Bulletin 04/03

February 14, 2003


Executive Council
Alternate Regional Vice-Presidents
Local Presidents
Labour Relations Officers

RE : MG Grievances


The National Office is currently in the process of registering all MG grievance files received in the National Office.

Job Description Grievances

As per the Memorandum of Understanding (attached), the National Office has to assume that all of the files received from you are for National job descriptions. The only exception to this is for files received with a 3rd level reply and a transmittal form to 4th level which are considered regional job descriptions.

As you can understand, it is very important that local representatives forward the files to the appropriate union level.

Classification Grievances

The National Office is treating all classification grievances that do not have a related job description grievance as being a “regional job description” classification grievance. Therefore, these specific classification grievances will be in abeyance pending the processing of the job description grievances to the final level.

Acting Pay Grievances

Since these were not covered by the Memorandum of Understanding, the file must contain an agreement to go directly to the final level for national job descriptions and to the regional level for regional job descriptions, or the appropriate transmittal forms.

Pay Inequity Grievances

A separate agreement was reached with the employer on these grievances. All of these grievances will go directly to the 4th level automatically regardless if the member has a regional or national job description.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

In Solidarity,

Pierre Mulvihill,
Labour Relations Officer.


P.S. Please refer to Memorandum dated February 11, 2003 from Betty Bannon on the same subject


In the matter concerning the anticipated submission of job content and classification group and level grievances by certain employees occupying MG jobs within the CCRA as a result of the conversion to the MG occupational group effective March 31, 2002,

The parties agree that:

  1. In the interest of attempting to resolve outstanding issues through informal discussions, the twenty-five (25) working day period within which grievances may be presented on each individual work description will be extended to start on October l, 2002 and end on November 5, 2002. This date may be extended by mutual agreement.
  2. Employees will have until May 31, 2002 to submit their concerns to their respective component and the components will communicate the name of the appropriate contact person(s) to their members.
  3. The respective component will endeavour to provide the members' concerns to the appropriate parties by no later than June 21, 2002, as follows:
    1. for national and HQ jobs, concerns will be directed to the Director, Labour Relations Division, Staff Relations and Compensation Directorate, for referral to the appropriate functional authority;
    2. for regional jobs, concerns will be directed to the Assistant Commissioner, Regional Operations.

Should grievances be filed, the parties agree that:

  1. They will consult meaningfully on grouping job content grievance issues.
  2. Job content grievances for national jobs will be transmitted to the immediate supervisor or local officer in charge and will then be transmitted to the final level.
  3. Job content grievances for regional and HQ jobs will be transmitted to the immediate supervisor or local officer in charge and will then be transmitted to the appropriate work description authority (second or third level).
  4. The outcome of the grievance(s) processed will be communicated to all employees on the same work description, whether or not they have filed a grievance.
  5. This MOU does not limit the rights of employees to grieve, at any point, the content of their work description under the collective agreement.
  6. This MOU is without prejudice to the position the parties may take in other files and creates no precedent.
Original signed by
Nycole Turmel   Claude Tremblay
Public Service Alliance of Canada Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Date: May 21, 2002 Date: May 21, 2002
Betty Bannon   Serge Charette
Union of Taxation Employees Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
Date: May 17, 2002 Date: May 16, 2002


Does the Union want you? A question that some MGs have asked. Unequivocally, the answer from the union is “yes” and that comes from the Union of Taxation Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

During the endless hearings in the Certification process the Alliance fought long and hard to keep the Team Leaders in the Bargaining Unit. This fight included Team Leader witnesses from the Union of Taxation Employees. They told the Public Service Staff Relations Board that they did not want to be in a group full of Excluded employees that have no Union interest. They told the Board that their community of interest was with the people they work with and not the non-unionized people who are above them. In the end, the Public Service Staff Relations Board agreed with them. The Board established one single Bargaining Unit on December 12, 2001, more than two years after the establishment of the Agency. 

Since then, the MG Group has been established by the CCRA. The CCRA was not able to divide the Team Leaders from the rest of the workers during the Certification hearings so they did it using the Classification process. It is as clear as that. They wanted the Team Leaders segregated from the other members and when the Board wouldn’t do it, they did it themselves.

Please think back. Before the MG Group was established, were you a member of the Union? Yes, you were. Was your occupational group the same as most of the workers that you supervised? Yes, it was in most cases. So what is the difference today? The initials MG and the fact that the CCRA, your employer, has segregated you from the rest of the membership is the difference. You are still interested in wages, safety and health at work, hours of work, leave from work and the list goes on and on. The same list that each and every member of the Union is interested in. The Union has not segregated your interests.

MG Salaries in the PSAC and PIPSC: I have had several e-mails from MGs wanting to know about the difference in the wages for the PSAC MGs and the PIPSC MGs and how that happened. 

First of all, the PSAC was at the bargaining table before the PIPSC. When the employer tabled the wages for the MGs with us it was not up for negotiations. It was a “take it or leave it” position of the CCRA. Even when the PSAC Team tried to explain their concerns with anomalies in the increments, which in their opinion were clear errors in calculations it was to no avail. The CCRA was not open to any negotiations on the MG salary scales. 

The CCRA also advised the PSAC Team that they would be tabling the exact same salary scales to PIPSC at their table. Some time later a “tentative agreement” was reached with the PSAC and the CCRA, which was later ratified by the membership. Then it was the PIPSC turn at the table. During negotiations for them the CCRA moved their position on the MG salary scale and ended up signing a Collective Agreement with them, which had different salary scales for the MGs in PIPSC and the PSAC. This has created an unfortunate situation since it is the same employer, but not an illegal situation. It is no different than having two different salary scales for the same level or grade of workers basically doing the same job in two different unions or even in the same union. Some examples of this are that an auditor working for the province of Ontario may make more or less money than an auditor in a different province, or, the fact that every worker in the CCRA makes more money than their equivalent in Treasury Board. 

The CCRA advised some people that it was their intention to request that the PSAC Collective Agreement be reopened to align the MG salary scales in PSAC and PIPSC. Although that formal request did not materialize I have no hesitation to state that the Union of Taxation Employees would not agree to reopen a ratified Collective Agreement for the sole purpose of rectifying something that was the creation and under the control of the employer. If the employer was amicable to reopen the Collective Agreement to look at all matters that were outstanding at the time of the “tentative agreement” we would have certainly looked seriously at doing that. Some of the things we would have liked to discuss were the single national rate of pay for the GSs and GL&Ts, the Harmonization of all groups, as well as, the salary scales of the MGs. 

I know that this explanation will not satisfy every MG but this is an accurate explanation of how the MG salary scales got to be different with the PSAC and PIPSC members.

We will be filing “notice to bargain” on August the 1st and the CCRA has agreed to be at the table earlier than the expiry of the Collective Agreement. We will be having meetings as early as August. One of the first things to cover is the difference in the MG salaries between PSAC and PIPSC. On saying that, the only way that this situation will not happen again will be left in the hands of the employer since the two unions, the PSAC and PIPSC bargain at different times and may settle their negotiations at different times. So, I cannot say for certain that this very same thing won’t happen again. Only the CCRA could say that.

In Solidarity,

Betty Bannon
National President, UTE