 |
 |
|
Thursday November 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
Thursday November 20, 2008
|
|
Staffing Committee
|
| home |
|
|
|
|
|
| In attendance: | Linda Cassidy Pamela Abbott Madonna Gardiner Normand Pelletier Shane O'Brien |
Further to our last meeting, Shane spoke with the mover of the motion asking the Staffing Committee to examine “ways and means to force the CCRA to implement a proper classification system”. The mover agreed that in light of the Commissioner’s commitment to implement ACS-SP, no further action is required by the Committee at this time.
Further information concerning the ACS-SP has been included in the Staffing Committee reports included with the minutes of the various Executive Council meetings.
The Agency has now advised that the Beta Testing job descriptions will be finalized and sent to the Committee for review and comments by the end of January 2006. The Staffing Committee will collectively review these Beta Testing work descriptions.
In November 2005, the Staffing Committee, with the exception of Pamela and Shane, attended the Agency’s Work Description Training. The National Office Labour Relations Officers also attended this training. Shane has also requested that the Agency provide him with an electronic copy of the training course.
F & A has committed to moving towards national, as opposed to regional or local work descriptions, as much as possible. With the pending implementation of the ACS-SP standard, the Agency would prefer to rewrite these job descriptions under the new ACS Short Format Work Description and will do so in due course. As a result, there is no further need for a meeting and accordingly, no further action is required by the Staffing Committee at this time.
The Committee has been advised that the action plan concerning the Joint PSAC – CCRA Term Study Committee has now been signed off. An interim report with respect to seasonal indeterminate employment was provided to the Committee in April 2005 and a further report was provided in November 2005. During the November meeting, however, the Agency reported that it was not prepared to enter into further discussions around seasonal employment with UTE, but that they would continue with their analysis which would be completed in January 2006. The Agency representative advised that the matter of seasonal indeterminate employment would have to be raised during the next round of bargaining as she no longer had a mandate in this regard. This issue was raised at the December 2005 – NUMC and the Assistant Commissioner of Human Resources agreed to look into this matter and report back to us.
A list of generic jobs was provided to the Committee in October 2005 and further discussions surrounding this issue will take place in March 2006.
The Agency refuses to relent on its position to use selection processes to change the tenure of long-term determinate employees. The committee will continue to monitor the Agency’s progress with respect to its commitment to appoint permanently a minimum of 25% of 1100 (275) term employees during the life of this collective agreement.
The Agency also committed to drafting a new bulletin concerning the Review of Long-Term Terms (i.e. the Two Year Review Policy) and sending it to the Committee for our comments. This has still not been received to date and Shane has once again asked the Agency to complete this draft.
In April 2005, the Agency provided a document summarizing the number of long-term term employees by region, a breakdown by region and by office of permanent appointments of term employees. The list was sent to each RVP who was asked to verify these members with their locals. The numbers initially reported by our locals matched the reports by the Agency. A second list resulted in discrepancies and these discrepancies were discussed with the Agency in November and the Agency issued a further list. This list was sent to all Locals directly by the National President. Normand and Madonna will follow up with locals in order to have the locals validate these numbers.
The Committee agreed that we would ask the National President for time at the March 2006 Presidents’ Conference to explain the Agency’s progress on the action plan and the term commitment.
Madonna also reported that she sent an email to all Tax Centre Locals suggesting that they discuss the use of generic jobs for term employees at their next local union-management consultation meeting. As little feedback has been received to date, Madonna will follow up on this matter. The Committee will also issue a bulletin on our position concerning the use of generic jobs in TC’s for term employees as management is misreporting our position on this matter.
Since our last meeting, Shane and Kent met with the Competency Based Human Resources Management Advisory Committee (CBHRMAC). During this meeting, The CBHRMAC took the position initially that the Observe and Attest Initiative was not linked to staffing, but rather to learning and development. They also took the position that matters related to Observe and Attest could not be grieved as there was another form of redress available under another Act of Parliament (i.e. Staffing Recourse). Shane and Kent strongly advocated the position that members did in fact have the right to grieve for many reasons, including the fact that the Agency emphatically stated that this initiative is not linked to their Staffing Program. The Agency claims to have a legal opinion supporting their position, but despite our requests for disclosure of this opinion, no such opinion has been shared. The Staffing Committee agreed that we would issue a bulletin outlining our position concerning the right to grieve.
Kent also attended a training session tied into the roll-out of this initiative. Managers and team leaders are now being trained and employees should be observed and attested after the training has been completed.
The Committee also discussed the fact that regions are not consistent with the timeframes for implementation of this initiative. Shane will follow up with Headquarters in order to confirm the timeframes. If major inconsistencies persist, a further meeting with the CBHRMAC will be requested. Linda also checked with Kent to determine if he was aware if the timeframes for implementation had been amended and he confirmed that the training of the Team Leaders is scheduled to be completed by April 2006 as originally planned.
Linda and Betty met with the CBHRMAC on November 4, 2005 to discuss proposed changes to the staffing process as it relates primarily to the PQP. The Agency agreed to some specific changes and they will issue a communiqué concerning these changes by the end of January 2006.
This will be dealt with under number 7 of our agenda.
Shane will conduct a review of the grievances in our current inventory (as agreed to by the National President in discussions with the previous Committee Chair) in order to determine if there are any grievances against performance appraisals where quotas and/or competencies are being assessed. If grievances of this nature exist, Shane will meet with the PSAC in order to try to persuade them to proceed to adjudication with these grievances, or at least with a test case, based on our arguments surrounding the new wording in Article 58.
This item was previously mislabelled as Performance Management, but has now since been renamed.
The Agency has now confirmed that the PM02 Trust Accounts Examination Officer/Collections pilots in Vancouver and Windsor were finalized on October 31, 2005 and the data for analysis is currently being collected. A recommendation by the function is expected early in the new year.
This matter was first dealt with on March 29, 2004 and raised again in April 2005. In January 2006, Shane raised this again with the Agency. The Agency has not dealt with our concern to date as the responsibility for personnel files falls between Compensation and Staff Relations. The Agency has now committed to finalizing this matter in the near future.
Once again, the Agency has ignored our submissions and finalized the standard without any changes. As the employer has the unfettered right to establish minimum educational standards, no further action will be taken by the Committee at this time.
Further to our last meeting, the Calgary Local advised that they were now a part of this pilot project. In addition, the employer advised us that Sudbury and Trois-Rivières have been included in the pilot. Normand confirmed that the pilot in Trois-Rivières was being operated as the Agency explained and no employees are performing duties of a combined work description. Linda will send the briefing deck to the Committee members. Linda will also send an email to the Local Presidents of Halifax, Calgary, Sudbury and Trois-Rivières requesting specific information concerning the operation of these pilots. We will also request a further meeting with the employer concerning the progress of this pilot in these offices.
The Committee reviewed and discussed the employer’s draft “Employee Performance Management Assessment Scale” which was provided to us for comment in the late fall of 2005. A written response was sent to the employer previously opposing this draft and requesting a meeting. No response to our comments has been received to date. The employer had also undertaken consultations in all regions on this proposal. Shane will ask the employer to provide us with a copy of the reports from all regions and the national summary, if one was prepared. Shane will also follow up with our request for a meeting.
The Agency had, some sixteen months ago, announced to PIPSC new harmonized revenue ranges for audit files for PM02 to AU03 auditors. This information was only provided to UTE, however, on November 22, 2005, even though discussions with employees in some offices have been taking place for some months now.
Very few of our members have offered the Committee any negative comments with respect to this initiative, but some members in one office strongly oppose these changes as they relate to the PM02 position. These members believe that the changes may negatively affect the classification of the PM02 position when ACS-SP is implemented. Also, they believe that these changes may affect the allocation of funding for PM02 positions in Audit. Finally, these members believe that there may be an entitlement to acting pay or a classification problem. One other office reported that these changes may adversely impact members attempting to obtain their certifications or designations. An ongoing concern of some of our members is that the PM group in Audit is constantly being eroded, but the employer has confirmed that this proposal is in fact an enhancement to the PM structure in Audit.
Before receiving the employer’s written submission on November 22, 2005, UTE became aware of this issue and immediately requested a meeting during the period of November 28 to December 2, 2005. The employer was unable to accommodate these dates and suggested a meeting between January 9 to 13, 2006. Upon receiving the preliminary concerns which we advanced on behalf of those members with whom we had discussions and other concerns which we advanced, this meeting was postponed as the employer advised that they required more time to look into our concerns.
The meeting with the employer should now be rescheduled for later in January 2006.
The Committee reviewed and discussed the draft document “Canada Revenue Agency Youth Recruitment and Retention Initiative”. It was noted that this document lacked specific detail and appeared to confuse Student Hiring with Youth Recruitment and Retention. A number of other concerns identified include, but are not limited to:
- What is the definition of “youth”?
- Are there other facets of youth recruitment and retention other then student hiring?
- From where did the assumptions, findings and theories in the document arise?
- “Letters of offers for top performing students”
- Bridging mechanisms, and
- The Revisions to the term “student”
A meeting was held with the Agency concerning this initiative on January 12, 2006. The Committee raised the concerns identified and asked the Agency to provide further details and specifics. The Committee also requested further consultation to allow us to develop a more comprehensive position.
The Committee also noted that this document had been shared with the Human Resources Branch Executive Committee, the Agency Management Committee and the Board of Management. As a result, we asked the employer for a summary of the comments raised by these three groups.
The employer will also provide us with an amended briefing deck and further meetings will be held concerning this initiative.
Linda met with Guy Proulx on December 1, 2005 concerning the above noted initiative. A draft deck was originally provided to Linda, but is currently being amended. The committee will deal with this matter at our next meeting.
The Agency has also agreed to meet quarterly with us on this initiative with a view to keeping us up to date. Twenty-four (24) issues are being reviewed by a number of task forces and we will be consulted regularly on these issues.
The Agency also committed to reviewing the pilot projects with respect to National and Regional Intake Centres and will make a final determination by the end of this fiscal year.
During 2005, the Agency commenced an internal audit on their Staffing Program, excluding the aspect of recourse for staffing. This internal audit is still ongoing and will be completed this year. During the course of this audit, the Agency’s auditors received input from employees, local managers, local union representatives, Regional Vice-Presidents and Shane, in his role as technical advisor to the Staffing Committee. The results of this audit will be shared with UTE upon completion and the Committee will conduct a review of the finalized audit.
The Committee reviewed and discussed concerns raised by the St.John’s TSO Local concerning the competency profile for the PM02 Collections Officer and the PM02 CPP/EI Rulings Officer positions. The member who raised the concern notes that the combined PM02 positions requires an accounting competency and further notes that this is not a requirement for these PM02 positions on an individual basis. He therefore concludes that the Agency must have made an error in the competency profile for the combined positions.
The Committee noted that there was no error in this profile as the Agency deliberately and purposely established this competency for the combined position. This matter has been previously raised with the employer, but the employer is not prepared to change the profile.
The Committee reviewed and discussed an issue raised by the Sudbury Local with respect to the “process of combining job descriptions for the programs under the Office Audit Section”. This initiative was discussed at a CRA National Conference on January 25-27, 2005. To date, however, we have received no notification from the Agency and we have not been consulted with respect to this matter. Based on the minutes of the National Conference, the Agency will be convening another conference in the spring of 2006 to further discuss this matter. It was also noted by the Committee that this combination of job descriptions was not included in the ACS-SP Proposed Groupings.
The Committee agreed that Madonna would contact the TC Local Presidents to obtain additional information. We will also contact the employer to seek further information on this matter. Linda has been keeping the originator of the issue, as well as the applicable Regional Vice-President, up to date on the progress concerning this issue.
In closing, the Committee thanked Normand for his participation with respect to this Committee and wished him well in his new career with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Visit often, and send us your comments to the webmaster@ute-sei.org if you have any problems.
Copyright © 2000-2007 UTE All Rights Reserved
