Minutes of the Contact Centre Committee Meeting

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS:

Opening Remarks

The Management Committee Co-chair welcomed all attendees and opened the conversation by noting that this was his first meeting in a leadership role alongside the Union representatives. He emphasized that communication, through various channels, has been improving recently and stated that he is a strong believer in maintaining positive and collaborative Union-Management Relations (UMR). He expressed his commitment to fostering open communication and constructive engagement moving forward.

The Union Committee Co-chair thanked management for the opportunity to meet and took the opportunity to raise ongoing concerns regarding information sharing and communication transparency. It was noted that the Union is often receiving information from employees in the field before receiving updates directly from management. Specific concerns were raised regarding operational changes, including a new quality process, changes to the Accountability Framework (AF), and pilot initiatives that had not been brought forward to the Committee for discussion.

Management acknowledged these concerns and apologized for the lack of communication related to those initiatives. They committed to reviewing the situation internally and analyze communication gaps. They also indicated that updates regarding Accountability Framework changes had been shared earlier that morning and explained that the previous formal update on the topic had occurred in January, which contributed to the perception that there had been little new information to provide in the interim.

Management encouraged the Union to continue raising concerns directly with them between committee meetings rather than waiting for formal meetings, emphasizing the importance of maintaining open and ongoing communication channels. In response, Union representatives reiterated that the AF has continued to evolve over time and stressed that they want to be informed proactively rather than learning about developments through employees in the field. They noted that when no communication is received from management, the assumption becomes that no significant changes are occurring, which can create frustration when information later emerges.

Management reiterated their commitment to improving communication practices moving forward and emphasized the importance of keeping lines of communication open between all parties.

Jennifer Cave, Director, Initial Intervention and Resolution Division (IIRD), Collections and Verification Branch (CVB), then advised the committee that this would be her final meeting. She indicated that a replacement had not yet been formally announced but confirmed that updates would be communicated through established UMR channels once decisions are finalized.

Brian Oldford, committee co-chair also shared that he would not be seeking re-election in the upcoming elections and plans to retire officially sometime before the end of the year. He indicated that noted that he would advise the committee once communications and correspondence should no longer be directed to him.
 

1. Ratio of permanent vs. contract employees by contact centre 

The Management Committee Co-chair provided an update for the Assessment, Benefits and Services Branch (ABSB). The percentage of perm employees within the SP-04 and SP-05 groups had decreased from 51% to 37% as temporary staffing associated with the filing season has recently increased. Similarly, within the Individuals Program area, perm staffing levels declined from 47% to 33%. It was emphasized that these figures reflect normal filing season fluctuations rather than staffing reductions.. Overall, within the branch, the perm ratio is shifted from 56% to 43%.

The group was advised that a reassessment of staffing requirements will take place in September 2026 to determine next steps regarding term employees beyond that period. Management acknowledged that future changes are expected but stated that the possible impacts are not yet known.

Management clarified that while no commitments could be made at this stage, management is actively exploring opportunities to identify alternative contracts or placements for term employees with contract ending where possible. This includes discussions with the Collections and Verification Branch (CVB) and consideration of potential redeployment opportunities elsewhere within the Agency. Discussions are still in the early stages, but management is actively examining available options.

The Director, IIRD, then provided an update specific to DMCC staffing levels in CVB as of May 19, noting that the workforce composition currently stands at approximately 33% permanent employees and 76% term employees. She characterized these changes as part of normal operational fluctuations associated with seasonal workload demands.

2. Debt Management Call Centre (DMCC) update

The Director, IIRD, provided an update on DMCC’s operational performance, which continues to exceed expectations. Year-to-date service levels are currently at 98%, with both occupancy rates and abandoned call targets being successfully achieved. Management expressed satisfaction with these results and acknowledged the team’s continued strong performance. It was noted that the operational environment is significantly compared to ABSB’s contact centres, particularly as most of the work consists of external calls.

Discussion then moved to funding and organizational stability. Management confirmed that funding for the 2026–2027 period remains stable, with no significant changes anticipated at this time. No major developments or shifts are expected in the immediate future, allowing teams to continue focusing on ongoing priorities and long-term initiatives.

Management then discussed the telephony transition project, which remains a key focus area for the DMCC. Deployment is scheduled for December 4, 2026. Teams are actively engaged in preparation work, and consultations with employees and operational groups are planned for the fall to support readiness and ensure a smooth implementation process. The transition initiative was identified as one of the organization’s primary strategic priorities moving forward.

Furthermore, management provided an update on the DMCC Technical Guide that was launched in December 2025. Feedback on the guide has been very positive, with participants noting that it has been well received across teams. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the guide meets all accessibility standards, which was highlighted as an important accomplishment. Management confirmed that plans are already underway to expand the guide to additional government programs over the next year.

Management also discussed Accounts Receivable National Inventory (ARNI) and ongoing collaboration with ABSB. It was noted that the relationship and operational connection between the two programs have now come to and end. 

The Union asked whether there were any updates specific to the Atlantic region. Management responded that there is currently nothing new to report for that region. While hiring activity is anticipated across the country, there are no concrete staffing announcements or confirmed plans at this time.

3. Contact Centre Services Directorate (CCSD) update

The Management Committee Co-chair opened the topic by providing statistics on the recent filling season. He confirmed that the 70% service level target was successfully met, achieving an overall average of 76% across the filling season. This result was supported by having more agents available compared to the previous year, along with the use of overtime on Saturdays and peak demand periods to help manage workload effectively.

Management also highlighted the impact of the significant reduction in call volumes during the filing season. A total of approximately 6.6 million calls were received, representing a 46% decrease compared to the previous year. This decline was noted as a substantial shift in operational demand and one of the most important changes in the season’s results. Several factors were identified as contributing to this reduction. These included improved call handling efficiency, where faster resolution reduced the need for repeat calls, as well as a decrease in electronic sign-in-related calls. Additional contributors included reduced inventory in adjustment-related workloads and fewer tax-related inquiries overall. Together, these elements contributed to a positive outcome for the filing season. Management also stated having experienced no system issues or operational disruptions throughout the period.

The Union acknowledged that the additional staffing played a key role in achieving these results. Management confirmed that they are currently exploring how the organization could position itself similarly in future years to sustain strong performance outcomes. The Union also highlighted that customer satisfaction levels were notably high during the filing season, reinforcing the positive experience reported by taxpayers.

Furthermore, the Union also raised the possibility that reduced call volumes may also have been influenced by external factors, such as recent negative publicity potentially discouraging taxpayers from calling. Management agreed that this could be a contributing factor and emphasized the importance of evaluating all drivers behind the decline. They noted the importance of assessing the results in more details and consider how to intentionally replicate favourable conditions in the future while continuing to ensure positive outcomes for taxpayers.

Workforce flexibility and staffing models was also addressed. There was discussion about improving how employees move between different roles and functions. It was noted that in the previous year, SP-04 Contact Centre Agents supported SP-03 tax centre work; however, it was acknowledged that replicating this approach in the future may not be feasible. While cross-training and role flexibility were seen as beneficial for operational needs, participants agreed that this area requires further evaluation and currently remains in the early stages of review.

To conclude, the Union enquired about performance on Saturday shifts. Management reported that, overall, these days were very busy but successful . Participation was voluntary, and agents handled calls within their areas of training. The outcome was described as effective, with strong service delivery during peak demand.

4. Contact Centre Services Directorate (CCSD) update

The Director, Contact Centre Services Directorate (CCSD), ABSB, provided an update on the upcoming implementations and demonstration of the CCaaS platform, a cloud-based solution designed to modernize the CRA’s contact centre environment. A business engagement is planned to take place June 26, 2026.

The Director, CCSD, presented an overview of the system through a series of internally developed demonstration videos designed to illustrate the agent experience and key features of the new platform. The first video focused on the agent’s point of view, highlighting a simplified and more streamlined login process. A key improvement includes the introduction of a single sign-on capability, replacing the current requirement for agents to log into multiple systems. The overall desktop experience is intended to remain familiar to current users to minimize disruption, while improving usability and efficiency.

The second video demonstrated the call connection experience and highlighted areas where future enhancements are anticipated. While many functional elements are still under development, the system is designed to allow flexibility for service improvements, including the potential integration of past taxpayer interactions to provide agents with better context during calls. Additional features under consideration include improved authentication support and enhanced technical guidance tools. Management noted that a three-week preparation period will be provided to support agents through exercises and readiness activities ahead of rollout.

Accessibility was identified as a key design principle throughout development. The system is being designed in consultation with users with varying accessibility needs to ensure it is inclusive and usable for all employees when it is deployed.

The third video introduced early-stage artificial intelligence (AI) functionality, such as AI automated transcript of the call, which will initially be tested with a limited group of agents. This phased approach is intended to allow controlled experimentation to assess value and functionality before any broader deployment across the contact centre environment.

Management then elaborated on the onboarding and readiness plan leading up to the production launch scheduled for June 26, 2026. A structured three-week onboarding period has been established to ensure agents become comfortable with the new system while allowing the project team to identify and resolve issues before full deployment.

During the first week, the primary focus will be on system access and technical readiness. Agents will verify that they can successfully log in, that their credentials function correctly, and that they have the appropriate access permissions required for their roles.

The second week will focus on simulated call scenarios and hands-on testing. Agents will participate in practical exercises that replicate real-world customer interactions. These simulations will allow them to use various tools, transfer calls to support queues, and evaluate the overall capabilities of the system. The goal is to provide meaningful experience with the platform before agents begin handling live customer interactions.

Training will be supported through a series of short learning capsules tailored to different roles. Depending on an employee's responsibilities, they may be assigned up to approximately 40 training modules. While some modules are only a few minutes in length, the total training time is expected to be approximately one and a half hours. The approach is designed to balance concise instruction with practical application, enabling agents to quickly move from training into hands-on experience.

A key question raised during the discussion was whether agents would eventually be able to rely on the AI-generated summaries in place of their own notes. Management noted that one of the pilot's goals is to establish trust in the technology and determine whether agents still need to document interactions manually or if the AI output can be considered sufficiently accurate for operational purposes.

Furthermore, management highlighted the organization's ability to conduct pilots with a limited group of agents through the CCaaS environment. This approach minimizes operational risk while providing valuable feedback and measurable results before broader implementation. Insights gathered from the pilot will help inform future training requirements and determine whether additional refinements are needed before wider deployment.

The Union asked whether the system could accurately handle accents, language barriers, and mixed-language conversations. The Director responsible for the project team responded that testing conducted thus far in both English and French has produced favorable  results. In cases where French speakers use English terminology, the system has been able to capture the conversation accurately. While no significant issues have been identified during testing, further validation under real-world conditions remains necessary.

Furthermore, management stated that observing system performance during actual customer interactions will provide the most meaningful assessment. Quality teams will review transcripts and recordings to evaluate transcription accuracy and quality, with the focus placed on the technology rather than agent performance.

The Union expressed enthusiasm for the three-week onboarding period, noting that it creates an opportunity to identify bugs and allows agents to become comfortable with the platform before handling live calls. The smaller initial group of agents participating in testing will also enable more focused support and the gathering of feedback. They also noted the new login experience is a significant improvement over the current process.

The group also discussed training logistics. Training sessions and hands-on practice opportunities will occur between approximately 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Agents will be temporarily removed from operational duties during portions of these sessions to avoid service disruptions while ensuring adequate time for learning and experimentation.

Accessibility considerations were also highlighted. The platform has been tested with individuals who require accommodations to ensure that accessibility features function correctly and that the system supports diverse user needs. 

The Union also inquired about the AI's learning capabilities and whether the technology adapts to language patterns over time. Management indicated that the pilot includes evaluation of these capabilities as part of the overall assessment.

The Director, CD, shared that the DMCC will follow a similar approach when implementing significant technology changes, including dedicated training periods. While CVB is interested in AI transcription capabilities, she noted that the operational environment presents unique challenges, particularly regarding payment arrangements, legal warnings, and the high level of transcript accuracy required for compliance purposes.

To conclude, management stated that they will continue introducing new features and enhancements over time. As additional changes are planned, engagement with Unions will continue to ensure they remain informed and involved throughout the ongoing development of the platform.

5. Union Issues

a) Online chat scheduling

The discussion began with management addressing Union’s concerns, shared before the committee meeting, regarding employee placement and accommodations within the scheduling system. Management explained that the organization creates the overall scheduling and staffing framework, while regional teams are responsible for assigning employees based on operational needs, accommodations, and other individual circumstances. 

The Union noted that they had not heard any recent concerns regarding accommodations, particularly following several changes that had been implemented over time, suggesting that previous issues may have been addressed or reduced through recent adjustments.

The discussion then shifted to concerns about schedule visibility within the online chat platform. The Union advised that employees had raised concerns about being able to view schedules and see when colleagues are absent. Some employees have expressed discomfort with the level of information visible to others through the platform.

In response, management clarified that the system is not intended to display personal information. The visibility of employee status is limited to operational information necessary for workforce management functions. Absences are visible primarily because they play a role in facilitating shift trades and schedule management activities. Employees do not have access to personal details regarding the reasons for an absence or any accommodation-related information.

Management further explained that one of the goals of the new platform is to introduce enhanced shift-trading capabilities within the regions. To support this functionality, employees need sufficient visibility into colleague schedules to determine whether shift exchanges are feasible. As a result, some level of schedule and availability information must be accessible to support the shift-trading process effectively.

The Union also shared concerns that some employees have become frustrated after observing differences in online chat assignments. Employees have noted that some colleagues receive more online chat hours than others. The visibility of colleague statuses and schedules has contributed to these perceptions and, in some cases, has led to questions about workload distribution and assignment practices.

Management responded by reiterating that accommodations are not a factor in these observations and that the online chat environment offers limited flexibility in how assignments are distributed. They emphasized that the information visible to employees is intended to support scheduling functions rather than provide insight into staffing decisions. However, they acknowledged that the visibility of employee statuses can create misunderstandings if the purpose of the information is not clearly communicated.

The discussion concluded with recognition that the implementation of the new platform may provide an opportunity to better educate employees about why certain scheduling information is visible. Participants agreed that clear communication regarding the purpose of status indicators, absence visibility, and shift-trading functionality could help address employee concerns and reduce misconceptions about how scheduling decisions are made.

b) Vacation / Workforce Management (WFM) issues

The Union noted that when employees submit vacation requests, they may initially be denied due to staffing limitations or insufficient available coverage. However, concerns were raised about situations where denied requests continue to be reflected as “denied” even though additional staffing hours or operational flexibility later become available. Employees have expressed frustration with this process, particularly when circumstances change and there may be an opportunity to reconsider previously rejected requests.

Furthermore, the Union also raised concerns about instances where employees who call in sick during periods that overlap with previously denied vacation requests are asked to provide medical documentation or sick notes. Concerns were expressed that denied vacation requests should not influence how legitimate sick leave is assessed or managed. 

Management acknowledged the importance of maintaining visibility into denied vacation requests. They explained that management regularly reviews vacation rate approvals, and requests that were initially denied due to operational constraints may be reconsidered. The ability to reassess previously denied requests provides flexibility and may help maximize vacation opportunities for employees when coverage becomes available.

Furthermore, management noted that some of the concerns being discussed appear to vary by region. They indicated that they have been communicating these issues to regional management teams and to ensure that concerns raised at the national level are properly shared across the organization. By elevating these discussions at the national level, regional leaders are given an opportunity to review local practices to determine whether adjustments may be necessary to address employee concerns.

The conversation then shifted to WFM and adherence tracking. The Union explained that some employees actively monitor adherence figures and compare them against information presented in employee scorecards. There is a strong interest in ensuring that performance metrics are accurate, particularly because employees view these figures as important records that could potentially influence future opportunities, including rehiring considerations.

Management questioned how adherence calculations are being performed and interpreted by employees. They referenced the complexity of the adherence framework, including factors such as buffers, sliders, and other variables that influence final calculations. They further explained that adherence figures generated through the AF process are based on complex calculations that can be difficult to replicate manually. As a result, discrepancies may arise when employees attempt to compare dashboard information against official adherence calculations.

The discussion also addressed ongoing concerns related to vacation scheduling practices. The Union noted that employees continue to report situations where requests for a full week of vacation are approved only in part. When asked whether these concerns were mainly in the regions, the Union indicated that the issue continues to be reported primarily within the Atlantic region.

Management acknowledged the concern and indicated that the practice remains an area of ongoing discussion. The discussion suggested that regional operational requirements and staffing pressures may contribute to variations in how vacation requests are managed and approved. 

The Union also questioned whether vacation allocation is managed differently for Team Leaders compared to phone agents. Management explained that regions are provided with overall staffing numbers and are responsible for allocating resources according to operational needs. While workforce planning establishes phone coverage requirements, regional management teams determine how remaining resources are distributed among support functions, leadership responsibilities, and other operational activities.

The discussion concluded with recognition that many of the concerns raised involve regional practices and local operational decisions. Participants agreed on the importance of continuing to share feedback across regions, improving transparency in workforce management processes, and ensuring that employees clearly understand how vacation requests, adherence metrics, and staffing allocations are managed within the organization.

c) CVB Call Centre Non Call Centre Roles

Management confirmed having completely removed and is no longer considered an active concern. This resolution was acknowledged as having eliminated the immediate operational challenge, allowing attention to shift toward evaluating longer-term approaches and future accommodations.

Management explained that by November, filing season activities are usually complete, resulting in increased capacity within the ABSB environment. With reduced seasonal pressures and greater resource availability, the organization has an opportunity to reassess whether additional accommodations or service models may be appropriate moving forward.

Management further noted that the existing approach has produced positive results, and the model has demonstrated its ability to support operational needs while effectively managing workloads.

Given the positive outcomes, management discussed the possibility of continuing or expanding this approach in the future. However, they emphasized that any long-term decisions would be made following a thorough review of operational requirements, staffing availability, and service outcomes. 

Discussion then turned to the Vochells tool and its role within the broader operational structure. It was clarified that Vochells functions as a platform rather than a traditional call centre environment. As a result, oversight and management responsibilities fall under regional management structures rather than centralized call centre operations. 

Participants agreed that further discussions with regional management would be necessary to better understand future requirements and potential opportunities.

d) Accountability Framework

The discussion began with the Union raising concerns about the impact of abusive callers interactions on employees. Historically, individual call centres have maintained their own local procedures for handling abusive calls. However, they noted that the nature of these calls has become increasingly severe, with agents regularly experiencing aggressive, threatening, discriminatory, and emotionally distressing interactions.

Concern was expressed regarding incidents involving racist comments and other forms of verbal abuse directed at agents. The Union noted that these types of interactions can have a significant emotional impact, with some employees requiring time away from work to recover from particularly difficult calls. 

Management and the Union acknowledged that the organization should place greater emphasis on recognizing and addressing both the emotional consequences and operational impacts of these interactions.

The current process map for handling serious incidents was reviewed during the discussion. Employees are also encouraged to access support resources through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and to discuss concerns with their Team Leaders following difficult calls.

The Union noted that this topic appears to be absent from the latest AF guidance and questioned whether current procedures provide sufficient direction regarding recovery time and support for employees experiencing emotional distress after abusive interactions.

Management indicated that the Director responsible for the wellbeing plan is currently reviewing procedures related to abusive calls and employee support. They committed to following up with the Director in charge to determine what work is currently underway and what additional actions may be required. Management also acknowledged that abusive calls are becoming more common and emphasized that these situations present a different type of challenge than traditional emergency call scenarios, such as bomb threats or suicide-related calls.

As a follow-up action, management advised the Committee that an update would be distributed by email to the committee Union representatives within the next day or two outlining information that had been gathered regarding the issue and any ongoing review activities regarding the AF tool. 

The conversation then transitioned to staffing, performance measurement, and the role of the AF tool in workforce management processes. The Union raised questions regarding the balance between quality and productivity measures, emphasizing the importance of accuracy within performance evaluations. Management confirmed that changes related to performance expectations and measurement had previously been communicated and that accuracy remains a critical component of employee assessment.

The Union expressed concern regarding the increasing variation between regions in how staffing and rehiring decisions are being managed. They argued that employees should have access to consistent opportunities regardless of their location and suggested that a stronger national framework is needed. Allowing each region to independently establish its own practices risks creating inequities and undermining confidence in organizational processes.

Management noted that one of the challenges currently facing the AF team is the lack of consistency among regions regarding how rehiring decisions should be conducted. While there is broad recognition of the need for a common approach, regional stakeholders continue to have differing views on the most appropriate methodology.

Furthermore, management acknowledged that discussions remain ongoing. They explained that the current objective is to establish minimum standards through the AF framework while still preserving enough flexibility for regions to address specific operational needs. They noted that concerns regarding regional variation had been raised during previous discussions and that staffing remains an area traditionally managed at the regional level. Nevertheless, they expressed surprise at some of the feedback received, particularly given that employees across the country perform the same duties under the same job descriptions.

The Union questioned the role of AF within the process if regional differences continue to influence decisions. They noted that the primary purpose of the AF tool was originally to support rehiring decisions. 

Management reiterated that further updates would be provided as discussions progress and as additional feedback is collected.

The Union emphasized that the effectiveness of any workforce management tool depends heavily on employee trust. They noted that rehiring decisions represent a foundational aspect of term employee culture and expressed concern that inconsistent application of AF could undermine confidence in the system. 

Management clarified that there is no intention to remove AF from the process. Rather, management intends to return to the table, continue discussions with stakeholders, and refine the approach as needed. They reiterated that additional information and decisions would be shared as work progresses.

The discussion on the topic concluded with a request from the Union to provide the written communication and explanatory text that had been shared regarding AF.

e) Accommodation requests

The Union representatives reported that the matter has evolved beyond isolated incidents and is now being viewed as a significant regional challenge. They reported that the issue is affecting multiple locations and requiring increasing attention from both management and union representatives.

To illustrate the scope of the issue, the Union mentioned that a total of 318 complaints related to the subject were received, representing an increase of approximately 200 percent compared to the year before. The increased volumes were described as a growing concern for union representatives, particularly for UTE Labour Relations officers. 

Management acknowledged the information and indicated that the concerns, along with the recently received complaint statistics, would be shared with regional office directors.

f) Wellbeing Framework

The conversation began with a review of the Employee Well-Being Framework, a topic that has been discussed at the committee on several occasions and further developed through various discussions and initiatives. Management explained that progress on the framework had slowed in part because of extensive consultations with regional offices. During those discussions, many regions expressed the view that employee well-being is primarily a localized responsibility rather than a national initiative.

Management emphasized that the framework was designed to establish broad expectations, guiding principles, and a consistent approach across the organization, while allowing regions to develop practical solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Under this model, well-being is viewed as a shared responsibility involving management, employees, unions, and regional leadership. Headquarters provides the overarching framework and principles, while regional offices are expected to implement initiatives that reflect the realities and challenges unique to their locations.

Management noted that the framework had been shared with the Union and indicated that little formal feedback had been received following its release.

The Union acknowledged that the framework's publication was a positive step but questioned what actions had resulted from it. They expressed concern that employees continue to hear discussions about well-being at the national level without seeing meaningful changes in their workplaces. The framework established principles without clearly demonstrating what had been done to improve employee experiences.

Management responded that the original intent was to encourage regions to share best practices with one another and learn from successful local initiatives. Headquarters facilitated the exchange of information and provided guidance but did not intend to prescribe specific activities or programs for individual offices.

The Union emphasized the importance of creating a feedback loop that allows employees to see tangible improvements resulting from discussions about well-being. Many employees continue to experience significant workplace stressors despite ongoing conversations about wellness. They highlighted the unique challenges faced by term employees, noting that uncertainty regarding employment status can be a major source of stress. Union representatives continue to direct members toward available support resources, but there remains a desire to see more visible organizational action.

Management clarified management's position, explaining that Headquarters is not structured to direct individual regions on how to implement wellness initiatives. While national leadership can establish expectations and provide support, responsibility for local implementation remains with regional management teams.

The Union also shared that there are different interpretations of what workplace well-being means. From the Union's perspective, well-being extends far beyond occasional morale-boosting activities or workplace events. Rather, it is closely tied to broader workplace culture, employee morale, respect, support, workload management, and the overall employee experience.

The Union highlighted one initiative that has produced benefits. They noted that increased time allocated for Team Leader feedback and employee engagement has had a positive impact on morale and employee experience. This was cited as an example of a practical change that employees have recognized and appreciated.

Management explained that they had revisited the issue with regions that were not fully utilizing the time allocated for employee engagement and feedback. Guidance was provided to encourage greater use of the available time and to reinforce its importance in supporting morale. 

Also, the Union emphasized the importance of employee recognition, noting that many employees simply want more positive feedback and acknowledgment for their work. This need is particularly significant for term employees, who often experience uncertainty regarding future employment opportunities and can feel additional pressure as a result.

Management asked whether these concerns had been raised at regional consultation tables. Union representatives confirmed that they had. However, they reported that discussions often fail to progress beyond broad, general responses. Local presidents have repeatedly attempted to raise the issue, but many feel that meaningful discussions are not occurring at the regional level. During tax season in particular, well-being discussions were reduced as operational priorities took precedence.

Management also clarified that the framework itself does not establish direct accountability mechanisms for Headquarters. However, they agreed that measuring outcomes and identifying regional gaps may be worthwhile areas for future exploration. They noted that both a National Well-Being Committee and regional committees currently exist and that regions have been provided with additional off-phone time and communications encouraging them to use that time for employee-focused activities.

Closing remarks 

The Union revisited an issue that had been raised during a previous meeting concerning the allocation of time for coaching sessions. They referenced concerns about the standard 30-minute coaching window and noted that findings from a recent Office of the Auditor General (OAG) report suggested that limitations on coaching time may affect the effectiveness of employee development and performance.

In response, management provided an update on the current approach. They explained that Team Leaders now have access to a one-hour block of time for coaching activities, which provides greater flexibility than the previously discussed 30-minute window. This additional time is intended to ensure that meaningful coaching conversations can take place.

Management further noted that when a Team Leader determines that additional coaching time is necessary beyond the standard allocation, there is a process in place to request further support. This approach is intended to balance employee development needs with operational requirements while ensuring that employees requiring additional support can receive it.

Furthermore, management explained that the standard coaching model anticipates approximately 30 minutes of direct coaching interaction from beginning to end, which management believes is sufficient in most circumstances. However, they emphasized that flexibility remains an important principle. While coaches are expected to conduct focused coaching sessions, Team Leaders are allocated a full hour within their schedules to accommodate preparation, coaching discussions, follow-up activities, and any unforeseen requirements.

The conversation then shifted to concerns regarding the upcoming September 4, 2026 term contract ending period and the uncertainty facing term employees. The Union expressed concerns that information regarding staffing decisions and contract renewals is often communicated very close to key deadlines, leaving little opportunity for representatives to assist affected employees or provide meaningful guidance. 

Management acknowledged these concerns and provided an overview of the current planning process. They explained that staffing decisions are typically finalized five to six weeks before the end of employee contracts, placing the expected timeline for more definitive information around the end of July. At present, management continues to review available funding, operational requirements, and workforce needs.

Management expressed confidence regarding the organization's ability to achieve its staffing targets. However, final decisions will depend on several factors that continue to be evaluated. Management also noted that redeployment opportunities continue to be actively explored as part of broader workforce planning discussions. 

The Union Committee Co-chair thanked participants for their collaboration and shared on his appreciation towards recent respectful interactions.