Staffing Committee

Minutes of the Staffing Committee Meeting

October 1-2, 2007
In attendance:  Sabri Khayat, Chairperson
Madonna Gardiner
Marc Brière
Linda Cassidy
Absent:  Pamela Abbott

1. Agency Classification Standard (ACS)

Sabri followed up with the employer and the “thank you” letters to the SP contacts were sent.

Linda provided an update on the ACS process.  All submissions were responded to by the employer and have been issued to all submitting Locals.  Linda will be issuing a bulletin explaining the process to all Locals in the near future.  In addition, a list of all submissions will also be sent to the Locals. Locals will be directed to contact Linda Cassidy or Kent MacDonald if they have any questions or concerns.

Sabri, Pamela and Marc did attend ACS training in May.

2. Work Description Review

The process of work descriptions review has reverted back to the Staffing Committee, in particular the TC and TSO representative.  To date, the Committee has three work descriptions in inventory and those will be responded to no later than October 10th 2007.  Sabri provided an overview of the H.R.S.D.C. issue and the grievances outstanding.

3. Specified Period Employees

The Committee discussed the issue of terms and Call Centre employees being hired as part-time and receiving full time hours.  Linda advised that it appears we have some members willing to grieve and Sabri added that there may have members in Montreal willing to fight this issue as well.  Sabri will contact the Montreal Local and will provide the information to the National Office.

A meeting was held July 17th for the Term Committee and a summary was issued to all Locals.  The next meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2007.  Linda and Sabri will attend and a summary will be issued following the meeting.

Seasonal indeterminate employment – Subsequent to our last meeting, Guy Proulx and Barb Slater issued a memorandum advising they will not be supporting Seasonal Indeterminate employment in their Branches.  Taxpayer Services Debt Management took UTE’s comments under advisement and decided that it was not a viable alternative.  They contacted UTE to provide their rationale as to why this is not practical but UTE does not accept the explanation provided.  The Committee believes the only option remaining to achieve this is at the bargaining table.

Work Samples – UTE met with the employer to discuss concerns raised over the definition of “work samples”.  The employer requested some time to research this issue and will respond to our concern at the October 15th meeting.  Madonna and Marc will contact the Locals as to how their recall process works and what they define a work sample to be.

Probation – Linda and Sabri attended a meeting May 30th on probation.  UTE raised concerns regarding a one day break for terms causing a restart to the probation period.  The employer understood our position but believes their position is reasonable.  (They did indicate that breaks related to special circumstances; i.e., system shutdown, are not considered a break in service.  Therefore, service is not interrupted).

4. Revenue Collections Integrated Enforcement Teams

The employer did not have the report ready at the June 22nd meeting.  Linda sent a follow-up email to the employer in July requesting an update on this item.  The employer advised they should have the report ready for our next meeting which is November 20, 2007.  A summary will be sent out after the meeting.

5. Performance Assessment Scales

Linda will follow up with the employer on the regional reports and national summary.  UTE has been receiving many concerns from the field regarding Management misleading the membership into believing the unions were consulted and we concurred with the expanded scale.  It should be noted that the employer’s power point presentation has speaking notes that indicate that neither UTE nor PIPSC agreed with an expanded scale.  The UTE believes this expanded scale has great potential for abuse and the members should be advised to be very careful before signing off on their assessment especially if it’s anything less than “meets”.  The employer will use its new scale to place members on action plans if they do not have “meets” in every expectation of their performance.

Members should approach a member of their Local Executive before signing off on their assessment if they have any concerns.

6. Student Hiring – Annex J

This Annex has been revised and notification was sent to all Locals indicating there is an amended Annex J available.

7. Revenue Collections 2010

The Agency continues to meet with the Union quarterly on this initiative.  A briefing document is sent after each meeting.  The last meeting was June 22nd and the summary was attached to the Staffing Committee Council Report.  The next meeting is November 20, 2007.

8. Office Audit Job Description

Further to the last meeting, a response was not received.  Linda and Madonna will follow up again.

9. Observe and Attest

Several issues were raised during the UTE Presidents’ Conference regarding this issue and the interpretation of the Team Leaders.  It has been brought to our attention that team leaders are requesting their employers to write up summaries and then they are attesting to the event.  This is not what is supposed to happen.  The employer had advised that a team leader is to observe the actions, discuss with the respective employee and then attest to the level. 

Linda has requested a meeting with the employer.  The employer representative is not available until after October 9, 2007.  An update will be sent out after the meeting.

10. Information from Locals

Madonna and Marc will reestablish the local contact list as well as request verification of each locations liaison.  Madonna and Marc will then issue all Staffing Bulletins and memos to the liaison to establish a network.

Locals will also be asked to update Madonna or Marc of any changes and we will endeavour to include an update sheet in the envelopes for each Local at the Presidents’ Conference.

11. Work Assessment Checklist – A work review program for collectors

As reported, both communiqués have been issued to all collectors.  There still appears to be a lot of confusion over Work Assessment Checklist and the Quality Assurance Program.  As a reminder to Locals, please be advised that UTE has been fully involved and is fully supportive of the Work Assessment Checklist but we have not been involved in Quality Assurance.

12. Quality Assurance Program

The Quality Assurance is a program created as a result of the Auditor General’s report and is a locally managed program.  The Committee will issue a bulletin explaining the Quality Assurance Program.

13. Term Offers

Madonna and Marc will contact the Locals to see if the “availability” clause is being used in all letters of offer.  If this is a widespread concern, we will set up a meeting with the employer.  If this is isolated to certain Locals, we will refer the issue back to the respective Locals to deal with.

14. Guidelines on Promotions and External Recruitment Without Selection Process

The employer responded to our concerns on July 18, 2007.



“There should be separate Guidelines for "Selection without process" and "External Recruitment"”  

The original document has been reorganized to make it easier for the reader and ensure a common understanding.

“The term "Pool" should not be used as the Agency is moving away from this concept. “

Eliminating the concept of pools is currently being considered for the future vision of the CBHRM system.  Knowing that this notion is only at the conceptual stage and has not yet been implemented, the term “pool” is still being used in the Agency.

“In French, they don't use "Pool", they use "répertoire".  The meaning is not the same.”

In the lexicon of the Guidelines, “Pool” is defined as:
Group of candidates eligible for placement who are qualified in all respects as a result of a selection process*.
And « Répertoire » is defined as:
Groupe de candidats admissibles au placement, qui sont qualifiés à tout égards, à la suite d’un processus de sélection*.
As per these definitions, the meaning is the same.

“Page 5 - Why is the footnote 1 included?”

The footnote 1 on page 5 has been removed.

“Under item 6, Recourse, it should be clearly indicated how those in the "Area of Selection" will be notified of their recourse rights.”

Item 7, section on recourse of the modified version, has been enhanced to ensure managers are aware of the recourse rights and who should be notified.

The final version is dated June 2007 and was issued to all offices by the CRA.  The Staffing Committee sent the links to the Locals in July 2007.

15. Working Groups

Job Competency Profile and Competency Consultant Working Groups - Both working groups completed their work and the recommendations went forward to the Competency Based Human Resource Management Advisory Committee (CBHRMAC). 

Job competency profile - The recommendations were accepted but the documents have not been made available.  Specific emphasis was placed on the following:

  • # of competencies within a JCP
  • The type of competencies within a JCP
  • The levels with a JCP, more specifically “threshold” and “stretch”
  • 1st line supervisors and the ability to demonstrate the competencies required for these positions
  • In-house tools versus standardized assessment tools
  • An overall review of the competency catalogue

Competencies Consultant – Recommendations went to the CBHRMAC in late April.  The Committee agreed in principle to all recommendations.  Recommendations will go to Lysanne Gauvin and then to A.M.C.  Information is still not available to be shared. 

This working group was mandated to review the existing role of the Competency Consultants, with the intention of modifying the role to reflect that of an “advisor to the competency assessment process” rather than an “evaluator” with final decision making authority.  Throughout this process, it was important to remember that the responsibility remains with the employee to provide the Competency Consultant with the information necessary to make a recommendation regarding a competency level.

Individual Feedback Working Group – Linda and Sabri were both participants on this working group.  The group met several times during the month of June and came up with several recommendations to go to the CBHRMAC.  The group was required to discuss/review the following:

  • What are the expectations of all individuals involved in the Individual Feedback process
  • Who are these individuals
  • What guidelines currently exist
  • Do they provide enough detail
  • What else may be needed and by whom
  • How does the organization ensure individuals understand their roles and responsibilities

16. Interchange/Actions

Several Locals brought concerns forward regarding going to work for other departments.  The employer was inconsistent in its application, in some cases actually requiring members to take personal leave.  The Committee contacted the employer requesting a meeting.  In the interim, the employer issued a Policy Statement which alleviates the situation temporarily.  The link is available via the Infozone.  The Committee will be following up with the employer on a meeting to establish a permanent solution.

17. Competencies on MSS

As a result of queries received from the field, a meeting was held with the employer.  An update of this meeting was sent September 20, 2007.

18. Call Site Meeting

This issue was discussed briefly as the TC and TSO representatives will be included in the meeting.  To date no specifics are available. Sister Bannon will be finalizing the details and once the information is available the committee will review any necessary documentation.

19. TC Caucus

Madonna reported on the TC Caucus held at the Presidents’ Conference.