General Secretary's Report

September 20, 2017

Dear Members:

It is with great pleasure that I present the 2016-2017 Annual Report. This report is an explanation of the NJC's work, accomplishments and its challenges from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017.

The National Joint Council (NJC) is a unique organization that is co-managed by the Employer and the Bargaining Agent Sides and its main ingredient to success is relationships. All matters falling under the auspices of the NJC are jointly considered and decided. Further to this, all committees and boards of management have equal representation from both parties. For 73 years, its model has been a successful example of collaboration and co-development as it pertains to service-wide issues that are similar across departments and areas of the country. It is an important entity fostering information-sharing, consultation and collaboration between the federal public service as employer and the 18 federal bargaining agents representing approximately 200,000 employees in the public service of Canada. From its beginnings in 1944 until today, the parties have achieved, through a collaborative framework, agreement on numerous terms and conditions of employment, as well as health-related benefits. While such achievements are not always simple, the parties have focused on common interests with a mutual goal of better working conditions for everyone in the public service. Some of the items discussed and reviewed include the largest health care plan in the country, occupational health and safety and a comprehensive travel directive used by all member employees of the NJC when on government business.

With respect to the day-to-day functioning of the NJC, members of Council from both sides provide even numbers of participants for all committees and every matter is carefully considered together. The staff who sit on these committees are chosen not only for their expertise and experience, but also for their dedication to the collaborative model of resolving grievances and consulting on many other issues. As a result of their efforts, among other things, numerous directives are regularly reviewed and updated and grievances are heard and decided. For such a distinctive organization to achieve successful collaborations, it requires hard work and continuous dedication on the part of all the members of Council, as well as resilience and commitment to the process when conditions are not ideal to collaboration. However, even when difficult issues arise, as is the case from time to time, the NJC has always remained a critical and reliable forum where the parties continue to meet and discuss matters of mutual interest. The value of this cannot be understated - not only for the consistency and stability of the terms and conditions of employment it oversees and its recourse mechanisms, but for building trust, both personal and procedural, and maintaining relationships already created.

Having said this, none of the above would be possible without the very dedicated work of the NJC Secretariat, which supports the parties in all their endeavours. Our small staff work incredibly well together as a team and ensures that all the operations run smoothly, provide excellent support to our numerous committees and provide assistance and answers to any members who seek guidance. Each staff member is an excellent resource on several topics at any given time, and are also very adept at connecting parties to the right sources of information should it not be at our office. As such, I thank them sincerely for their true dedication, integrity and hard work in supporting the work and legacy of the NJC.

The NJC Achievements section of this report offers a brief summary of the some of the significant achievements of the various components of the NJC over 2016-17.

Consultations

Although the success of consultations is dependent on various factors, including the topic of any given consultation, constant, open and rich communication remains key. Striving for meaningful and transparent consultation, and not simply information-sharing, is the continuous goal. Meaningful consultations involve discussions that are up front and involve early engagement whenever possible. Over this past year, several topics of consultation arose on a number of subject matters. The Public Service Commission (PSC) continued to reach out to members of Council at our Quarterly meetings on various and timely issues including the PSC Annual Report, content of employee surveys and Priority Entitlements for Staffing. The collaboration with the PSC is a natural fit in that both the NJC and the PSC address issues that are service-wide and tend to affect all public servants in one form or another. As such, it is expected that this relationship will continue and flourish going forward. Other opportunities for collaboration through NJC meetings included ongoing discussions and consultations with the Treasury Board Secretariat on numerous issues, including Phoenix concerns, consultation from the Canadian Human Rights Commission on web applications, and presentations from Public Works and Government Services Canada (now Public Service Procurement Canada) with respect to the Phoenix pay system as it was approaching implementation.

Communications and Outreach

Building on an initiative begun last year to provide training to those in the labour relations community interested in understanding the NJC and its grievance hearing procedure, the NJC continued to offer this training across the country to those interested from both parties. In addition to numerous sessions held in Ottawa in both French and English, sessions were held in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Moncton. In addition, the NJC began offering specialized training to Departmental Liaison Officers (DLO’s) and Agency Liaison Officers (ALO’s) to assist them in better understanding their role as it pertains to NJC grievances, as well as the relevant procedures and By-laws. Participants found this session to be helpful in fulfilling their roles. As such, further sessions will be planned in the next year. Plans continue into the next fiscal year for further sessions on both fronts where demand is sufficient, including in Ottawa and other cities across the country. Further training will also be developed focusing on other specific audiences related to the NJC. Lastly, outreach in the form of presentations and discussions on the NJC model and its work were provided to members and outside organizations as requested. All the NJC training could not have been prepared and delivered without the tireless efforts of the NJC labour relations staff. Their skills are unique to the public service in that they have regular exposure to files and hearings from both sides of the table and are able to provide assistance and analysis equally, and fairly, to all parties.

The following are examples of other NJC accomplishments during 2016-17:

Administrative and Facilities Support

After moving under the auspices of the Administrative Tribunals Support Services of Canada (ATSSC) after its creation in November 2014, the NJC Secretariat has continued to carefully maintain its operational independence while receiving services and support from this shared services model. While the services provided by the ATSSC continue to evolve and improve as the new organization moves to a steady state, the NJC and ATSSC have worked diligently together to find the right balance between the NJC independent mandate and supporting the administrative needs of the day-to-day work of the NJC. Their work in that regard continues to be greatly appreciated.

As I will be completing my fourth year as General Secretary in May 2017, I continue to look forward to supporting and enhancing the work and profile of the NJC during my tenure and feel extremely privileged to be part of this unique organization that has been a leading example in Canada of the demonstrated value, and ongoing possibilities, of meaningful union-management cooperation.

Deborah Cooper
General Secretary

Mandate

Created in 1944, the National Joint Council today includes eighteen (18) public service Bargaining Agents, the Treasury Board and four (4) “separate Employers” as members. The activities of Council directly affect the working lives of well over 230,000 represented employees in 80 departments and agencies in every region of Canada.

The NJC contributes to effective labour relations and human resources management on many fronts:

NJC processes:

Forum of Choice

Employers and Bargaining Agents have agreed that the National Joint Council is the "Forum of Choice" for co-development, consultation and information sharing between the government as Employer and public service Bargaining Agents. Through the National Joint Council, the parties take joint ownership of broad labour relations issues and develop collaborative solutions to workplace issues.

Governance

Under the NJC Constitution and By-laws, the activities of Council are formally governed at quarterly meetings of all participating Employer and Bargaining Agent members. Decisions of Council are made by consensus of the “Employer Side” and the “Bargaining Agent Side”. In the case of NJC Directives, participating members give full legal force to Council decisions by incorporating new directives as integral components of their respective collective agreements.

The Executive Committee is composed of three representatives from each of the Employer and Bargaining Agent Sides, supported in both cases by a Side Secretary. The Executive Committee is empowered to act on behalf of Council in administering the activities of the NJC during the intervals between quarterly meetings. Executive Committee decisions are subject to formal ratification by Council when they are reported at Council’s regular quarterly meetings. Council may also delegate its decision-making authority to the Executive Committee to facilitate timely and effective action.

The General Secretary acts under the broad direction of the Executive Committee and is not a member of Council or any NJC committees. The Employer and Bargaining Agent sides alternately nominate the General Secretary who heads the NJC Secretariat for a five-year term. The NJC Secretariat, operating under the supervision of the General Secretary, offers administrative and professional support to Council and its constituent bodies.

The day-to-day work of the NJC is accomplished by the many hard-working and dedicated representatives of the parties who serve as appointed members of NJC working committees, working groups and boards of management. These constituent bodies report to Council through the Executive Committee and carry out a wide range of activities as determined from time to time by the Executive Committee.

National Joint Council Members

Employer Members

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Communications Security Establishment Canada
National Research Council of Canada
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Bargaining Agent Members

Association of Canadian Financial Officers
Association of Justice Counsel
Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, CATCA Unifor, Local 5454
Canadian Association of Professional Employees
Canadian Federal Pilots Association
Canadian Merchant Service Guild
Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association
Federal Government Dockyard Chargehands Association
Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (East)
Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (West)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2228
Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Research Council Employees' Association
Unifor, Local 2182
Unifor, Local 87-M
Union of Canadian Correctional Officers – CSN

Executive Committee Members
(April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017)

Employer Side:

Chairperson:

Manon Brassard, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (April– September 2016)
Sandra Hassan, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (Since September 2016)

Vice-Chairperson:

Dan Danagher, Global Affairs Canada

Representative:

Robert Orr, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Secretary:

Jacynthe Séguin, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (April 2016)
Francine Gélinas, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (Since May 2016 - Acting)

Bargaining Agent Side:

Co-Chairpersons:

Ron Cochrane, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (April 2016)
Jean-Marc Noël, Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association (Since May 2016)

Vice-Chairperson:

Robyn Benson, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Representative:

Debi Daviau, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

Secretary:

Andrea Dean, Public Service Alliance of Canada

National Joint Council Secretariat:

General Secretary:

Deborah Cooper, National Joint Council Secretariat

Secretary:

Jennifer Purdy, National Joint Council Secretariat (Acting)

Committee Chairpersons
(April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017)

Foreign Service
Directives Committee: 

Sean Ross, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada

Government Travel Committee:

Janelle Wright, Finance Canada

Isolated Posts and Government
Housing Committee:

Danielle Auclair, Department of National Defence

Joint Employment
Equity Committee:

Nadine Huggins, Justice Canada
Larry Rousseau, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Occupational Health and
Safety Committee:

Stéphane Cardinal, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Official Languages:

Michelle Laframboise, Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services

Relocation Committee:

Daniel Banville, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada

Service-Wide Committee on
Occupational 
Health and Safety:

Don Graham, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bob Kingston, Public Service Alliance of Canada

Union-Management
Relations Committee:

Cathie Fraser, Research Council Employees' Association

Workforce Adjustment Committee:

Greg Gauthier, Finance Canada

Dental Care Plan Board
of Management 
(NJC Part):

Peter Cooney

Disability Insurance Plan
Board of Management:

Paul Burkholder (April- September 2016)
Monique Paquin (Since October 2016)

NJC Achievements

Committees and Boards

The National Joint Council is very fortunate to benefit from the hard work, dedication and wealth of expertise of its Bargaining Agent and Employer Side representatives. Through their efforts, the mandate of the NJC is brought to life and advanced through the work of its constituent bodies. Each year, these very talented individuals apply themselves to complex and pressing labour relations matters and amass a substantial record of achievement. What follows is a summary of committee activities and accomplishments from the last year.

Foreign Service Directives (FSD) Committee

The Committee continued to hear grievances and provide recommendations to the Executive Committee. In addition to this, on April 1, 2016 the Committee approved a number of regularly adjusted Annual rates which were published on the NJC website. Finally, cyclical review of the Directives is forthcoming. The NJC received proposals from both parties and the Committee will work diligently on co-developing revisions to the Directives. It is anticipated that the cyclical review process will take 12 to 18 months to complete.

Government Travel (GT) Committee

The Committee reviewed all Travel Directive documentation including communication pieces and prepared the Directive for publication on April 1, 2017 with an effective date of July 1, 2017. The Committee continues to develop an Exchange Rate Calculator for publication on the NJC website in 2017.

The Committee continued to manage its grievance caseload, and considered and provided recommendations on a number of grievances.

Isolated Posts and Government Housing (IPGH) Committee

In addition to the careful consideration and providing recommendations to the Executive Committee on grievances, the Committee continued to approve periodic updates to the various allowances. The Committee completed the cyclical review and the new Directive took effect March 1, 2017. Furthermore, a Communique of Q&A concerning the new Directive was posted on the NJC web site. In order to help employees in the application of the Directive, training was provided to Designated Departmental Coordinators and Bargaining Agent Representatives.

Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC)

The Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC) was extremely busy and productive this past year. The Committee was consulted on a number of Public Service Wide initiatives including: the Public Service Commission (PSC)’s New Direction in Staffing along with two Staffing Briefs stemming from the policy (Using the Public Service Employment Act to close the Employment Equity Gap and Duty to Accommodate in an Appointment Process), the Canada School of the Public Service’s vision and proposed direction with respect to the curriculum currently being developed regarding Public Service Wide Training: History of Aboriginal Peoples, Health Canada’s Modernization of the Occupational Health Assessment Guide, the 2017 Public Service Employee Survey and the proposed questions, Employment and Social Development Canada’s newly proposed accessibility legislation, and the Public Service Commission’s Survey of Staffing. The Committee provided extensive feedback, from an Employment Equity (EE) perspective, on all topics consulted on.

The JEEC also received presentations from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice with respect to what has been done to date regarding the way forward with respect to Gender Identity and the Canadian Human Rights Act (Bill C-16). It was agreed that once policies/forms are at the consultation stage, the presenters were encouraged to return to the JEEC for feedback.

Furthermore, the Committee finalized an Employment Equity Flowchart outlining the roles and responsibilities of the key players within the Federal Sector. This evergreen document will be presented to the Executive Committee in the upcoming fiscal year and is intended to be used as a tool by the Executive Committee, the JEEC and other NJC stakeholders to ensure that parties concerned with equity, diversity and inclusion related matters are contacted and included in discussions and decision making as relevant.

Finally, the Committee worked diligently to engage and build relationships with various stakeholders. Presentations were made to the Interdepartmental Network on Employment Equity with respect to the role and mandate of the JEEC.

Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Committee

The Occupational Health and Safety Committee continued to manage its grievances. The Committee also reviewed and provided a recommendation regarding a request for interpretation related to Part V of the Directive – Boilers and Pressure Vessels.

Official Languages (OL) Committee

The Official Languages Committee was mandated by the Executive Committee with a new project to promote the NJC as a forum of choice to raise awareness in the community of official languages. Various stakeholders were consulted during each meeting and questionnaires concerning the training and evaluation of the official languages will be distributed to the Community of practice and employees. The Committee will provide a report on findings to the Executive Committee. The Committee also heard grievances and provided recommendations to the Executive Committee.

Relocation (RELO) Committee

The Committee continued to manage its grievance caseload as it considered and reported on a number of grievances. The Committee is set to undertake the cyclical review of the Directive in the upcoming fiscal year.

Service-Wide Committee on Occupational Health and Safety (SWOHS)

The Committee received a presentation on sun safety at work and was consulted on the development of an enterprise-wide Performance Measurement Framework to support the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy. The Committee provided significant feedback with respect to this consultation.

Furthermore, the Committee recognized that Departments/Agencies are having difficulties with respect to identifying competent persons in accordance with the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. As such, the Committee spent a great deal of time over the year discussing the criteria for a competent person, the source of competent persons, what type of training may be required, and essential elements of a competent person investigative report. The Committee worked on the development of a Communiqué and Frequently Asked Questions, scheduled to be released in the upcoming fiscal year, along with a Webinar through the Canada School of Public Service.

Finally, the Committee worked on the development of additional Communiqués including: Creating links with Departmental/Agency Policy Committees and Departmental/Agency Responsibilities for the Management of Asbestos. Both Communiqués will be released in the upcoming year.

Union-Management Relations (UMR) Committee

The Committee coordinated the planning of the 2016 NJC Seminar held in the National Capital Region. The theme of the 2016 Seminar was "Consultation and Collaboration – Keys to Success". Some of the topics addressed included: Working Together in the Public Interest – the future of communications and cooperation, an update from the Technical Committee with respect to Mental Health in the Workplace, an Expert on Building Trust and Collaboration, and A Day in the Life of a civil aviation inspector presentations focusing on building trust and cooperation. The Committee also began developing the 2017 NJC Seminar program.

In addition, the Committee ensured that the Joint Training program was delivered to new members and Chairpersons participating on NJC committees, as well as any interested Bargaining Agent representatives. Using input received from past Joint Training Sessions to update the format, a successful bilingual session was held in January 2017.

Work Force Adjustment (WFA) Committee

The Committee received updates from TBS as to the number of employees affected through WFA exercises, as well as updates from the PSC in regards to the number of priority employees in the Priority Information Management System. The Committee continued to consider and provide recommendations to the Executive Committee on several grievances. The Committee will undertake the cyclical review of the Directive shortly.

Dental (DTL) Care Plan Board of Management (NJC Part)

The Dental Care Plan Board of Management (NJC Part) considered a number of appeals related to crowns, implants, orthodontia, dental exams, fillings, etc. The majority of the appeals considered by the Board in 2016-2017 addressed Plan limitations and late Claims. In addition to these, the Board of Management granted 2 requests for coverage of a dependant. The Dental Plan negotiations are ongoing and the Board of Management is working on proposals and recommendations.

Disability Insurance (DI) Plan Board of Management

The Board received presentations from Sun Life regarding the Claims Decisions Quality Assurance Program, the use of surveillance in claims adjudication, the Attending Physician Statements, and the Mental Health Consultant's role and impact. The Board also continued to discuss and monitor topics relevant to the functioning of the Plan, including the workperformed by TBS and Sun Life to resolve the inventory of claims appeals that occurred as the result of issues resulting from Miramichi and Phoenix.

As in past years and in accordance with its mandate, the Board continued to examine and provide recommendations to Sun Life regarding appeals, and closely monitored the Plan’s financial position as well client satisfaction levels throughout the year. The Board continues to address the increase in appeals with additional meetings.

NJC Public Service Health Care Plan "at a glance"…

NJC Directives and Plans: over $2.5 billion in payments

Amount for travel expenditures to be updated once information becomes available.

Meetings

The NJC Secretariat has had a busy year providing professional, administrative and logistical support to meetings of Council, the Executive Committee, the various Committees and Boards of the NJC. The Secretariat organized 77 regular meetings and sub-committee meetings this past year and ensured follow-up on all meetings. The Secretariat also facilitated other special union-management consultations, as well as briefings on various issues and policies. In addition, the NJC Secretariat also provided several training sessions and prepared multiple networking activities for the members.

Committee Meetings 2016-2017

Committee

Number of meetings

Dental Care Plan Board of Management

7

Disability Insurance Plan Board of Management

8

Executive Committee

5

Foreign Service Directives Committee

3

Government Travel Committee

2

Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee

5

Joint Employment Equity Committee

6

National Joint Council

4

Occupational Health and Safety Committee

1

Official Languages Committee

4

Public Service Health Care Plan Partners Committee

7

Relocation Committee

6

Service-Wide Occupational Health and Safety Committee

5

Union-Management Relations Committee

8

Work Force Adjustment Committee

3

Others*

3

* Others includes special consultations, etc.

NJC Grievances

The NJC grievance process is a successful example of alternative dispute resolution which has been in place now for many years. At the final level, the process has two distinctive and innovative features:

~

During the 2016-2017 year, 36 new grievances were received. In the course of the year, 42 grievance files were disposed of and 35 remain outstanding.

Grievance Totals 2016-2017

Carried over from 2015-2016

41

New 2016-2017

36

Total 2016-2017

77

Disposed 2016-2017

42

Carry forward into 2017-2018

35

 

Of the disposed caseload, 2 grievances fell within the purview of the Foreign Service Directives Committee, 11 to the Government Travel Committee (grievances concerning either the Travel Directive or the Commuting Assistance Directive); 23 to the Relocation Committee; 2 to the Occupational Health and Safety Committee; 2 to the Work Force Adjustment Committee, and 2 to the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee.

Breakdown of Disposed Grievances

Upheld

9

Denied

17

Upheld in part

0

Impassed

4

Lacked Jurisdiction

4

Untimely

1

Withdrawn

7

Other

0

Total

42

NJC Grievance Summaries

Travel Directive:

21.4.1042, 1045, 1048, 1054

The grievors claimed that they were not properly compensated for kilometric rate and meals while on government travel status. These grievances are identical in nature to NJC 21.4.965 and 21.4.967. Although the grievances in question were denied at the first level, they were returned to the Region for review once the NJC Executive Committee had made a decision on the above-noted grievances.

Following a review in the region, confirmation was received that the grievors received payment for the travel expenses claimed for the days in question.

However, there was a dispute between the Employer and the Bargaining Agent, as to whether or not these grievances should be deemed to be of a continuing nature (as was stated in the Executive Committee's decision for 21.4.965 and 21.4.967). The grievors grieved the Employer's decision to deny reimbursement of travel expenses while on approved government travel.

The Executive Committee considered the grievances and past precedent set out in 21.4.965 & 967. As such, the Executive Committee concluded that the grievances were deemed to be of continuing nature and limited the remedy to twenty-five (25) days prior to the point at which the grievors were informed of the circumstances giving rise to the grievances. Given this, the grievors are to be compensated in accordance with the decision set out in 21.4.965 and 967. As such, the grievances were upheld.

21.4.1082

The grievor’s substantive position was located in City A. On June 17, 2013, the grievor began an assignment in City B. While on this assignment, the grievor applied and was the successful candidate for a position in City C. As a result, from January to August 2014 the grievor was on a temporary acting assignment in City C. The employee grieved the Department’s decision to deny travel expenses while on assignment.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the assignment in City B was an accommodation assignment, during which allowances for mileage and meals were provided since the distance to City B was more than the distance to City A, the home unit. During this assignment, the grievor received an email from Staffing suggesting to apply to an advertisement for a position in City C, stating that the email was sent because the grievor was either a Priority or was on the Regional Return-to-Work Program. The position was an 86 km round-trip beyond the substantive position. It was further noted that the Assignment Form indicated that Commuting Assistance would be provided. The grievor accepted the acting assignment to assist with accommodation believing there would be reimbursement for travel and commuting expenses from City A, where the grievor lived, to City C, and that the Employer cannot simply decide to not pay out previously agreed to expenses.

The Departmental representative maintained that the grievor voluntarily participated in and won a selection process for a higher-level position located in City C. As such, it was a voluntary assignment and not employer-directed. The assignment was not considered to be an accommodation, and subsequently was no entitlement to travel expenses. In addition, travel status must be authorized in advance by the designated manager, which was not the case. On November 27, 2013, the grievor and union representative were advised that a travel allowance would not be provided during the assignment in City C. The signed assignment agreement had the commuting assistance box checked off to provide for any circumstances in which commuting assistance may be required during the assignment, as determined by the employer. It was further noted that, as the City C workplace was located in an urban area, it did not meet the criteria as outlined in the Commuting Assistance Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that based on the workplace location in City C, this was not an instance where the Commuting Directive would apply. The Executive Committee also agreed that, based on the information presented at the hearing, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Travel Directive would apply in this case. As such, the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directives and therefore, the grievance was denied.

21.4.1092

The grievor’s substantive position is with Department X. On January 7, 2013 the employee began an assignment with Department Y. Both parties agree that part of the terms and conditions of the assignment included Department Y reimbursing the grievor for travel expenses while on assignment. The grievor’s initial assignment was to end May 2013 but was extended to December 31, 2014 with the stipulation that all terms and conditions of the initial assignment would continue during the extension.

On September 17, 2014, the grievor was informed that effective October 6, 2014 there would no longer be an entitlement to travel expenses as the grievor would not be considered to be on travel status for the remainder of the assignment. The grievor was given the choice to continue on assignment without receiving reimbursement for travel expenses or return to the substantive position at Department X. The employee continued the assignment and is grieving the Employer’s decision to cease paying travel expenses.

The Bargaining Agent representative asserted that in this case the grievor did have the Employer’s authorization to travel, and nowhere in the Directive provides discretion to deny benefits under the Travel Directive to employees assigned to work outside of the 16 km headquarters zone. The decision to cease the payment of benefits stemmed from a regional decision aimed at deficit reduction and aside from this financial decision, nothing regarding the assignment changed after October 6, 2014. The Employer cannot, by virtue of individual agreement, require an employee to renounce rights under the collective agreement and the Directive.

The Departmental representative contended that it is not necessary to determine whether the Employer’s reasons for denying travel benefits were viable, but only whether the Employer was entitled to make this determination. Further, it is recognized that in certain situations, such as in temporary assignments, the employer has the authority to state that travel expenses will not be reimbursed. Management offered the opportunity to return to the regular position, and that the grievor chose to continue to the end of the assignment confirmed agreement to the new conditions of employment.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Government Travel Committee which concluded that based on the initial assignment agreement, and as the employee at no time indicated agreement with the new conditions of employment, the employee continued to be eligible to receive benefits under the Travel Directive. Given this, the Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. As such, the grievance was upheld.

NJC Relocation Directive:

41.4.81

The grievor occupied an indeterminate position in City A. Following the disassembling of the grievor's work unit, the grievor accepted a position in City B.

When the employee bought the property in City A, the initial mortgage was transferred to this property. At that time, the grievor undertook major renovations for which a second type of financial instrument was obtained. It was explained to the grievor that the rate of the first mortgage could no longer be offered. In order to protect the low interest rate of the mortgage, the grievor accepted a collateral mortgage as a second form of credit; knowing that when the collateral mortgage would be up for renewal, the two would be merged. However, the two instruments were never merged as the grievor relocated to City B.

The following year, the grievor's financial institution wrote to the department on two separate occasions, to clarify the two financial instruments that were used to finance the grievor's home. The financial institution's representative stated that the 2nd financial instrument was not a line of credit and was considered to be a collateral mortgage. The sale agreement of the property at origin, also referred to the 2nd financial instrument as a ‘mortgage'.

The grievor's financial institution offered the following definition of a collateral mortgage: ‘A collateral mortgage is a mortgage that is registered on a property to secure one or more loans or lines of credit. Often a collateral mortgage can secure not only loans or lines of credit given by the borrower at the time the mortgage is registered, but also loans or lines of credit that may be given by the borrower to the lender in the future.'

However, the Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) did not recognize the 2nd financial instrument as a mortgage and did not take it into account when calculating equity. Therefore, the grievor was not entitled to use the equity of the sale of the property at origin to settle the collateral mortgage.

The employee was grieving the Employer's denial to pay the Mortgage Default Insurance Premium (MDIP) in violation of Section 9.17 and other related sections of the NJC Relocation Directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the denial of the appropriate amount of the Mortgage Default Insurance Premium (MDIP) is in violation of Section 9.17 of the Directive.

The CRSP initially confirmed, the day prior to the grievor's house hunting trip, that the first and second mortgage would be used to calculate the MDIP. The representative referred to the Principle of Estoppel as the grievor made the decision to purchase a home based on the information that the grievor would be reimbursed the full Mortgage Default Insurance Premium.

The representative contended that the grievor relied on this information to determine the amount of the down payment of the residence at destination as well as the expected Mortgage Premium Default. The grievor was advised, one month following the purchase of the house, that the second mortgage would not be taken into account in the calculation of the Mortgage Premium Default by the CRSP. The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the CRSP is acting as a representative for the Employer, and therefore, should be held accountable for the grievor's decision being based on erroneous advice.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the grievor has always been forthcoming with the Department, and the CRSP, in indicating that he had 2 mortgages and a secured line of credit. Furthermore, the grievor's financial institution confirmed, by way of letter, that the second credit facility was a mortgage and in the spirit of fairness and modern relocation practices, the Mortgage Premium Default should be amended to include this second financial instrument.

The Departmental representative explained that the grievor's financial institution provided two distinct documents. The first identified the financial instrument as a mortgage and provided an associated mortgage number. The second document was entitled ‘Discharge/Payout for Lines of Credit or Loans Secured by a Collateral Mortgage' and contained a loan or line of credit number. As a result, the CRSP deemed the second instrument to be a line of credit and not a mortgage and therefore, was not used in the calculation of available equity.

The representative noted that the Department sought clarification with the grievor's financial institution, which confirmed that the financial instrument in question was a collateral mortgage. A collateral mortgage was defined as being a loan registered on a property to secure one or more loans or lines of credit. The representative's position is that the financial institution distinguishes one type of mortgage from the other and that therefore, collateral mortgages fall outside of the definition of mortgage provided in the Directive.

The Departmental representative further noted that there was no discretion for the Department to authorize a pro-rated reimbursement of the Mortgage Default Premium in accordance with subsection 1.2.3 of the Directive.

The Executive Committee reviewed the report of the Relocation Committee and noted the impasse. The Executive Committee concluded that, in this case, the financial instrument in question ought to be deemed a second mortgage in accordance with the financial institution's statements and as such, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive. Therefore, he ought to be entitled to a pro-rated MDIP. Given this, the grievance was upheld.

41.4.86

The grievor was relocated to Province B to remain with his spouse who had been transferred to Province B for work-related reasons.

The grievor's deployment letter indicated that the grievor would be entitled to the reimbursement of certain relocation expenses.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor's spouse was relocated to Province B and as such, the grievor requested to be transferred. The representative noted that the grievor was not informed that the position was already vacant at destination and therefore, the grievor should have been entitled to additional reimbursement under an Employer-requested relocation. It is the view of the Bargaining Agent representative, as the position was vacant and required a person of experience, the relocation should be deemed an Employer-requested one.

Although the Department has a training program for new employees, the representative submitted that the hiring of new graduates is of concern to the Employer and as such, employees with experience are deployed to this area. Therefore, the representative reiterated that the deployment of the grievor should be considered an Employer-requested relocation and hence, the grievor should be entitled to further relocation benefits.

The Departmental representative's prerogative is that the position at destination would have been filled through normal staffing procedures and that the usual practice is to manage the vacancy until the next graduation and then fill the vacancy with a recruit as this is an entry level position.

The representative noted that the grievor's letter of offer stipulated that it was an employee-requested relocation and that any assistance shall be at the discretion of the delegated departmental manager. As such, the Departmental representative explained that the specifics of the assistance the grievor would be provided was clearly outlined in the letter of offer. The fact that the position was vacant does not necessarily transform an employee-requested relocation into an Employer-requested relocation.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Relocation Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Integrated Relocation Directive. The Committee noted that based on the circumstances of the deployment, it was an employee-requested relocation. As such, the grievance was denied.

Foreign Service Directives:

25.4.165

The grievor is employed with Department A. On August 1, 2013, the grievor deployed from City A, Country X to City B, Country Y and relocated into a privately-leased accommodation nearby in City C. When the grievor was residing in City A, the transportation used to and from work was either bicycle or public transportation. As the work location in City B is not accessible by bicycle or public transportation, the grievor grieved the entitlement to Commuting Assistance under FSD 30.5.3.

The grievor grieved that the Department was not appropriately applying FSD 30.5.3 and did not recognize the costs of working in City B.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the grievor fully meets the criteria to be afforded Commuting Assistance under FSD 30.5.3. As the Employer’s workplace location is not accessible by public transportation, there is by default excess commuting costs to the grievor, and therefore should result in accommodating the employee by paying Commuting Assistance.

The representative indicated that when the grievor worked in City A, the grievor took either public transportation or rode a bike to and from work. In applying the principles of the FSDs, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that the grievor was placed in a less favorable situation than had working in Country X, which contravenes to the principle of comparability set out in the Directives. The representative also submitted that there is no suitable area to travel from when working in City B and as such, the grievor should be allowed Commuting Assistance.

The Departmental Representative contended that the location of a privately-leased accommodation is the grievor’s choice and as such, the Employer is not obligated to provide Commuting Assistance to the grievor. The representative noted that the Employer imposed no limitation on the location of such privately-leased residence and that this decision is in keeping with the FSD principle of comparability as the grievor posted outside of Country X had the same freedom to choose the location of grievor’s residence just as if was in City A. Therefore, just as employees working in City A have the choice to decide where to reside, and in turn, pay accordingly for their commute to work, the grievor had the choice to determine the location of grievor’s residence, and thus is not entitled to Commuting Assistance. The representative also noted that the onsite parking in City B is free of charge compare to $75,00/month for the City A’s location and as such, constitutes an advantage afforded to the grievor over employees serving in City A. The Departmental representative also indicated that at no point in the process, the grievor was led to believe that the Commuting Assistance would be available.

The fact that employees posted to this area are not eligible for Commuting Assistance is clearly stated to employees in the pre-posting information session, and again prior to their house-hunting trip; in fact, the grievor had been informed.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of FSD 30. Furthermore, the Committee agreed that FSD 30.6.2(b) was more relevant in this case, instead of FSD 30.5, as there was no imposition of accommodation location by the Employer.

The Committee further noted that the grievor could have chosen other suitable locations to live, closer to work, which could have been within the employee’s commuting share cost, as such negating the need for commuting assistance. As such, the grievance was denied.

Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive:

27.4.115

The grievor has been employed by Department A since March 2007 in an Isolated Post (City A). City A has an Environmental Allowance (EA) classification of 2, which entitles employees to a Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) once per fiscal year.

In 2009, when the grievor became aware of the VTA, the grievor was erroneously informed that as a public servant, the grievor did not qualify. The grievor did not question this information at the time. In April 2012 the grievor learned from other employees that the grievor was in fact eligible to receive the VTA. The grievor subsequently submitted claims requesting retroactive VTA benefits for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 on April 5, 2012, explaining that the grievor had previously been informed that the grievor was not entitled to this benefit.

On April 11, 2012, the grievor was notified by Accounting that they were unable to process the claims, as the benefits could only be approved within the fiscal year. The grievor filed a grievance dated April 15, 2012 regarding the decision of April 11, 2012 to deny the payment of VTA for the fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

Interpretations from TBS were obtained by the Department regarding the timelines of the grievance and the VTA. The grievance was denied at the first and second levels on the basis of being untimely, though the merits were considered and it was concluded that it would have been denied, even if it were considered to be timely.

The employee is grieving a decision to deny Vacation Travel Assistance (VTA) for the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 fiscal years.

The Bargaining Agent representative contended that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the IPGH Directive.

The IPGH Directive states that the VTA payment is authorized for employees at City A once per fiscal year and that employees must apply for the VTA in writing. The Bargaining Agent representative noted that the Directive does not contain any indication of a time limit for making the application for the VTA.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor was not provided with any information about the VTA from the Department, let alone a “comprehensive information package” about the IPGH Directive, or a copy of the Directive itself. The grievor was on leave from March 2008 to March 2009. The grievor first became aware of the VTA in July 2009, but at the time was not aware that it applied to all employees. The grievor understood and believed that the grievor had no entitlement to this benefit and had no other colleagues who could have shed more light on the subject. The grievor assumed that since this information was coming from management that it was correct. The grievor never questioned this information and never felt aggrieved.

The Bargaining Agent representative concluded by stating that, as there is no requirement in the IPGHD to take a vacation, incur expenses, or leave the isolated post in order to claim this benefit, that she is at a loss as to why employees are required to apply for this benefit – it should be automatic. The rates are calculated every year; the Department will budget for these amounts. Therefore the amount of the VTA for each isolated post is known in advance and should be paid.

To require employees to make an application contains an inherent risk to those employees that might not be aware or unable to make the claim, due to circumstances which are not caused by the employee.

The Departmental representative established that it does not dispute that the grievor, as an employee in City A, was entitled to benefits under the Directive, including the VTA from the commencement of the grievor’s indeterminate employment. However, the dispute lies with the Department being liable for retroactive payments for prior fiscal years.

The Employer’s position is that the Directive defines a fiscal year as starting April 1st and ending the following March 31st. The Directive is also clear that employees in EA classification 1, 2 or 3 are entitled to VTA payments once in each fiscal year. The Directive requires that the employee apply for the VTA in writing. The Departmental representative stated that it is not the intent of the NJC to have departments maintain ongoing liabilities for an indefinite period.

For both fiscal years in dispute, the Department sent a reminder to all employees in that region to remind them that all VTA claims for the fiscal year must be received by Accounting by March 31st of the relevant fiscal year. All employees from Province A who are on the distribution list should have received the information. Also, a reclassification letter of offer addressed to the grievor dated August 17, 2010 outlined the terms and conditions of the grievor’s employment. It stated, “Your employment will be governed by the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations and the Program and Administrative Services Agreement”. The collective agreement states, “the following directives…form part of this Agreement…Isolated Post and Government Housing Directive”.

While the Employer has the obligation to provide employees with their terms and conditions of employment, the employee also has an obligation to be aware of and/or seek out their entitlements. One may argue that by asking the supervisor the grievor did in fact seek out clarification; however, the Departmental representative suggested that had the grievor been dissatisfied with the information received, a grievance should have been submitted at that time.

Based on the above, the Departmental representative indicated that the intent of the Directive was not to provide retroactive payments, but rather provide employees with payment in the fiscal year that they were entitled in order to provide the opportunity to remove themselves from the isolated location. It is the Department’s prerogative that the Directive was applied as intended and respectfully asks that the grievance be denied.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee which concluded that if a Department fails in its responsibility to provide basic information to an employee, it cannot completely fault the employee for failing to know about their entitlements. The Committee concluded that due to the failure of the Department to provide a copy of the Directive or an information package to the grievor and the fact that the supervisor incorrectly stated the grievor was not entitled to the VTA, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive.

The Committee agreed that VTA is not a retroactive benefit under the Directive however, in this instance; the grievor is entitled to receive the VTA payments for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years.

The Directive provides that Departments shall develop comprehensive information packages on the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive […]. Further, the information package shall provide the eligibility criteria for each of the allowances and benefits as well as a list of the most common questions and answers. As such, the grievance was upheld.

Work Force Adjustment

28.4.629

The grievor was informed that the grievor's position was Work Force Adjusted and that the grievor was to be laid-off in 23 months. During the affected period, the grievor applied on a position in a different department; however, the grievor's candidature was rejected on the basis that two of the essential knowledge competencies were not met.

The grievor requested retraining in accordance with Part IV of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The Department denied the request as it was determined that the grievor could not be retrained as the competencies required were acquired through work experience.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievor was deemed to have failed to meet two of the essential knowledge competencies on the Statement of Merit Criteria which were: (K1) Knowledge of key policies relevant to the position and (K2) Knowledge of issues and positions of key stakeholders.

However, the representative noted that the hiring Department did not fully assess the grievor during the staffing process. In fact, the grievor occupied a position which required higher knowledge than the position for which the grievor was disqualified. The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the knowledge being described should be considered as work experience as it requires regular exposure and multifaceted experience with stakeholders and policies relevant to the position. As such, the definitions of knowledge narrow the number of candidates for this position to only those who have performed the job.

Furthermore, the representative noted that there is no evidence that with proper retraining, the grievor would not be able to meet the knowledge requirements.

The Departmental representative indicated that it was determined by the screening board that the grievor's responses on the written examination failed to demonstrate that the necessary knowledge requirements for the position were met. It is the Employer's position that knowledge of the issues and positions of key stakeholders would typically be obtained over the course of working in this environment for three to five years, which exceeds the requirement of retraining provided by the Directive. The representative indicated that these knowledge requirements are acquired through researching policies; preparing related analyses and briefing materials as well as other products. This approach results in a deep understanding of the policies, providing a level of comfort which generally does not derive from an academic context.

The Employer representative also noted that the grievor's experience is specialized and does not correspond with the knowledge of broad-based policies required for the position.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Workforce Adjustment Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The Committee noted that the knowledge requirements were confused with work experience and that in accordance with subsection 4.3.1 of the Directive, a laid off person shall be eligible for retraining when it is needed to facilitate the appointment of the individual to a specific vacant position. As such, the grievance was upheld.

NJC Appeals

Dental and Disability Appeals

The Disability Board of Management is responsible for the overall administrative and financial management of the Disability Insurance Plan, including the review of the contract of insurance, review of any financial or service agreement, the financial status of the Plan, the services of the Insurer, the administrative fees and charges, the adequacy of reserves, the premium levels, the disposition of disputed claims, other matters referred to it by the NJC on the overall operation of the Plan, and for making appropriate recommendations to the NJC.

The Dental Care Plan Board of Management (NJC Part) is responsible for the overall administration of the Dental Care Plan, resolving members' complaints regarding eligibility or claims disputes with the Administrator, monitoring the claims settlement performance of the Administrator, and recommending changes to the Plan.

Both the Dental Care Plan Board of Management (NJC Part) and the Disability Plan Board of Management hear appeals on cases relating to the denial of benefits by the plan administrators.

During 2016-2017, 44 dental appeals and 28 disability appeals were decided by the two boards of management, compared to 57 and 21 in 2015-2016.

Appeals

The Disability Board of Management noted that mental illnesses, primarily depression and adjustment disorder, continue to remain the most frequent cause of new disability claims in 2016. This continues to be the experience across other Canadian disability plans.

The Dental Care Plan Board of Management (NJC Part) considered a number of appeals related to crowns, implants, orthodontia, dental exams, fillings, etc. The majority of the appeals considered by the Board in 2016-2017 addressed Plan limitations and late Claims. In addition to these, the Board of Management granted 2 requests for coverage of a dependant.

Breakdown of Dental and Disability Appeals

 

Dental

Disability

Decided

44

28

Upheld

10

4

Denied

32

23

Upheld in part

2

1

Other

0

0


Appendix

2017-2018 Yearly Planning Agenda

Priority

Objective

Expected Results

Next steps

Timeframe

FSD Cyclical Review To accomplish a significant portion of the FSD Cyclical Review within the 2017-2018 fiscal year. That the Committee will have completed at least 50% of their negotiations within the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
  • Executive Committee to review results of opting call
  • FSD Committee to receive interest-based negotiations and cyclical review procedural training
  • NJC Committee Advisors to work with the FSD Committee to negotiate the proposals mandated to them by the Executive Committee

Q1 – Executive Committee to review and decide on the results of the opting call

Q1 – FSD Committee to receive interest-based negotiations training

Q2, Q3, and Q4 – FSD Committee to undertake negotiations

End Q2 and Q4 – Committee Chairperson to provide detailed update of status of negotiations to Exec and/or Council
WFA Cyclical Review To accomplish a significant portion of the WFA Cyclical Review within the 2017-2018 fiscal year. That the Committee will have completed at least 75% of their negotiations within the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
  • Executive Committee to review results of opting call
  • WFA Committee to receive interest-based negotiations and cyclical review procedural training
  • NJC Committee Advisor to work with the WFA Committee to negotiate the proposals mandated to them by the Executive Committee

Q1 – Executive Committee to review and decide on the results of the opting call

Q1 – WFA Committee to receive interest-based negotiations training

Q2, Q3, and Q4 – WFA Committee to undertake negotiations

End Q2 and Q4 – Committee Chairperson to provide detailed update of status of negotiations to Exec and/or Council
RELO Cyclical Review To accomplish a portion of the RELO Cyclical Review within the 2017-2018 fiscal year. That the Committee will have completed at least 40% of their negotiations within the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
  • NJC Secretariat to receive input from both parties (June 1, 2017)
  • General Secretary to identify new items and send Opting Call Letter
  • NJC Secretariat to receive results of the Opting Call letter and report back to the Executive Committee
  • Executive Committee to review results of opting call
  • RELO Committee to receive interest-based negotiations and cyclical review procedural training
  • NJC Committee Advisor to work with the RELO Committee to negotiate the proposals mandated to them by the Executive Committee
Q1 – NJC Secretariat to receive input

Q1 – General Secretary to issue Opting Call letter

Q2 – Parties to respond to Opting Call letter

Q2 or Q3 – Executive Committee to review and decide on the results of the opting call

Q3 – RELO Committee to receive interest-based negotiations training

Q3, and Q4 – RELO Committee to undertake negotiations

End Q2 and Q4 – Committee Chairperson to provide detailed update of status of negotiations to Exec and/or Council
NJC By-Laws Review the By-Laws to reflect legislative changes made between 2008 and today.  Ensure current practice and amended processes are reflected in the documentation. Revised By-Laws that adhere to current practice and are clear, concise and easy to understand.
  • Present the Executive Committee with a draft version of the By-Laws for review and discussion
  • Amend the By-Laws based on comments from the Executive Committee
  • Translate the document
  • Present the By-Laws to Council for approval

Q1 – Employer Side Secretary to review status of By-Law review

Q1 – Executive Committee to develop an approach to reviewing the By-Laws

Q2 and Q3– Executive Committee to discuss the proposed amendments

Q3 and Q4 – Executive Committee to accept final version and present the document to Council for approval

Q4 – Revised document to be released.
Development of a Strategic Vision for the National Joint Council

Reconsider the long term vision for the National Joint Council, reassess its priorities, including the role of Council, and identify whether this is an opportune time to re-position and/or re-brand the NJC.

All members of Council will have a clear understanding of the value of the NJC in the current context of the Public Service.

Stakeholders will become re-engaged and more involved with Council.
  • Review draft strategic vision and incorporate suggested changes from Executive Committee
  • Present final version to Council for approval
  • Identify how to communicate the Strategic Vision and/or repositioning to stakeholders

Q1- Executive Committee to review document and provide comments

Q2 -  Executive Committee to approve final version

Q3 – Council to approve final document

Q4 – Communicate Strategic Vision and/or repositioning of the NJC to stakeholders
Information Sharing/ Consultations/ Co-Development Ensure that Council meetings are maximized by scheduling 2-3 pertinent consultations/ information sharing presentations per meeting.

Council members will deem the meetings to hold value in both content and networking.

Committee Chairpersons will take a more active role in reporting on successes, challenges and critical issues on behalf of their Committee.

Attendance on the part of members, as well as Chairpersons, should increase if meaningful consultations become the focus of these quarterly meetings.

General Secretary will continue to meet with all Committee Chairpersons on a regular basis.

Ongoing communication with the Public Service Commission Outreach team in terms of bringing forward consultations to the Council.

Ongoing communication with the LR Council and HR Council to identify any consultations that may stem as a result of conversations at these venues which need to be brought forward to the NJC.

Q1 – General Secretary to meet with all Committee Chairpersons

Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 – Ongoing communication with the PSC Outreach team and LR/HR Council.

Communications/ Outreach – Speaking Engagements To increase the visibility of the National Joint Council as a forum for information sharing, consultation and co-development through speaking engagements and website renewal.

Speaking Engagements:

Continue to make presentations to LR Council and other interested organizations (Bargaining Agents, educational institutions, etc.) on the role of the NJC and its value.

Speaking Engagements:

Remain in touch with LR Council and continue to reiterate at Council meetings that presentations on the role and structure of the NJC can be provided to any interested stakeholders.

Speaking Engagements:

As requested throughout Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4

Communications/ Outreach (cont’d) – Website Maintenance  

Website Maintenance:

  • Ensure website is maintained and supported over the course of the year

Website Maintenance:

General Secretary to provide regular updates on website maintenance and posting of key documents over the course of the fiscal year

Website Maintenance:

Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4  - Regular updates to be provided by General Secretary

Training – Labour Relations Advisors

To provide NJC specific training to the following groups:

Labour Relations Advisors

  • Deliver ½ day courses focused on preparing labour relations advisors for final level hearings at the NJC
  • Courses will be provided based on demand, both in the National Capital as well as in the regions

Training for Labour Relations Advisors:

It is anticipated that this will result in less objections submitted before the Executive Committee, in addition to improving the quality of presentations given to working committees and hence, reducing the number of impasses

Training for Labour Relations Advisors:

  • Continue to assess the demand for training in the NCR as well as other regions
  • Assess the resources at the NJC Secretariat to provide on-demand training (i.e. budget, priorities, staff availability)
  • Revise training material on a regular basis based on comments from feedback surveys
  • Reach out to the Canada School of Public Service to see if WebEx could be an option to reach a wider audience

Training for Labour Relations Advisors:

  • Review of training material – ongoing
  • Each quarter assess the resources and demand for training

Q1 – 4 sessions tentatively scheduled

Q2 – Reach out to CSPS to see if WebEx is a possibility

Q3 – anticipate 1-2 sessions to be scheduled

Q4 – anticipate 1-2 sessions to be scheduled
Training (cont’d) – Working Committee Members

Working Committee Members (Joint Training):

  • Continue to deliver a full day training session once a year to provide new Committee members with an understanding of the structure of the NJC as well as their role
  • A mid-year assessment will take place to determine if sufficient Committee turn-over has occurred to offer the training more frequently

Training for Working Committee members:

  • It is anticipated that Committee members will feel more confident in their role, their authority, and will gain tools which will allow them to be more likely to reach consensus for both grievances and during the cyclical review process

Training for Working Committee members:

  • Review training material based on March 2017 feedback survey
  • Prepare a training session for Spring 2017 based on member turnover
  • Assess committee member turnover in November
  • Offer an additional training session in Q3 if necessary

Training for Working Committee members:

Q1– Review March 2017 feedback survey

Q1 – Offer a training session

Q3 – Assess Committee member turn-over

Q3 and/or Q4 – Provide training based on demand

Training (cont’d) – Departmental Liaison Officers (DLOs)

Departmental Liaison Officers (DLOs):

  • Deliver a ½ day bilingual training session for Departmental Liaison Officers to provide them with an understanding of the structure of the NJC as well as their role

Training for DLOs:

  • A reduction in the number of questions from DLOs regarding the NJC grievance process and the role of the NJC

Training for DLOs:

  • Review survey from March 2017
  • Modify training based on feedback from pilot session
  • Assess resources of the NJC Secretariat to determine possible timing of training
  • Revise training material on a regular basis based on comments from feedback surveys

Training for DLOs:

Q1 – Review survey results and modify training based on feedback

Q1– Assess NJC Secretariat resources for next training sessions

Q3 and/or Q4 - Offer training module to DLOs