CASE MANAGEMENT AND EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION PROCESSES. 1. Why enter into discussions with the Employer around an expedited process?

Transcription

1 CASE MANAGEMENT AND EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION PROCESSES From 1999 to 2007, the Parks Canada Agency conducted a full review of all its work descriptions. The process, which led to thousands of grievances being filed, has been commonly referred to as the National Review. The following is meant to demystify the case management and expedited adjudication processes co-developed by the Union (National Component, UCTE and PSAC) and the Employer by providing answers to the following three questions: Why enter into discussions with Parks Canada around an expedited grievance process? What is the process? How does it impact your individual grievance(s)? 1. Why enter into discussions with the Employer around an expedited process? With over 2000 active grievances, including 400 that have either been referred to the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) or are being held in abeyance, it was in everyone s interest to find better ways of addressing these grievances. Further, the issues in dispute needed to be addressed in a more cohesive and timely way. In that context, the parties co-developed an expedited process. How hard could this be? In the broad labour relations arena expedited grievance processes are commonly found in the private sector as well as in the provincial and territorial public service sectors. Parties often negotiate language related to such processes in their collective agreements. However, this is not common practice within the federal public service. Why? Labour relations in the federal public service are highly legislated.

2 Adjudicators have limited jurisdiction over the type of disputes they may hear. For example, the Public Service Labour Relations Act does not allow adjudicators to make determinations over classification grievances. Over the past years, Treasury Board and separate agencies have taken extremely legalistic approaches to adjudication which are not conducive to addressing disputes in a timely manner. The following type of legal hurdles have become common practice: o Preliminary objections; o Various legal objections during hearings; o Refusal to disclose information prior to adjudication; o Long technical arguments; o Long examinations and cross-examinations; o Numerous adjournments; and o Etc. Lack of resources and staff turnover, which is a common issue for all parties involved (the components, PSAC, the Agency and the Board). It takes time and stability in the staff complement to coordinate, negotiate and develop such a process. For all these reasons, our elected officers and the employer knew they needed to find another way of addressing these grievances. 2. What is the process? In order to meet all legislative requirements, we required three separate agreements: i. Agreement between the National Component, UCTE, PSAC and Parks Canada outlining the process, from the joint triage through to adjudication and classification decisions, including timeframes (the Main Agreement ). ii. iii. Agreement between PSAC, Parks Canada and the PSLRB. Agreement between PSAC and Parks Canada around the issues of retroactivity. Main Agreement Deeming Clause

3 The Main Agreement contains a deeming clause which states that all grievances, regardless of their specific wording, are deemed to contain a statement of duties grievance (including matching issues), an acting pay grievance and a classification grievance. This is a big concession on the part of the employer which will save all parties involved time and resources, as we will not be arguing the specific wording of each individual grievance. Triage Process For the most part, grievances will be grouped by generic work description. It contains an information sharing process, which includes: The creation of a joint committee, which will conduct the triage; A process to consolidate grievance lists. We want to ensure that we have the same names and the same information for each generic job description; The parties will provide each other with their respective positions prior to meeting; A resolution process intended to try and narrow the issues in dispute prior to adjudication; A process that includes the active participation of spokesperson(s); Agreement that the individuals assigned to the joint committee will have the authority to sign off on settlement agreements. Mediation/Arbitration The agreement also contains a mediation/arbitration process, which will be conducted by the PSLRB. We will attempt to resolve outstanding issues through mediation. If the parties are unable to resolve all the issues, the adjudicator appointed by the Board will make a decision on the grievance. The parties have agreed to an informal (less legalistic) approach. They will provide each other with their submissions prior to the hearing, witnesses

4 (spokesperson) will not be subject to examinations and cross-examinations and no case law will be presented. If the adjudicator needs clarifications, he or she may ask questions to anyone involved in the process. The parties have agreed to time frames throughout the process. Agreement with the Board Through this agreement, the Board has committed time and resources to assist the parties in resolving this backlog of grievances. Agreement on the application of retroactive pay In the event a position is reclassified to higher level, this agreement sets out the rules on how retroactivity shall apply. The Employer has formally agreed to an effective date of April 1, 1999 for retroactivity. All former employees who grieved their job descriptions as of the date of the signature of the agreement will be entitled to retroactive pay in the event that their former job was reclassified. In the event a generic work description is reclassified to higher level, all current employees of Parks who have been incumbents of the said position will be entitled to retroactive pay. 3. How does it impact my individual grievance(s)? Does this mean my position will be reclassified? The new process does not mean that your position will be reclassified to a higher level. The addition of functions to a work description does not equate to an automatic reclassification. Once there is a change to the work description, the document must be assessed to the applicable classification standard. Some duties may not be rated under the applicable standard. In other instances, points may already have been allocated for the general function.

5 Process for Parks Canada Expedited National Review Grievances Pre Triage Process General callout to all groups General callout to specific group with specific requirements and announcement of date of teleconference (second contact) Teleconference with group Non participants are tracked and spokesperson(s) are identified (third contact) Non respondents are contacted to provide drop dead date for submissions (fourth contact) 2 weeks Provide missing duties to entire group with the understanding that if they fail to respond, it will be viewed as their implied consent (fifth contact) Final version of modified job description/presentation referred to PSAC for feedback Teleconference with group and PSAC to seek clarification on missing duties (sixth contact) Modified job description/presentation exchanged with the Parks Canada Agency

6 Process for Parks Canada Expedited National Review Grievances Triage Process Missing duties tabled by National Component Labour Relations Officer Spokespeople for both sides provide additional insight Short recess to allow Parks Canada officials to determine how/if missing duties are incoporated in the generic job description Using the missing duties as a guide and an electronic copy of the job description, all parties present try to determine how/if missing duties might be addressed in the job description (spokespeople, PSAC staff, Component staff and Parks Canada officials all Participate) Confirm with spokespeople that changes capture their concerns Revised electronic description ed to spokespeople for final review Spokespeople confirm their acceptance by return