Chief Grievance Officer: Kevin McPhail
Chair: Don Currie
Members: Mandeep Mahanger, Harpinder Sandhu, Donna Murray, Trent Snikkers, Jared Melvin
Second Doctor’s Note Requirement for Sick Leave – Kelowna
An employee on short term sick leave and had already provided the employer with a sick leave note from a doctor. After 1 month of absence, the employer requested our member to provide a second note even though the initial note appeared to support an absence of up to 60 days.
We requested that the employer refrain from similar requirements in the future. In addition we asked that the employer compensate our member for any and all costs associate with acquiring a second note from a licensed medical practitioner. Ultimately, the member did not incur additional costs as a result of the employer’s request.
Status: The grievance was presented and denied at step 1 and at step 2. It has been withdrawn on a without prejudice basis.
Senior Appraiser Competition - Prince George
An employee participated in a competition for an SA position but was not successful. A grievance was launched pursuant to article 12.06 of the collective agreement. This clause allows the unsuccessful candidate to review the documents used by the employer to make their hiring decision.
Given the nature of the competition the Area Rep represented the successful candidate who was also kept up to date during the process and the Regional Director represented the interests of the grievor. It was a good test drive of the revised Collective Agreement language regarding competition selection results.
A primary understanding of competitions is that it is a management right to determine the selection process, barring language negotiated between the parties during bargaining or through a separate understanding. That right though must be applied in a fair and unbiased manner. As an example the employer could change the goalposts for a competition, as long as those goalposts were the same for every individual in THAT competition.
Status: The grievance was presented at step 1 and subsequently withdrawn after an examination of the competition documents.
Letter of Expectation – Surrey
An employee was given a Letter of Expectation which we feel is excessive and borders on discipline in that it fails to take into account the heavy work load of the employee and insufficient training leading up to the assignment to that team. We're working with the employee to determine which areas of the letter of expectation should be removed or re-worded to reflect the actual work performed.
We request that the Employer rescind the letter of expectation.
Status: After being elevated to step 2, this grievance was resolved after the Letter of Expectation was re written to the satisfaction of both parties.
Failure to Post Director Positions (Head Office)
We claim the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement by failing to post two excluded positions (Director Legal Services and Director Communications and Government Relations) and awarding them to two excluded employees. Two excluded positions were eliminated and two new positions were created. Specifically section 16.02 states: “In addition, job vacancies occurring outside the bargaining unit shall be posted prior to filling to enable interested bargaining unit employees to apply.” By failing to post members were denied an opportunity at a senior excluded position.
The employer countered saying that in fact these positions are not new but actually the result of two excluded members having their job description added to, in effect a reclassification. Therefore there were no vacancies to post as well it was unlikely that any BU staff would have been qualified for either position… Furthermore, the job description hasn’t yet been created or is still being created.
Status: As a result of negotiations related to the new Collective Agreement, this grievance has been withdrawn on a without prejudice basis.
Failure to extend – Fraser Valley
An employee was informed that they wouldn’t be extended in their temporary role. Several others in the office were extended but not the one member. As the area rep was notified at the 11th hour we filed a grievance to allow for more time to investigate the issue.
Status: This grievance was withdrawn on a without prejudice basis
Denial of Sick Leave – North Fraser
An employee was denied sick leave even though they had a valid note from a doctor in support of the leave. At issue was the type of activity the member was involved in during normal work hours while on sick leave.
Status: After being presented at step 1, this grievance was settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Denial of Telework – Surrey
An employee was denied the opportunity to telework when many of their colleagues have been given the same opportunity. The employee is an excellent employee with a great record of employment.
We feel this is a without merit denial and request the employee be allowed to telework as soon as possible.
Status: This grievance has been heard at step 1 and was later resolved at step. On a without prejudice basis the employer has promised to address the issue after PARP as it was felt that would be a better time to let the employee start teleworking.
Policy Grievance – Acting Period Capital
We claim they have violated the Collective Agreement and past practice by attempting to institute a new policy to avoid the requirement for Union agreement for acting positions greater than three months in duration.
We request that the employer rescind this new policy and follow the existing language of the Collective Agreement.
Status: The grievance was held in abeyance pending further joint discussion. The most recent round of bargaining produced new language specific to acting positions which makes this grievance moot. It has now been formally withdrawn on a without prejudice basis.
Policy Grievance – Acting Period Prince George
We claim they have violated the Collective Agreement and past practice by attempting to institute a new policy to avoid the requirement for Union agreement for acting positions greater than three months in duration.
We request that the employer rescind this new policy and follow the existing language of the Collective Agreement.
Status: The grievance was held in abeyance pending further joint discussion. The most recent round of bargaining produced new language specific to acting positions which makes this grievance moot. It has now been formally withdrawn on a without prejudice basis
Policy Grievance – Acting Period Nanaimo
We claim they have violated the Collective Agreement and past practice by attempting to institute a new policy to avoid the requirement for Union agreement for acting positions greater than three months in duration.
We request that the employer rescind this new policy and follow the existing language of the Collective Agreement.
Status: The grievance was held in abeyance pending further joint discussion. The most recent round of bargaining produced new language specific to acting positions which makes this grievance moot. It has now been formally withdrawn on a without prejudice basis
M/S/C