&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; APPENDIX H

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; (NATIONAL EXECUTIVE MEETING - SEPTEMBER 2003)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; CEIU ORIENTATION COMMITTEE

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27^th, 2003

Were present=

Denise Best &nb= sp; NVP, Newfoundland and Labrador

Maurice Simard &= nbsp; NVP, Québec

Janina Lebon &n= bsp; NVP, CIC

Jacques Lambert NVP, Québec

Excused: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Susan Finn, HR/RR

Brother Jacques Lambert chaired the meeting.<= /o:p>

1. In= troduction

The m= embers of the Orientation Committee tried to determine the extent of their terms of reference, asking themselves whether, as a committee, they had the authorit= y to set their own terms of reference as they meet and to deal with issues that = they were not specifically asked to deal with.

Usual= ly, a committee gets its terms of reference from another level or another entity within the organization. The terms then specify expectations, operating parameters for the committee and any monitoring required.=

Does = the Orientation Committee have full autonomy to set its own terms of reference?= Is it normal for a working committee to have such a wide autonomy? The members= are ready to work this way as long as the National Executive is comfortable with this approach.

In li= ght of these questions, the members of the Committee agreed that they should recei= ve subjects on which an orientation is required from the National Executive or= the National President instead of working as they do now.

2. &nbs= p; Review of the previous report

The m= embers of the Committee reviewed the report produced in March 2003 in order to pro= vide an update on suggested actions.

With respect to follow-up on grievances, the members of the Committee wish to st= ress the urgent need to set up a national grievance tracking system in order to provide adequate and up-to-date information to the members, for instance on= who is responsible for the file, at which level the grievance will be dealt with and what the deadlines are.

The m= embers of the Committee have found that the processing of grievances, including classification grievances, within CEIU is generally not well understood by = the rank-and-file members. Our analysis shows that this has even generated a fa= ir amount of confusion.

In or= der to properly inform members on how to go about filing a grievance within CEIU, = the Committee recommends (A) that a booklet including exce= rpts from the collective agreement or other background documents be issued to all members. This recommendation will have to be costed.

The d= iscussions of the Committee clearly showed that the members do not understand the goal= s, the objectives and the steps of the classification grievance process. The Committee therefore recommends (B) that Shoptalk issue 2 be updated.

The Orientation Committee agrees that it is in a position to provide an orienta= tion on classification.

Lastl= y, some of the actions suggested in the previous report seem to be still pendi= ng. It would be interesting to get information on who will be responsible for t= he various actions approved by the National Executive and on the time frame for their implementation.

3. &nbs= p; Silent monitoring

The i= ssue of silent call monitoring has been discussed on many occasions over the yea= rs by members who work at call centres and in collection services. The issue is very important for these members.

Silent monitoring is essentially designed to help members in training or in a situation where an assessment must be performed in order to improve service= to the public. At no time should random monitoring be used to appraise an employee’s performance. This remains the most acute concern for the members involved.

Does = CEIU agree with silent monitoring? Does CEIU have a position on this issue of di= rect concern to the members who are subjected to random telephone call monitorin= g? The members asked CEIU to develop a union orientation on many occasions and they want a union policy to be produced.

In or= der to meet this demand, the members of the Committee agreed to submit a policy which has be= en discussed in Québec for a few years to the members of the National Executive for comment and guidance.

By th= e same token, the members of the Committee found that it is important to determine what is being done in other departments that have call centres or collection units whose staff is represented by other PSAC Components. The Committee as= ks that the National President consult these Components. The Committee also as= ks that the members of the National Executive approach Area Councils in order = to make them aware of their concerns on the issue or merely to obtain relevant information.

On the other hand, the Committee will ask for the support of the National Office in order to review available case law related to the confidentiality of information exchanged between employees and clients in relation with the sp= irit of the Privacy Act.

4. &nbs= p; Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service=

Durin= g the Summer of 2003, the Treasury Board Secretariat issued and distributed to federal government employees a values and ethics code which states democrat= ic and professional values that are related to ethics and persons.<= /span>

Chapt= er four (4) of this code of ethics caught the attention of the members of the Committee. In this part of the booklet, we read that any public servant who witnesses or has knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace may refer the mat= ter for resolution, in confidence and without fear of reprisal, to the Senior Officer designated for the purpose by the Deputy Head under the provisions = of the Policy on Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace.

Accor= ding to the interpretation which the employer or the members could give to this section, the members of the Committee believe that there is a high risk that this will promote ``whistleblowing`` between coworkers in offices for all sorts of reasons. This will eventually create an environment where members will be turned against each other.

In th= is context, the members of the Committee recommend that CEIU clearly make its position known: CEIU does not encourage monitoring of workers and finds unacceptable that members blow the whistle on o= ther members.

In an= other vein, the members of the Committee note that administrative inquiries will = be a very important factor in an environment where whistleblowing is promoted or encouraged. We may indeed presume that such a policy will give rise to an increase in administrative inquiries about our members.

The m= embers of the Committee recommend that a booklet on administrative inquiries be produced and distributed to the members of the National Executive and to Lo= cal Presidents. Since quantities are too limited for any extensive distribution, the Committee recommends that the contents of this booklet be posted on the CEIU website.

Lastl= y, the members of the Committee wish to inform the members of the National Executi= ve that a labour-management committee on administrative inquiries and the whole issue of ethics has been set up in Québec in order to promote preven= tion and provide directions both on the conduct of inquiries and on procedural fairness. The members of the National Executive will be kept informed on the results of this regional committee’s work.

5. &nbs= p; Interdepartmental committee on compensation consultants

The m= embers of the Committee were informed that there apparently is a national interdepartmental committee whose goal is to review the classification standards for compensation officers and transfer them from the AS group to = the PE group. For your information, the PE group is not unionized. It seems, according to the information available, that the PSAC is involved in this initiative which apparently was initiated by the Department of National Defence.

Appen= dix “C” of the collective agreement (table 1) partly explains the setting up of this national committee. However, we have no information concerning follow-up on this since the collective agreement was signed.

Some departments have asked their members to vote for or against the proposal th= at they be classified in the PE group rather than in the AS group. The vote was held on September 21^st, 2003 in Québec and it was even he= ld in English. The results of the votes thus administered by various departmen= ts are not known.

The v= ote was held without the local union being informed either by the union or by management. According to the information which we have, the regional and national levels of CEIU were al= so kept in the dark. We take a chance in assuming that the PSAC was not inform= ed of the process by the departments. To date, the National President of CEIU = was informed by the NVPs but not by the PSAC.

Such = secret actions by the employer resemble raiding against the union and cannot be tolerated. Potential loss of members is not known for the moment.

The Committee agreed that we must act very quickly.

The Committee recommends:

That = the National President of CEIU be asked to immediately put an end to this unfair employer solicitation of the union members.

That = the PSAC share any information which it presently has or will receive in the future.

That = the National President of the PSAC be urgently invited to present any informati= on which the PSAC presently has on the issue to the National Executive before = the end of this meeting.

Respe= ctfully submitted.

The m= embers of the National Orientation Committee=