BC/YT Region
Regional Union
Management Consultation Committee (RUMCC)
Record of Discussions
for May 18, 2005 & June 14, 2005
Participants
|
Pat Wakefield |
NVP CEIU, Co-chair |
|
Grant McGregor (May 18, 2005) |
Representative, PIPSC |
|
Jim Beguin (June 14, 2005) |
Representative PIPSC |
|
Dave Stemler |
Representative, APSFA |
|
Frank Tanaka |
Representative, |
|
Christine Dockman |
RVP, NHWU |
|
Management: |
|
|
Bill Ross |
Regional Executive Head, Co-chair |
|
Steve Barnard |
Assistant Regional Executive Head |
|
Bob McMorine (June 14, 2005) |
Director Human Resources |
|
Con Leonidas |
Regional Manager, Human Resources |
|
Judith Walton |
Team Leader, Staff Relations |
|
Absent: |
|
|
Bob McMorine (May 18, 2004) |
Director, Human Resources |
|
Claudine Philippe Derek Brackley |
RVP, National Component |
|
Grant McGregor (Absent June 14, 2005) |
|
|
Support to the
Committee |
|
|
Jill Mullis |
Regional Executive Office |
Management
Items
Highlights of Federal Budget
Bill
Ross, Regional Executive Head and management co-chair provided highlights of
the Federal Budget having impact on Human Resources Development Canada and
Social Development Canada which included, Seasonal Agriculture Workers, Quebec
Parental Benefits, Workplace Strategy and the Daycare Initiative. If the
Federal budget does not pass the lack of funding will have severe implications
for New Horizons and Workplace Skills programming.
As
the Service Canada Initiative was not in the Federal budget it will proceed as
it was passed by Treasury Board on May 16th.
Expenditure Review
Bill
Ross advised that Expenditure Review resulted with the gathering of 12 billion
dollars of Government funds from various departments for reallocation to other
Government priorities. This resulted in
$100 Million dollars of cuts to HRSDC through EI transformation and processing
of EI claims plus an additional $100 Million from HRSDC in the form of Program
savings. Program savings will be achieved by 70% through increased technology
and 30% from operational procedures. There will not be cuts in Youth,
Disabilities or Seniors programming budgets.
Service
Canada was initiated as a result of Expenditure Review to disperse service to
Canadians in a better fashion.
Comments / Questions
·
NHWU asked if
funds required for reallocation would come from salaries.
Management
responded that ultimately savings will be generated over time through EI
transformation with 1% reduction in the size of the Federal Public Service
through attrition. This does not take into account the reallocation through
Expenditure Review. However, Service
Canada would be in line to receive some of the budget reallocation within
Government of Canada priorities.
Service
Bill
Ross provided an update on Service Canada.
Treasury Board approved an entity called Service Canada. The Government
of Canada is currently in the process of rolling out Service Canada and
determining what that will involve. Minister Stronach will be the Minister
responsible for Service Canada within HRSDC.
Maryantonett Flumian (MF), Associate Deputy Minister Human Resources and
Skills Development is the Executive Head for Service Canada. The Deputy Ministers and MF will send out an
all staff bulletin advising of the legal entity and subsequent changes as they
evolve. This will impact on
relationships with other federal departments looking at shared services in the
future. All regional delivery will
become a part of Service Canada. Labour programs will now fall under
HRSDC. All other regional activities
remain the same with Call Centres, Human Resources (HR), Financial and
Administrative Services (FAS) and Systems being nationally controlled. For example HR will continue to serve
SDC/HRSDC but will be managed out of National Headquarters.
Comments / Questions:
·
NHWU asked
which 12 departments will offer service to Canadians through Service Canada.
Management
advised the 12 departments include: Human Resources and Skills Development
Canada, Social Development Canada, Foreign Affairs Canada, Public Works and
Government Services Canada, Agriculture and
·
CEIU
emphasized the need for clarity in messaging and asked if the communiqué would
be sent to all staff of both HRSDC and SDC.
Management
confirmed that all employees of both departments will receive the communiqués.
·
PIPSC asked if
Service Canada would become another agency.
Bill
Ross advised that originally the submission to Treasury Board was to set up a
new department however, TB on May 16, 2005 provided authority to redirect funds
to Service Canada. Consequently the urgency to set up Service Canada as a new
department is no longer there.
A
new structure will evolve meanwhile for now regions will remain in tact.
·
CEIU raised
concern that future Service Canada front end staff would become “Wal-Mart
greeters” losing the intricate skills currently held by SDRs.
Bill
Ross responded that O Canada representatives are IS-2’s which is a significant
increase to the current SDR classification. SDRs should not be compared to the
“Wal-mart greeter,” but rather pathfinders for quality customer service.
·
APSFA asked if
there would be a difference in Service Canada offerings between devolved and
non-devolved regions.
Bill
Ross responded that BC, Ontario, PEI, Nova Scotia and Ontario as non devolved
regions will continue to deliver EI Part II the same as we do now.
Bill
Ross further advised Deputy Ministers of the12 departments have started to meet
to discuss how things are going to evolve. The concept of Service Canada is to
expand Services of the 12 departments.
This involves 53 business lines.
An example of how Service Canada could be utilized in areas of
commonality was Veterans Affairs being a department with the fastest growing
client base that doesn’t have the resources to provide services all across the
country.
Management
further emphasized there is a good understanding why people are concerned. Due to the unknowns at this time, there will
be limited expansion for the time being.
We can also learn a lot from
Action
Interim Operational Delivery
Model
Bill
Ross provided a copy of the BC/YT Interim Operational Delivery Model. Highlights included; All of ISP and EI
processing (backend transactional Insurance operations) report to Steve
Barnard, Assistant Regional Executive Head.
Steve is responsible for Processing Operations. Consolidated points of Service include
Vancouver/Burnaby, Langley satellite has been added to Surrey, Coquitlam/North
Shore, Prince George/Terrace, Okanagan/Kamloops/Nelson, Greater Victoria
(includes Saanich/Victoria with Cowichan now reporting to Greater Victoria),
and Nanaimo remains the same. The consolidations are intended to create further
savings.
Areas
highlighted in blue (Labour Program, Call Centres, Integrity, Human Resources,
Finance & Administration, Systems and ISP Outreach) on the Interim Model
chart do not report to Bill Ross but provide services on a shared basis and
report to NHQ. They will continue to be
a resident function and still proceed under SC without the direct reporting
relationship to the REH.
Questions and Comments
·
CEIU voiced
concerns raised by Corporate Services staff working in locations outside the
lower mainland. The concern is they will be forced to relocate to Harbour
Centre or Regional Headquarters if they want to continue performing corporate
services duties.
Bill
Ross acknowledged the concern voiced by CEIU and advised he will try to clarify
previous messages out in the field. [G1] However, examples of compression and consolidation will
continue to take place such as: Brian Smitheram Service Delivery Manager
Corporate Services now being responsible for Burnaby/Vancouver and
Coquitlam/North Shore HRCC areas.
Bill
Ross emphasized the need to build towards the desired future state. That is why it is termed “interim model” and
will be used until a national model is imposed. The key difference is the
reporting relationships. Management further
emphasized the only people doing different work as a result of the Interim
Operational Delivery Model are the SDR’s (performing front-end jo[G2]bs) and HRCC Directors who are no longer responsible for
managing Insurance processing.
Steve
Barnard confirmed nobody within EI & ISP processing have new positions or
been reclassified as a result of the implementation of the Interim Delivery
Operational Model. The changes involve the move toward symmetry. The region is exploring ways to manage one
workload both holistically and geographically particularly with the drop in
claim loads.
·
CEIU
highlighted there is a concern amongst some of the membership that resourcing
strategies to compensate for attrition may focus on situating new hires or
replacements in lower mainland locations vs. outlying areas. Pat
Bill
Ross confirmed that indeterminate staff work for the region regardless of where
they are located. Work does not follow an individual with the one workload
concept.
·
CEIU requested
clarification of Integrity.
Integrity
includes SIN registry and relationships with other information gathering
systems. It does not include Investigation and Control which fall within Steve
Barnard’s area of responsibilities.
·
CEIU asked if
Director Corporate Services is in the process of researching the jobs that CS
staff are performing.
Management
confirmed that research is currently underway to better understand and
rationalize the corporate services work being performed in each office, with
the desire to synchronize as much as possible.
·
CEIU voiced
concern raised by some of the membership regarding the change in process for
receiving cash payments. Concern being:
potential interest charged to clients as a result of delays caused by payments
now being forwarded to Regional Headquarters for processing.
Management
agreed to research if the new process has any negative impact on citizens and
will respond.
·
NHWU asked if
there is awareness within the region that some EI roles are being divided into
front-end and processing.
Management confirmed there was awareness within the region
and individuals affected would be informed.
Con Leonidas Manager Labour Relations provided an overview of impacts on
HR processes as a result of the new Interim Operational Delivery Model. Most
authorities and processes don’t change.
Some changes at the first level include Service Delivery Representatives
now report to the service area director who is their first level of grievance.
The other unique situations involve Insurance Processing Operations Centre
(IPOC), Investigations, and Labour Exchange/Foreign Worker staff at Harbour
Centre and field Labour Market Information Analysts (LMIAs). For all employees
there is no change in 2nd level (REH or functional ADM if nationally
managed) or 3rd level (ADM-HR).
Grievance Process charts outlining the process will be distributed to
directorates for posting on the bulletin boards.
Local Union Management Consultation will maintain their
orientation to existing offices. Service Area Directors will take the
management lead but at the request of the unions it was agreed that all SDMs
should participate at the UMCC meetings including the union representatives
from satellite offices.
Action:
Management agreed to research if the new process for receiving
cash payment has any negative affect for clients.
Implementation
of new PA Collective Agreement
Bob McMorine, Director Human Resources advised all regular
retroactive cheques have been released. Cheques for individuals who have been
on some type of extended leave such as Leave with Income Averaging or maternity
leave may experience another 2-3 weeks delay.
·
CEIU expressed
appreciation on behalf of the unions with regard to the quick release of the
retroactive cheques so far. A big thank you goes out to all Compensation and
Benefits staff.
Copies of the agreement are expected around the end of June.
Union items:
Printers in
the offices agenda item was
removed from the agenda by the union
Response to
issues surrounding Grants and contributions
The G&C Working Group Committee requested CEIU to
express concerns to the REH with regard to both the delay in the response as
well as with the response itself. The main concern voiced by the committee is
that due to community members’ perception of conflict of interest, union
members feel that their integrity is lessened. As they perceive that their
concerns have not been addressed they have lost faith in the system and wanted
the REH to know that. The Working Group members also alleged that Values and Ethics
and Conflict of Interest are not totally understood by all managers. Members
had hoped to see the Post Employment Conflict of Interest Guidelines revised to
apply to those at the PM 1 level and upward.
Comments:
·
NHWU asked if
the REH would request a revision of the Post Employment portion of the Vlaues
& Ethics Code for the Public Service.
Bill Ross stated the post employment requirements are clear.
Further, he emphasized Segregation of
Duties was implemented to protect the integrity of program funds. It is up to all staff throughout their
employment to stand up to what they believe in throughout the review processes
that are in place.
Consequently Bill Ross, Regional Executive Head stated he
would not endorse changes to the Values & Ethics Code for the Public
Service.
·
CEIU alleged
concern that many Project Officers learn on-the-job and become responsible for
contracts prior to receiving formal classroom training.
·
CEIU asked for
a listing of a) how many program staff particularly Program Officers and
Programs Operations Consultants have received formal classroom training to date
and b) “what specific training” they received.
Management asked what positions/classification levels were
represented on the working group.
·
CEIU advised
the Working Group Committee included Program Operations Consultants, Program
Officers, and Service Delivery Assistants from various areas of the region.
Action Item:
Management agreed to provide a listing of the numbers and
training provided to date.
Scent Free
Policy
Due to the sensitivities to scents in the workplace
experienced by some employees, CEIU requested that BC/YT Region support a scent
free policy.
Bill Ross advised that there is no point in developing
a policy that cannot be enforced. Treasury Board has determined that any such
policy in unenforceable. While we can ask for staff cooperation where an
individual has a known sensitivity, we
cannot direct employees or the public as to their use of personal care
products. The National Policy Health and Safety Committee have determined
likewise. Sensitivity to scents is not a workplace Health and Safety Issue, it
is an individual employee’s medical issue. In such cases we would accommodate
employees as appropriate.
Action:
The Unions and management agreed to jointly develop a
message to generate awareness of the sensitivities and impacts of scents in the
workplace to be placed on the Regional News website.
June 14, 2004
- Union Items Continued
Internal
Competitions After Working Hours
NHWU received complaints from some of it’s’ members that
payment of overtime for time spent during the testing and interview process
(that occurred after normal hours of work) has been refused.
Management advised there is no provision in the collective
agreement to pay overtime to employees who attend interviews/testing for
internal competitions after normal hours of work or during AWAs. Management further commented that it is very
rare for competitions to be conducted outside the normal hours of work.
Management stated this particular situation was a national
competition of which BC/YT region had no input to how it was conducted. The process was the same for all candidates
across the country. Consultation with the union would have been done at the
NUMCC.
Required
Postings in Worksite
NHWU requested management ensure all required postings are
posted.
Management thanked the union for bringing this item to their
attention.
Action
Management agreed to send out an e-mail reminder to all
directorates listing the specific documents to be posted on the Management
Bulletin Boards in all offices.
Full Access to
Formal Recourse
NHWU stated that due to management’s interpretation of the
collective agreement, full access to formal recourse at the regional level is
inequitable for those working outside the Lower Mainland. The union suggested
if management does not choose to interpret the collective agreement as intended,
then video conferencing be used for second level grievances to provide
opportunity for those outside the lower mainland to be heard.
Management stated that employees are provided an opportunity
to attend and be heard at the first level. The hearing at the 2nd
level is between the griever’s representative and the Regional Executive Head.
It would be impractical to have all non lower mainland grievances via video
conference. In the past, at management’s
request, due to the complexity of the grievance, there has been one hearing
heard via video conference.
Bob McMorine advised if the union can show where management
is applying the right to be heard inconsistently, the union can bring it back
to the RUMCC table.
Management suggested if a grievance bypasses the 1st
level, based on the nature of the grievance and the complexity, the
representative can put forward a business case to staff relations to have the
grievance considered for video conferencing.
Meeting Dates:
Due to the limited availability of the RUMCC members
throughout the summer months and December holiday season, the unions requested
RUMCC meeting dates be pre-scheduled
Decision:
RUMCC meetings will be pre-scheduled to take place the third
Thursday of each quarter. Future RUMCC
meetings will be held October 20, 2005, January 19, 2006, April 21, 2006, June
15, 2006.
June 18th:
Due to lack of time, the remaining May 18th
agenda items put forward to June 14, are incorporated into the May 18th
Summary of Discussions. Those items included; a) Internal completions after
work; b) Required postings in worksites by management; c) Full access to formal
recourse.