Honours and Awards Committee


Honours and Awards Committee
Honour and Awards Committee Logo



Pamela Abbott Item 11(g)


The committee met on July 3 - 4 in Ottawa. The two agenda items that we had

  1. Scholarship Selection
  2. Head of the Public Service Awards


A checklist was developed that corresponded with the requirements and criteria
of the scholarship application.

  • Name of the Applicant
  • Region
  • Member of UTE
  • Child of a member of UTE
  • Is Parent or Member active in the local Union
  • Entering First Year University, College of Higher Learning (Proof of Registration)
  • Prior Scholastic Achievement supplied
  • Financial Need Supplied
  • Statement provided by two persons
  • Essay or submission of other supplied
  • Examples of Community or Union Involvement Supplied
  • Examples of Union involvement of parents supplied

The checklist enabled the committee to confirm that the applicants met the
requirements as listed in accordance to UTE.

We received 24 applications. Prior to us breaking the applications into Regions
we first reviewed them to determine if they met the requirements. Unfortunately
9 of the applications were cut as either essays or proof of registration at
a University, were not supplied. It is important to note that the exclusion
of these applications did not result in a particular region being excluded,
as there were other applicants from those Regions.

After separating the remaining 15 applications into Regions, it was confirmed
that the committee had not received any submissions from the National Capital
or Quebec Region. This would result in two $1000 scholarship awards to be awarded
to another Region.

Automatic $1000 Regional Scholarships were awarded to Southern Ontario, Pacific
and Toronto North Region, as we only received 1 application from each. Prairie
also received an automatic $1000 scholarship as the other applicant did not
make the first cut.

As there were more then 1 qualified applicants from the remaining Regions,
we reviewed the applicants as a whole. For Example Northern and Eastern Ontario
had 3 qualified applicants. We looked at current marks, financial need and
essays and prioritized them from 1 - 3. The purpose of this, was due to additional
Regional funds that were going to be available as well as the National scholarship
had yet to be determined.

After we made our selection for the remaining regions, we then went to the
National. All qualified Regions with the #1 applicant were put on the table
for review. This was done by two stages. First we read the essays for translation
purposes from the Regions that received an automatic scholarship. Each committee
member then reviewed there own notes to determine who they felt were the best
applicants. We were allowed to select two names each. The names then went up
on a flip chart, as it stood we were down to 4 names. From this point we gave
5 headings for each candidate. 1st year, Financial need, community involvement,
academic and essay. We were then to individually assess each candidate from
1 - 5, with 5 being the highest. This was done without the committee knowing
what the other was grading. From this point, I then took the grading and put
the marks on the flip chart. This resulted in the final selection for the National
Scholarship. The qualified applicants were from South Western Ontario and Northern
and Eastern Ontario. The committee is an agreement that the two final selections,
were the best qualified.

As a result of selecting the National Scholarship, we still had # 2 and #3
applicant from Northern and Eastern Ontario. Automatically #2 went to the #1
spot, with #3 moving to a #2 spot. As well, South Western Ontario had only
1 applicant which was now receiving the National Scholarship, which gave us
$1000 to add to our pool. This gave us 3 $1000 additional Regional scholarships
to be awarded.

From this point we graded all # 2 applicants similar to the National, this
resulted in Rocky Mountain, Northern and Eastern Ontario and Montreal being
awarded another $1000 Regional Scholarship.

The final results are as follows:

$2500 National Scholarship

Christiane Pigeon

Parent: Angele Rivest

Northern and Eastern Ontario Region

Natalia Korczynski

Parent: Grace Korczynski

South Western Ontario Region

$1000 Regional Scholarship

Chantall Doll

Parent: Carole Bougie

Prairie Region

Jim Brittain

Parent: Robert Brittain

Atlantic Region

Lawrence Bradley

Parent: Alex Bradley

Northern and Eastern Ontario Region

Nathan Linkletter

Parent: Paul Linkletter

Pacific Region

Haley King

Parent Janie King

Northern and Eastern Ontario Region

Alexandra MacDougall

Parent Jyl MacDougall

Toronto North Region

Laurence Lussier

Parent: Louise Lussier

Montreal Region

Angela Worbec

Parent: Janice Worobec

Rocky Mountain Region

Erin Lalonde

Parent: Kathy Lalonde

Rocky Mountain Region

Roxane Campeau

Parent: Louise Valliere

Montreal Region

What we noticed with all applicants is that conditional acceptance letters
were attached from the University, either awaiting the final marks, payments
etc. The committee did not want to send the cheque with a letter to a qualified
candidate and then find out that they never attended. As well, since the intent
is to promote UTE we wanted to get back to the grass roots of the membership.
As a result, letters were prepared to the qualified candidates, advising them
that they were successful and to provide us with their acceptance and proof
of registration. Once we received the required information, arrangements would
be made for the presentation of the award. These letters were cc’d to
the RVP and the Presidents of the local. The chair of the committee then emailed
all affected Presidents informing them of who the parent was of the local and
to make contact with them after receiving the letter too make arrangements
for presentation etc. The committee felt by doing this, the member in some
cases may be meeting a union representative for the first time, as well as
promote the positive side of what UTE does.

At the time of writing all successful candidates have responded to the letters,
and in most cases a certificate with a cheque has been presented. We have asked
that pictures be taken with the candidate, parent and the union President and
be given to us for the December newsletter.

Letters are attached that were sent to the successful/unsuccessful candidates.
The committee agreed that our National President should sign the successful
letters as this keeps in line with the PSAC procedure on scholarships. For
the unsuccessful, the chair of the committee would sign the letters.

The committee would like to thank Mike Lefebvre for his work in this. Brother
Mike is the one that reviewed the dates of applications, to confirm that they
were received on time. As well, he is the one that has handled the applicants’ response
to our letters to ensure certificates and cheques were initiated and forwarded
right away to the locals.

The committee is recommending some changes to the scholarship guidelines as
a result of reviewing the applicants that did not make the first cut as well,
as the qualified applicants.

Recommendation #1

That REQUIREMENTS be moved after eligibility and CRITERIA after REQUIREMENTS

Reason: Criteria appears to be misleading for some individuals as they never
submitted the requirements. As well, how the honours and awards committee will
be selecting the candidates should be last.

Recommendation #2

Under Requirements remove “with reference to the financial need, please
explain your circumstances, if you desire”. Change to “Financial
Need, please explain your circumstance”.

Reason: Currently financial need is listed under criteria and then under requirements.
Under Criteria were saying that the committee may look at this but really it
is not necessary but under Requirements were asking them to explain there circumstances
but only if they desire. The committee is requesting that it is a requirement
and circumstances are taken into consideration especially when there is more
then 1 application. In most cases, all scholarship programs request financial

Recommendation #3


Reason: Refer to recommendation #2

Recommendation #4

Under Requirements bullet “Proof of Registration”, remove “attendance
may be verified before the granting of the award”. Change to “Attendance
shall be verified before the granting of the award”.

Reason: Per the committee’s report, final acceptance at a university
cannot be done until the final marks are in. As we would like to have the
locals give a presentation of a certificate and a cheque to the qualified
candidate, this cannot be done until the student verifies the final enrollment.

Recommendation #5

Change “your application must be postmarked no later then May 15th to
June 15”. Remove “If your transcript of your most current academic
standing is not available at that time, the transcript must be postmarked
no later than July 7.

Reason: There was not one case that a student could not provide us with there
most current marks per the requirement. The only information received after
that date was final marks which were not considered in the assessing. The final
marks are given to the University in order for them to get final acceptance,
which we are currently asking the candidates for. As well, there were two cases
that a qualified applicant had not received a response from a school by May
15. The committee would like to simplify the process for the candidates to
have one date.

Recommendation #6

Under Requirements “Note:” Add “if your submission is
by visual, please provide an explanation of how it meets one of the topic”

The process that we used this year will be used for a base for next year’s
selection. Although the committee expected to receive more applications
then we did, the numbers allowed us to develop a basis fairly quickly on
how we would do the selection. We do recognize of course that there may be
some alterations for next year, as we do expect more application since we
will be promoting the scholarship through our UTE newsletter.


The executive committee presented us with the following to look at:

“There was discussion on the issue as to whether the UTE should actively
participate in this initiative. It was agreed that as UTE, the organization,
we would not participate. However, the Committee believes that the UTE Honours
and Awards Committee should look at other awards from the UTE for either members
or activists in our locals. Some examples were: volunteer of the year, local
of the year, activist of the year and Humanitarian of the year. The President
will pass this item to the Chair of the Honours and Awards Committee for their
action. They will be asked to report back to the Council.”

The committee looked at this and had a full discussion but recommended that
we would not create any further awards at this time. We currently have the
Award of Merit (Godfroy Côté Award) and the Certificate of Achievement
(Al Lough Award) that the committee feels aren‘t being used enough. Prior
to us promoting something new, we would like to see the awards that are in
place being used more often. Although we don’t disagree with the concept,
this is a union organization that involves many volunteers that dedicate many
hours etc, to the organization as well, as other volunteer organizations which
they are not being recognized. The committee has agreed that for now we would
begin to promote these awards through a bulletin, and or newsletter, to brings
this to the attention of all members. We will also look at possibly implementing
changes to the current awards. The committee plans to meet prior to December
Council, in order to update council further.

I would like to thank Denis Lalancette and Terry Dupuis the committee members
for having to alter there schedules in order for us to meet. As well, since
this was my first time chairing, I appreciated there assistance.

Respectfully submitted,

Pamela Abbott

Chairperson of the Committee

Addendum to the

Honours and Awards Committee Report

Whereas, Ian Daykin has been Local President of Edmonton for 10 years and
has been an alternate RVP for Rocky Mountain Region for 6 years.

Whereas, Ian
has been called on many times by this Component and the PSAC for help in
many matters, from Harassment investigations, to Health and Safety Adjudication
Hearings, and he was a very credible witness for the fight to keep the MG's
in the component as Union members.

Whereas, Ian has demonstrated to be a true
union activist, never fearful to speak his mind and is a friend to everybody
who befriends him.

Whereas, Ian has a lot of community experience, including
being a Mayor of a small town in Saskatchewan while still working for the

Be it resolved that Ian Daykin be presented with the Godfroy Côté
award at the September 2003 Presidents conference.


Visit often, and send us your comments to the webmaster@ute-sei.org if you have any problems.

Copyright © 2000-2013 UTE All Rights Reserved