July 1, 1994
28.4.309
The grievor sought that pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period be adjusted to include the extra duty allowance.
The bargaining agent by written submission took the position that the critical undefined words in the WFA Directive are regular pay. The definition of "regular pay" applied by Treasury Board to lump sum payments is specified in the Personnel Management Manual under Pay Administration Section 4.5.3 entitled Calculation of Lump Sum Payments.
The bargaining agent further advised that the extra duty allowance was exactly the type of allowance that should be interpreted as part of regular pay.
The department, in a written presentation, stated that only an employee's regular pay could be used in calculating lump sum payments. The department took the position that for the purposes of the WFA Directive an employee's regular pay is defined as salary and allowances, such as equalization adjustments, supervisory differential or inmate training differential, that are deemed salary for the application of the promotion and transfer rules. This would not include such payments as bilingual bonus, pennological factor allowance, isolated post allowance, etc.
The Executive Committee noted that the Work Force Adjustment Committee advised that the extra duty allowance in this particular case was paid to employees as part of their supervisory responsibilities and therefore should be considered part of regular pay.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee in that the employee had not been treated within the intent of the WFA Policy.
The grievance was upheld