Staffing Committee

Minutes of the Staffing Committee Meeting

July 12-15, 2004
In attendance:

K. MacDonald
L. Cassidy
M. Gardiner
J. Little
S. O'Brien

1. Agency Classification Standard (ACS)

The issue of the delay of the ACS was raised at the June 2004 National Union Management Consultation. The employer’s position is that they are unsure of the impact of the PSAC Challenge to the ACS (MG) and that the standard has to be revisited in light of the removal of the Customs Border Services references. The Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) has asked that the joint working group be re-established to deal with these matters and to move towards implementation of the standard. To date, the Agency has not responded.

The Committee members participation on the working group was discussed and has been clarified.

2. Work Description Review

The Committee is still receiving work descriptions for review under various formats.

3. Finance and Administration (F&A) Work Descriptions

As stated in the last minutes, Kent followed up with staff relations concerning the issue of the ongoing National Work description process. Once again, the Agency has not responded.

4. Specified Period Employees

Kent and Shane attended a multi-union meeting with representatives of the Agency on June 16, 2004 with respect to the recommendations made by the Joint PSAC/CCRA Term Study Working Group. While the Agency is still refusing to implement the automatic conversion, progress is made on the remaining recommendations. There will be a further meeting in the fall to provide an update on the action plan and to report on the changes to the action plan proposed by UTE.

The Committee was also advised that the Assistant Commissioner for the Atlantic Region is directing that a study be conducted for the Atlantic Region on the management of term employees.

5. Agency Staffing and Recourse

a) PIPSC Legal Challenge

The Federal Court has issued a decision dismissing the PIPSC application, finding it “premature and speculative”.

b) The application for judicial review concerning the Agency’s refusal to implement a Reviewer’s recommended corrective action was heard on January 7, 2004. Immediately prior to the hearing, the Applicant was appointed to a position similar to the one in dispute and thus, the Court found the matter moot and declined to address the issues giving rise to the application.

6. Staffing Grievances

Shane explained that he has had discussions with the PSAC about continuing to file grievances against staffing matters with a view to bringing the matter before the Courts. Shane also advised that the Dhudwal case did not deal with the differences between recourse and redress and that we are still seeking a substantive test case to address before the Courts. We are also contemplating whether or not we can address the grievability of staffing issues before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. PIPSC decided not to challenge the Dhudwal case to the Federal Court.

7. CS Educational Standard

Kent has followed up on this matter and the Agency refuses to relent on its position. As there is no further effective way to remedy this situation, no further action will be taken.

8. PQP and other Staffing Abuses

The Committee attended a meeting with representatives of the Agency concerning the above and raised a number of issues and concerns. The employer has not reported back to us to date. Shane will follow up on these matters.

9. Assessment of CCRA Recourse

Deloitte and Touche has now completed its assessment of recourse. The final report should be issued in the near future.

10. Changes to the PQP Process

See number 8 above. Linda also provided an update on information received from the Assistant Commissioner, Atlantic Region, Bob Russell about changes to the PQP process. Shane will contact Staff Relations in an attempt to schedule a meeting with Bob Russell and the UTE Staffing Committee.

11. Quotas – Article 58 of the Collective Agreement

The Committee raised our concerns at the March 29, 2004 meeting with representatives of the Agency. To date, the Agency has failed to respond.

12. Performance Management System

It was agreed that Kent would draft a bulletin on article 58 as it relates to the performance management system. Revenue Collections has listened to the Committee’s concerns and drafted a working document concerning a performance evaluation pilot for the position of PM02 Trust Accounts Examination Officer/Collections. The Committee proposed changes and the Agency accepted all changes. This project will now be piloted in several offices and the Agency will advise the Committee of the specific offices. Kent will send an e-mail requesting this information. The Agency is also now working on a draft for the PM01 Collector positions in Revenue Collections.

13. Access to Personnel Files

Further to our last minutes, this issue was raised with the Agency in our meeting with them on March 29, 2004. Once again, the Agency has yet to respond. Shane will follow-up on this matter.

14. Human Resources Placement Plan

This item was referred by the Work Force Adjustment Committee through the National President. The Committee reviewed the portions of the Plan referred (Human Resources Impact Analysis, Human Resources Strategy and Human Resources Placement Plan). The Committee found nothing in the Analysis or Strategy portions which offended the CRA Staffing Program. With respect to the Placement Plan, however, the Committee had the following concerns:

  • Unless the Placement Criteria are established on a national basis, in full consultation with the Union and determined prior to any WFA situation, the determination of those employees whose services will no longer be required may be arbitrary and subject to manipulation, favouritism, disadvantage and/or abuse.

  • A system to determine employee’s competencies, in a WFA situation, should be clearly outlined and developed in full consultation with the Union.

  • “Operational requirements” must be further defined and should not be an impediment to employees being placed.

  • The term “retraining possibilities” needs to be further defined.

  • What is a “permanent temporary vacancy”? This appears to be an oxymoron.

  • On its face, “flexible selection criteria” is acceptable so long as this term is not interpreted as an impediment to placement. Furthermore, there should be no systemic barriers in the selection criteria.

  • Finally, accountability and non-compliance provisions should be built into the Plan for managers who do not comply with the policy requirements.

15. UTE Owner’s Manual and Achievements Booklets

The Committee reviewed both of these booklets and agreed that there are no further changes to our last submission of October 2001. The Committee will send an e-mail to Bob Campbell and Susan Duncan providing our earlier submission.

16. Equal Opportunities (EO) Conference Workshop

The Staffing Committee was asked to prepare and deliver a workshop for the National EO Conference to be held in Ottawa from October 22-24, 2004. The subject assigned to the Committee was determined to be Staffing and Employment Equity. The Committee discussed and outlined a framework for this workshop. It was agreed that the selected members of the Committee would work independently on the various components and communicate via email on the draft.