 |
 |
|
Thursday November 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
Thursday November 20, 2008
|
|
Staffing Committee
|
| home |
|
|
|
|
|
| In attendance: | Linda Cassidy Pamela Abbott Madonna Gardiner Alain Lachapelle Shane O'Brien |
Discussions with the Agency concerning ACS are still ongoing. There was only one bidder for the gender neutrality study. The Agency will also continue with the short format work description. Kent MacDonald and Linda Cassidy are still discussing with the Agency the use of generic jobs, but UTE’s definition of generic jobs is different than that of the Agency. As a result, this term needs to be defined.
The Agency agrees that the human resources and the management group communities need training as soon as possible with respect to the short format work descriptions. Linda has as well solicited names from some Locals of members who are willing to deliver ACS-SP training. Linda will reissue the call for volunteers. Additionally, as the Union Management Initiative (UMI) training will be happening at the same time as ACS-SP training, we will indicate to locals that members cannot participate in both training initiatives.
Shane spoke with the employer about granting leave with pay for the TC and the TSO representative to the Committee to review ACS-SP work descriptions as they are received. Unfortunately, the employer did not agree to our request. Notwithstanding the employer’s refusal, the Committee continues to review these job descriptions.
Shane, Linda and Betty attended a meeting with the employer on May 26, 2006 concerning the recommendations flowing from the Joint Term Study. We discussed the discrepancies in the updated term list provided by the Agency as compared to the information we received from some locals. Unfortunately, all locals have still not responded to our request to validate the term list for their locals.
We also raised that managers are still arbitrarily breaking employees’ service so as to avoid having them reach two continuous years service. The employer agreed with us that this is no longer necessary as there is no automatic conversion under the CRA Staffing Program. They also asked us to notify them of situations where managers are arbitrarily breaking service.
The employer also advised us that they had conducted an analysis of seasonal employment and did not find it feasible at this time. Hence, they were no longer prepared to discuss this matter. In response, we indicated that we strongly disagreed with their analysis and put them on notice that this issue would be raised once again during the next round of bargaining.
The Agency also agreed that they would deal with our issues concerning guidelines for managers on the Two Year Review and assessing dependability, amongst other things, when they next revisit the Manager’s Toolkit. On June 30, 2006, the employer, as promised, provided us with the revisions to the Toolkit in a document titled “Manager’s Guide for Term Employment”. Although the document is not sufficiently written in mandatory terms (e.g. use of should instead of shall, etc.) the essence of the vast majority of our substantive issues concerning term employment have been positively addressed. The only issues that were not addressed fully to our liking were the fact that the Two Year Reviews may not always be conducted on a one-to-one basis with affected employees and that competencies should not be reflected in the performance evaluation process. These issues will be raised with the Agency in our response to the Manager’s Guide for Term Employment.
Further to our last meeting, only two locals provided specific examples that we could use of problems encountered with inappropriate behaviours or actions by the Competency Consultants. Some TC locals responded that they have had no PQP processes. The Committee will defer this item to our next meeting so that we may consider what further action should be taken. Madonna and Alain will reissue the calls to Locals to provide specific examples. Should no further information be received, this issue will be dropped form our agenda.
A grievance has now been identified in our inventory where quotas and/or competencies were used and the file has been referred to adjudication. The grievance is tentatively scheduled at adjudication for October 2006. The Committee reconsidered issuing a bulletin and agreed that we would await the outcome of the pending adjudication.
Shane raised this matter once again with the Agency and once again, the Agency has not assigned this matter to any of its representatives. Furthermore, no new complaints have been received from our members concerning unauthorized individuals accessing their personal files for purposes of selection processes. Consequently, this item will be dropped from our agenda. We do suggest, however, that any members who find themselves in this situation should grieve the matter.
Further to our last meeting, Alain contacted the Calgary, Sudbury, Trois-Rivières and Halifax locals seeking an update concerning the pilot projects in these areas. Calgary reported that the pilot was extended until June 9 and Halifax reported the work that was being done. Non-filers and Collectors were each doing their own jobs, but working as a team. No responses were received from Sudbury and Trois-Rivières. At the June 2006 National Union Management Consultation meeting, the employer also confirmed that the pilots would end in June and they would share the results with us when the information is available.
Further to our last meeting, Shane asked the employer again for a copy of the regional reports and national summary. This information has still not been provided to us to date.
Linda and Shane attended a meeting with representatives of Compliance Programs Branch on July 4, 2006 to further discuss the concerns raised by our members affected by the harmonization of audit ranges. Despite our protestations, the CRA is going to proceed with this initiative. Furthermore, the Agency representatives made it clear that they did not see any entitlement to acting pay, they were not inclined to staff the 136 new PM03 positions at this time and would not declare a workforce adjustment situation in these circumstances. At the meeting, we asked for and subsequently received a copy of the classification rationales for the PM02 and the PM03 positions. In reviewing these rationales, we noted that the point ratings were identical for both positions with respect to Knowledge (191 points), Operational Responsibility (010 points) and Contacts (070) points). The only difference was with respect to Decision Making where the PM02 job was awarded 114 points, while the PM03 job was awarded 159 points. The rationale for the PM03 states that Decision Making “appears to be overrated at Degree C since its duties and responsibilities are not significantly different than those of PM0140 rated at Degree B, based on a comparison of the work descriptions.” The rationale goes on to say that “additional information… was therefore sought from management; however, an analysis of this confirmed that a rating of Degree B is more appropriate.”
The position retained the point rating of Degree C (159 points) based on this commentary in the rationale:
“…the current rating of Degree C is being maintained at this time since [the position] was previously evaluated by a classification grievance committee and the members may have heard arguments during the Union presentation to substantiate that rating.”
As a result, it appears that classification grievances from PM02’s will likely be unsuccessful and may in fact have the potential to adversely affect the classification of the PM03. Shane will discuss this matter with the PSAC’s Classification and Equal Pay section to determine our further strategy with respect to this matter.
Shane again spoke with the employer about the need to revise the Directive on Student Hiring and the need for consultation on this matter. The Agency has still agreed to meet with the Committee on this matter, but no dates have been set as of yet.
A further meeting with the employer with respect to this initiative was held on May 9, 2006. The briefing deck that was provided by the Agency was sent to all RVP’s with instructions that they forward the deck to their locals. The Agency has also confirmed their agreement to meet with us on a quarterly basis concerning this initiative.
The internal audit has still not been completed. No firm dates for completion can be predicted at this time.
No new information is available at the time of this meeting. As a result, this item is deferred to our next meeting.
Further to our last meeting, Shane wrote to the Agency providing our comments to their draft revised Annex C. No response has been received from the Agency to date.
Further to our last meeting, Shane wrote to the employer outlining our comments and concerns with respect to their draft program. The employer responded to our submission, incorporating some of our proposals and responding to or providing explanation to our other concerns.
The bulletin outlining our position concerning the right to grieve will be issued during the week ending July 14, 2006.
The Committee also noted that some members have complained that members acting in MG positions should not be observed and attested as it gives these persons an advantage in future selection processes. It is UTE’s position that all members who wish should be observed and attested, including those persons in acting positions for 6 months or longer. Recourse is available to those members who have not been selected for an acting position and we encourage concerned members to avail of the staffing recourse available to them.
Madonna and Alain, as we agreed, will contact all Locals requesting that each local appoint a staffing liaison.
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
