CAPE’s WFA Policy Grievances

November 06, 2012 Competitive Process at HRSDC Policy Grievance
This grievance addresses the fact that the employer undertook a competitive process at HRSDC that is in violation of the letter and spirit of provisions of the WFAD. The grievance was heard in August, and was denied. We have since referred the matter to adjudication. The hearing before the Public Service Labour Relations Board on this matter has been scheduled for December 17 to 19, 2012. The hearing will be held at 90 Sparks Street, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario.
Implementation of the Alternation Process Policy Grievance
This grievance concerns the implementation of the Alternation process. A hearing was held in August, and the grievance was denied. We have since referred the grievance to adjudication, and are awaiting a date for the hearing before the Public Service Labour Relations Board. In the meantime we also await a date for mediation, in the hopes of settling the matter in an informal forum.
Definition of Years of Service Policy Grievance
This grievance concerns Treasury Board’s interpretation of “years of service”.
CAPE has won a partial victory in its policy grievance on the definition of years of service for the purpose of calculating the Transition Support Measure of the WFAD. In his decision rendered on September 26, 2012, Mr. Hyppolite, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations with Treasury Board, agrees “that the interpretation of ‘years of Service’ should be broader and include allowable breaks in service.” However, Mr. Hyppolite goes on to say that the employer will change its interpretation of ‘years of service’ in order to include ‘continuous employment’. This interpretation falls short of what CAPE had argued at the July grievance hearing. According to CAPE, in the absence of any qualifier, years of service should be given its ordinary meaning of all years of service, continuous and non-continuous.
At the hearing we referred to a decision of the PSLRB: Klock vs. Canada Revenue Agency, 2009 PSLRB 99 . In Klock, adjudicator Paquet held that the term “service”, which was undefined in the collective agreement and to which no restrictions applied, should be given its ordinary meaning of “a period of employment with a company or organization.”
CAPE has decided to proceed with its challenge of the Treasury Board interpretation. Our Policy Grievance had already been referred to adjudication in early September since the employer had failed to provide a response in a timely manner. We are waiting for a hearing date.