cases involving certification applications, complaints or other matters before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may offer mediation services to help resolve specific issues before, or instead of, holding a hearing.

13 Please note that legal advice cannot be given by the Tribunal Secretariat.

Appendix A

STATUS OF THE ARTIST ACT – CLIENT FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As noted earlier, comments and suggestions that referred directly to the Act were not part of the consultants’ original mandate, and are not related to the Tribunal’s present mandate or performance. There were however a number of recurring concerns from those interviewed and these are reflected below together with suggested recommendations.

Client Feedback

The lack of an arbitration mechanism in the case of first time agreements was seen as a detriment.
The absence of a conciliation process that could lead to a walkout or a lockout was regarded as problematic.
A definition of producer with respect to third party was thought to be important in the face of third party engagements.
There was some concern about the limited jurisdiction of the Act that potentially could resrict the scope of an artists’ association’s jurisdiction.

Recommendation #1 – There is a major concern on the part of artists’ organizations about sub-contracting to third parties. In its report to Parliament, the Tribunal may want to make mention of this, although it is not presently part of their mandate to deal with the definition of producer.

Recommendation #2 – There seems to be a consensus regarding the fact that the lack of a conciliation mechanism is a detriment to the successful conclusion of bargaining.

Recommendation #3 – In the case of first-time agreements, the lack of an arbitration mechanism within the Act is seen as problematic. The Tribunal should monitor any long-term impact this may have on the collective bargaining process.

Recommendation #4 – The ability that the Act gives to artists’ associations with respect to collective bargaining is recognized as being very important. However, many organizations (artists’ associations and producers) felt that when first conceived the status of the artist “package” was seen as including such elements as tax regime, copyright, access to Employment Insurance and EI programmes. The Tribunal might wish to make recommendations to the government at the appropriate time.

Recommendation #5 – The lack of funding and expertise (in bargaining and researching producer groups) has been a major deterrent to the pursuance of collective bargaining for many artists’ associations. If this situation is to change, expert resources will need to be retained and/or a funding mechanism established. With regard to the latter, the Quebec status of the artist regime allows for artists’ associations to begin collecting dues when bargaining begins. This is a source of revenue which could be made available to artists’ associations if the federal legislation was amended.

Appendix B

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE CANADIAN ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS TRIBUNAL

Name of Organization
Contact Person
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.
E-Mail Address Web site
No. of Employees:_____ Full - time_______ Part-time_____

If artists’ association, how many members do you have?

Full Members
Permittees (if applicable)

ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION

1. Do you have a full-time staff dedicated to collective bargaining and the administration of collective agreements?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, how many?

3. How much time does your organization spend in collective bargaining?

4. How long have you been bargaining?

5. What is your main purpose for entering into the collective bargaining process?

6. For artists’ associations: how would you describe your organization’s mandate and purpose?

ABOUT THE TRIBUNAL AND ITS PERFORMANCE

The Canadian Artists and Producers Relations Tribunal was created to provide a legal structure which allows the certification of associations of self-employed artists within federal jurisdiction and allows for a collective bargaining mechanism, which establishes minimum terms and conditions of engagement and contributes to good relations between artists’ associations and producers. It is hoped that results will include an enhanced status of selfemployed artists and more recognition of the role they play within Canadian society.

7. How would you rate the Tribunal’s services in the following areas, and please let us know how satisfied you were with the Tribunal’s ability to deal with your concerns:

It is the Tribunal’s wish to encourage all parties to contact it and make use of the information it can provide, as well as to answer specific queries and, when needed, to arrange informal hearings at locations to suit the clients. What has been your experience when dealing with the Tribunal?
Do you feel the Tribunal has been timely and professional in processing your application for certification or other matters such as reviews or complaints?
In matters brought before it, the Tribunal encourages the parties to first try to resolve issues amongst themselves or with the assistance of mediation by Tribunal staff. Are you satisfied with the way the Tribunal has dealt with any issues you have brought to it?
When the Tribunal has rendered a decision, did you feel it was well-founded and reasoned? Are the reasons for decisions well-written?
The Tribunal strives to communicate its objectives, procedures and activities to its clients. Do you feel it has achieved this purpose?

8. Do you read or make reference to the Tribunal’s web site? Its information bulletins? Its reports?

9. In your opinion, does the Tribunal maximize the use of its financial resources? What could the Tribunal do to make its services more affordable?

Please Note Questions 10 to 14 apply to Artists’ Associations

10. Do you feel your organization has benefitted since certification from the Tribunal? If yes, please give details e.g. enhanced status, improved working conditions, better relations with producers.

11. What do you feel have been the drawbacks of certification?

12. For those associations who are certified but have yet to serve a first notice to bargain, what is the reason for this delay?

13. For those associations who have served first notice(s) to bargain, but have not yet negotiated a first agreement(s), what are the reasons?

14. Are you aware that there are provisions in the Status of the Artist Act to assist the bargaining process?

Please Note Questions 15 and 16 apply to Broadcasters

15. What do you feel have been the benefits of collective bargaining with artists’ associations, e.g. better relationship, available pool of artists who feel adequately rewarded, etc.?

16. Have there been any drawbacks to negotiations? If you have yet to negotiate, what are your perceptions about possible drawbacks?

Please Note Question 17 applies to Federal Government Institutions

17. What is the nature of work within your institution which would put you in the position of employing freelance artists?

COMMENTS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR ARTISTS’ ASSOCIATIONS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS

18. The above questions have mostly dealt with the objectives which presently guide the Tribunal’s operation, such as: the timely processing of applications for certification and other matters; imparting information and assistance which makes it possible for the parties to the collective bargaining process to benefit from the Act; ensuring the visibility of the Tribunal to its clients and the public; and managing its resources well. The Tribunal has developed measures and targets for evaluating the achievement of these objectives, as described in its Performance Report. Do you think these objectives are valid, and do you feel the evaluation of the Tribunal’s performance was properly conducted?

19. Additional comments?

Appendix C

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY

Certified Artists’ Associations

ACTRA Performers Guild Toronto, Ontario
American Federation of Musicians of the U.S. and Canada Toronto, Ontario
Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec Montreal, Quebec
Canadian Actors' Equity AssociationToronto, Ontario
Canadian Association of Photographers andIllustrators in Communications Toronto, Ontario
Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec Montreal, Quebec
La Guilde des musiciens du Québec Montreal, Quebec
Periodical Writers Association of Canada Toronto, Ontario
Playwrights Union of CanadaToronto, Ontario
Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du QuébecMontreal, Quebec
Société des auteurs, recherchistes, documentalistes et compositeursMontreal, Quebec
Société professionnelle des auteurs et descompositeurs québécoisMontreal, Quebec
The Writers' Union of Canada Toronto, Ontario
Union des Artistes Montreal, Quebec
Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécoisMontreal, Quebec
Writers Guild of Canada Toronto, Ontario

Broadcasters

CBC Toronto, Ontario
City TV/BRAVO!/MuchMusic/MusiquePlus/ Canadian Learning Television/Much More Music/ Pulse 24/Space: The Imagination Station/Star TVc/o Chum CityToronto, Ontario
CKRL-FM 89,1 Quebec, Quebec
Cogéco Radio-TélévisionSherbrooke, Quebec
CTV - Television/Comedy Network/ Outdoor Life/Talk TV/ N1/Sportsc/o CTVToronto, Ontario
Global Communications Limited - Television Don Mills, Ontario
Groupe TVA Inc. Montreal, Quebec
History Television/Showcase Television/ Life Network/HGTV Canada c/o Alliance Atlantic Communications Inc. Toronto, Ontario
Réseau de télévision Quatre-Saisons Montreal, Quebec
Société Radio-Canada Montreal, Quebec
South Asian Television Newmarket, Ontario
TreeHouse TV Toronto, Ontario
Vision TV Toronto, Ontario
Women’s Television Network Winnipeg, Manitoba

Federal Government Institutions

Canada Post Ottawa, Ontario
Canadian HeritageHull, Quebec
Canadian Museum of Civilization Hull, Quebec
Department of National DefenceOttawa, Ontario
Human Resources Development CanadaHull, Quebec
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Hull, Quebec
National Archives of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
National Arts Centre Ottawa, Ontario
National Capital CommissionOttawa, Ontario
National Gallery of CanadaOttawa, Ontario
National Film Board Montreal, Quebec
Parks Canada Agency Hull, Quebec
Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa, Ontario
Royal Canadian MintOttawa, Ontario
Transport CanadaOttawa, Ontario
Treasury Board of Canada, SecretariatOttawa, Ontario
Veterans Affairs Canada Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Professional Association of Canadian Theatres¹ Toronto, Ontario

Note

1. The Professional Association of Canadian Theatres is not a federal government institution. However it represents the National Arts Centre in theatre negotiations with the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association and the Playwrights Union of Canada.