Chief Grievance Officer: Kevin McPhail
Chair: Don Currie
Members: Mandeep Mahanger, Harpinder Sandhu, Donna Murray, Trent Snikkers
Hours of work – Kelowna
We claim the employer has violated the Collective Agreement by denying the grievor’s request to work normal hours as defined in article 18.01. Our member has never worked longer than the 7.75 hour shift however this year at PARP time, rather than asking the member to work longer hours, it was demanded that he work an 8.5 hour shift. Seeing the language talks about the need to have mutual agreement we are troubled at the employer’s insistence that they can make our members work any hours they 'require' for operational needs.
We request that the employer allow the grievor’s request to work normal hours. In addition we ask that the grievor be compensated for overtime hours worked as a result of this denial.
Status: This grievance was denied at step 3 and has been elevated to arbitration. It is scheduled to be heard in September 2015.
Policy Grievance – Dress Code
We claim the employer has violated the Collective Agreement by allowing some offices to institute a ban on wearing blue jeans at work. We feel the employer has not proven that blue jeans are detrimental to the business especially when they are worn in many offices around the province.
We request the managers of work sites which have a no blue jeans policy publicly rescind it and conform to the corporate Workplace Attire policy.
Status: This grievance was arbitrated on June 10 and 11 in Kelowna with summations heard on June 19 in Vancouver. We expect a decision from the arbitrator in early July.
Reduction in Pay – Capital
An employee returned from Short Term Disability and is on a graduated return to work schedule supported by their medical practitioner. Upon receiving the graduated return to work schedule the employer reduced the pay of the employee as a result of the schedule because they cannot currently do all the duties they were hired to do while they gradually return to full time hours.
We request the Employer change this practice and reinstate their pay back to the level for a Senior Appraiser while they complete their graduated return to work schedule. In addition, we claim damages for injury to their dignity pursuant to the BC Human Rights Code.
Status: This grievance was heard and denied at step 1 and 2. It has been elevated to arbitration with temporary dates for the spring of 2016.
Policy Grievance - Acting SA Position – Prince George I
A one year acting SA position was posted in this office but only awarded to one employee despite several being qualified. The manager cited operational requirements however past practice and language in the CA does not support such an appointment. It is expected that at least two or several appraisers should have been able to rotate in this acting role.
The Union wants all interested members to get opportunities to develop their skills. This helps to ensure that when a permanent competition occurs, as many people as possible are able to genuinely compete for the position.
Status: This grievance was denied at step 2.
Denial of Benefits Grievance - Kamloops
A member on a 12 month deferred salary leave wanted to maintain LTD and Group Life coverage for the full 12 months of the leave. The member was prepared to pay the full cost of the premiums to maintain this coverage. When this request was made to the carrier, the carrier would only maintain coverage for a portion of the year for both LTD and Group Life. This leaves the member without this important insurance for part of the leave. The carrier is citing an increased risk to them as their reason for denying coverage.
Status: This grievance has been extended at Step 1 pending more investigation of the contract between BCA and the carrier.
Sick Leave Calculation Grievance - South Fraser
A member has had multiple sick days interspersed with work days for a single illness. After 60 working days of sick time related to a single illness, an employee transitions from BCA paid sick leave to insurance paid LTD. The employer calculates the 60 working days as inclusive of the days at work unless there is a 30 interval without any sick leave taken. Article 23.01 (d) speaks to 60 working days of absence. We are investigating which method is the appropriate way to calculate the 60 day period.
Status: this grievance has been denied at Step 1 and is pending elevation to Step 2.
PDP Reconsideration Grievance – 2 Locations
Following the rating process for the 2014/2015 PDPs, there were 2 members who felt their PDP rating was not an accurate evaluation of the goals and competencies contained in their PDPs.
Under MOU #12, a member has 14 days from the day the final PDP rating is made to email their Assessor or Director and request reconsideration. If the member is still not satisfied after review by their Assessor/Manager, a grievance may be filed at step 2.
Status: Both members had their PDP’s reviewed by their Assessor but were not satisfied with the result. Both grievances are scheduled to be heard at Step 2 in late July.