EC Bargaining - FAMILY-RELATED PROPOSALS
January 17, 2008
A series of proposals brought to the table by the EC Bargaining Team can be categorized as problems relating to the restrictive definition of the family; to the quantum of various existing types of family-related leave and problems relating to the absence of certain types of leave in collective agreement that would facilitate members’ efforts to balance work and personal responsibilities.
The latest household figures from the 2006 Census show that there is an increasing diversification of Canadian families: there is a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples (up 32% from 2001); there are more common-law families; more childless couples and a greater number of single-parent households (which make up a record one-in-four family with children).
The 2006 Census results suggest that caring for adult children and an elderly family member is a large part of the work and family challenge for Canadians. According to the 2006 Census, there are nearly four times as many people aged 65 and over as in the first census in 1956. The very elderly group (80 years or older) experienced the largest increase in population compared with 2001 (+25%). Another interesting finding is the trend for young adults to remain in or return to the parental home. In 2006, 43% of the 4 million young adults aged 20 to 29 either stayed in their parent’s home or moved back in.
Estimates from the Labour Force Survey reveal a rising trend in recent years in work absences for personal and family demands. Time lost for personal reasons increased from 7.4 days per worker in 1997 to 9.7 days in 2006. Full-time employees in the public sector lost 13 days on average for personal reasons in 2006.
Problems in Collective Agreements
There are three different definitions of family in collective agreements, under the following Articles: bereavement leave, leave without pay for the care of immediate family and leave with pay for family-related responsibilities. If a member of an employee’s family is not listed in the definition under these articles, the employee is not entitled to the leave.
The definition of “family member” under the Employment Insurance Act for the purposes of compassionate care benefits (i.e. EI benefits to care for a gravely ill person with a significant risk of death) has been expanded to such an extent that a person may receive compassionate care benefits to care for a person who considers them as family member, for instance a close friend or neighbour. Presently, collective agreements do not have a provision for the sole purpose of compassionate care. This leave is approved in accordance with the provisions of the leave without pay for the care of immediate family where “family member” is more narrowly defined than in the Act. The Employer recognizes that this presents a problem if the gravely ill person does not qualify as a family member under this Article, and will grant the leave under the “leave without pay for other reasons”. Therefore, two types of leave may be granted to a member depending on who the gravely ill person is in relation to his or her family, which is in our view an awkward way of being in conformity with the law. Moreover, because of the confusing manner in which the leave is granted, there is the danger that some members and some managers may not be aware that the leave without pay for other reasons is available.
Employees who have legal responsibilities for a relative do not currently have access to bereavement leave, leave without pay for the care of immediate family or leave with pay for family-related responsibilities with respect to this relative. For many employees, there is an aunt, uncle or another relative who is more important to them as a family member than those identified in the definition. They often have taken on legal responsibilities for them. For example, bereavement leave cannot be granted to someone who needs to grieve the death of such a relative or who needs to take care of their legal responsibilities (as executor of the will for example). In addition, there are no leave provisions in the collective agreement in order to meet with a lawyer or notary on behalf of this person or to accompany this person to a meeting with a lawyer or notary.
Results from the Labour Force Survey and feedback from CAPE members confirm that the 37.5 hours (5 days) in a fiscal year for family-related responsibilities currently available to employee in a fiscal year is insufficient.
There is no recognition of provincial “family days” in the collective agreement. Currently, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have enacted new statutory holidays to be observed on the 3rd Monday of February.
There are no provisions in the agreement that specifically permits an employee who returns from maternity leave or parental leave to work a reduced work week.
The period of parental leave currently provided for adoptive parents is insufficient for parents who encounter problems with the integration of the adoptive child into the family.
January 17, 2008
A series of proposals brought to the table by the EC Bargaining Team can be categorized as problems relating to the restrictive definition of the family; to the quantum of various existing types of family-related leave and problems relating to the absence of certain types of leave in collective agreement that would facilitate members’ efforts to balance work and personal responsibilities.
The latest household figures from the 2006 Census show that there is an increasing diversification of Canadian families: there is a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples (up 32% from 2001); there are more common-law families; more childless couples and a greater number of single-parent households (which make up a record one-in-four family with children).
The 2006 Census results suggest that caring for adult children and an elderly family member is a large part of the work and family challenge for Canadians. According to the 2006 Census, there are nearly four times as many people aged 65 and over as in the first census in 1956. The very elderly group (80 years or older) experienced the largest increase in population compared with 2001 (+25%). Another interesting finding is the trend for young adults to remain in or return to the parental home. In 2006, 43% of the 4 million young adults aged 20 to 29 either stayed in their parent’s home or moved back in.
Estimates from the Labour Force Survey reveal a rising trend in recent years in work absences for personal and family demands. Time lost for personal reasons increased from 7.4 days per worker in 1997 to 9.7 days in 2006. Full-time employees in the public sector lost 13 days on average for personal reasons in 2006.
Problems in Collective Agreements
There are three different definitions of family in collective agreements, under the following Articles: bereavement leave, leave without pay for the care of immediate family and leave with pay for family-related responsibilities. If a member of an employee’s family is not listed in the definition under these articles, the employee is not entitled to the leave.
The definition of “family member” under the Employment Insurance Act for the purposes of compassionate care benefits (i.e. EI benefits to care for a gravely ill person with a significant risk of death) has been expanded to such an extent that a person may receive compassionate care benefits to care for a person who considers them as family member, for instance a close friend or neighbour. Presently, collective agreements do not have a provision for the sole purpose of compassionate care. This leave is approved in accordance with the provisions of the leave without pay for the care of immediate family where “family member” is more narrowly defined than in the Act. The Employer recognizes that this presents a problem if the gravely ill person does not qualify as a family member under this Article, and will grant the leave under the “leave without pay for other reasons”. Therefore, two types of leave may be granted to a member depending on who the gravely ill person is in relation to his or her family, which is in our view an awkward way of being in conformity with the law. Moreover, because of the confusing manner in which the leave is granted, there is the danger that some members and some managers may not be aware that the leave without pay for other reasons is available.
Employees who have legal responsibilities for a relative do not currently have access to bereavement leave, leave without pay for the care of immediate family or leave with pay for family-related responsibilities with respect to this relative. For many employees, there is an aunt, uncle or another relative who is more important to them as a family member than those identified in the definition. They often have taken on legal responsibilities for them. For example, bereavement leave cannot be granted to someone who needs to grieve the death of such a relative or who needs to take care of their legal responsibilities (as executor of the will for example). In addition, there are no leave provisions in the collective agreement in order to meet with a lawyer or notary on behalf of this person or to accompany this person to a meeting with a lawyer or notary.
Results from the Labour Force Survey and feedback from CAPE members confirm that the 37.5 hours (5 days) in a fiscal year for family-related responsibilities currently available to employee in a fiscal year is insufficient.
There is no recognition of provincial “family days” in the collective agreement. Currently, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have enacted new statutory holidays to be observed on the 3rd Monday of February.
There are no provisions in the agreement that specifically permits an employee who returns from maternity leave or parental leave to work a reduced work week.
The period of parental leave currently provided for adoptive parents is insufficient for parents who encounter problems with the integration of the adoptive child into the family.