Leave for Spousal Union – the EC Group
June 1, 2004
On May 26 2003, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that three federal government employees who had been denied marriage leave under their collective agreement had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. All three had sought marriage leave for the purpose of participating in a public ceremony to express their commitment to a same-sex partner. Treasury Board was directed by the Tribunal to eliminate the discriminatory application of marriage leave in all of the collective agreements to which it is a party. The other party, the union, is also responsible for ensuring that the collective agreement is non-discriminatory.
Same-sex couples can marry in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. In each of these provinces, same-sex couples went to court for the right to marry and the courts ruled strongly in favour of marriage equality in each case.
In light of recent court decisions on marriage and to implement the order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Treasury Board decided in August 2003 that until it had the opportunity to address this issue in collective bargaining, employees in a same-sex relationship who marry in a province where same-sex marriage is recognized will be granted Marriage Leave for the purpose of getting married. In provinces where same-sex marriage is not available, employees who apply for leave to participate in their public commitment ceremony are to be granted 5 days of family-related leave subject to management approval, until such time as the Treasury Board Secretariat directs otherwise.
EC members of the opposite sex are currently entitled to 5 days of paid leave under the Marriage Leave Article (Article 21.01) for the purposes of getting married. For all intent and purposes, someone could take 5 days of leave to get married more than once during their career in the federal public service. Given that we knew that Treasury Board had been ordered to eliminate the discriminatory application of the marriage leave article in agreements, and given that it extended the entitlement to 5 days leave to same-sex couples, we felt confident that the Treasury Board would accept our proposal to grant leave to same-sex couples who wish to declare spousal union in a public ceremony.
The Treasury Board’s response was to remove the Marriage Leave Article in the agreement and to allow EC members to take x number of days, for whatever purpose, but only once in their career. The Treasury Board did not table an actual number, but three days was proposed at other bargaining tables. The problem we had with this proposal is how Treasury Board proposed to eliminate the discrimination – 1) by taking away an entitlement from heterosexual EC members rather than extending it to all EC members in a non-discriminatory fashion and 2) by lowering the current entitlement of a group against which there is no discrimination.
The issue was not resolved, and our proposal for 5 days of Leave for Spousal Union has been referred to arbitration.
June 1, 2004
On May 26 2003, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that three federal government employees who had been denied marriage leave under their collective agreement had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. All three had sought marriage leave for the purpose of participating in a public ceremony to express their commitment to a same-sex partner. Treasury Board was directed by the Tribunal to eliminate the discriminatory application of marriage leave in all of the collective agreements to which it is a party. The other party, the union, is also responsible for ensuring that the collective agreement is non-discriminatory.
Same-sex couples can marry in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. In each of these provinces, same-sex couples went to court for the right to marry and the courts ruled strongly in favour of marriage equality in each case.
In light of recent court decisions on marriage and to implement the order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Treasury Board decided in August 2003 that until it had the opportunity to address this issue in collective bargaining, employees in a same-sex relationship who marry in a province where same-sex marriage is recognized will be granted Marriage Leave for the purpose of getting married. In provinces where same-sex marriage is not available, employees who apply for leave to participate in their public commitment ceremony are to be granted 5 days of family-related leave subject to management approval, until such time as the Treasury Board Secretariat directs otherwise.
EC members of the opposite sex are currently entitled to 5 days of paid leave under the Marriage Leave Article (Article 21.01) for the purposes of getting married. For all intent and purposes, someone could take 5 days of leave to get married more than once during their career in the federal public service. Given that we knew that Treasury Board had been ordered to eliminate the discriminatory application of the marriage leave article in agreements, and given that it extended the entitlement to 5 days leave to same-sex couples, we felt confident that the Treasury Board would accept our proposal to grant leave to same-sex couples who wish to declare spousal union in a public ceremony.
The Treasury Board’s response was to remove the Marriage Leave Article in the agreement and to allow EC members to take x number of days, for whatever purpose, but only once in their career. The Treasury Board did not table an actual number, but three days was proposed at other bargaining tables. The problem we had with this proposal is how Treasury Board proposed to eliminate the discrimination – 1) by taking away an entitlement from heterosexual EC members rather than extending it to all EC members in a non-discriminatory fashion and 2) by lowering the current entitlement of a group against which there is no discrimination.
The issue was not resolved, and our proposal for 5 days of Leave for Spousal Union has been referred to arbitration.