Chief Grievance Officer: Kevin McPhail
Chair: Jared Melvin
Members: Don Currie, Keith Hampe, Harpinder Sandhu
Policy Grievance–Travel Policy
We claim BC Assessment has incorrectly denied members mileage and travel expenses. We believe that at the time the policy was written, it was not envisioned that it would be dealing with a closed office scenario. Appraisers A & B are to travel to Salmon Arm for Parp hearings. Appraiser A (lives in Kelowna) leaves Kelowna to travel to Parp in Salmon Arm, driving through Vernon, arrives in Salmon Arm, stays overnight in hotel, claims meals and mileage. Appraiser B (lives in Vernon) leaves Kelowna, Parp materials and all, stays at home overnight in Vernon(saving hotel costs & expenses), and is denied the mileage portion from Kelowna to Vernon as well as the time to drive.
Status: It is the opinion of the employer that there has been no violation of the collective agreement and the grievance has been elevated to arbitration. Chris Sullivan has been selected as the arbitrator. The hearing will take place on June 18, 2013 in Victoria.
Policy Grievance–Vancouver Island Inter-Office Working Initiative
We claim that BC Assessment violated the Collective Agreement specifically by introducing a policy inviting individuals to waive their Collective Agreement rights to meals and mileage for reporting to a worksite other than their own office.
We request the Employer cease this practice immediately, and pay the affected employees mileage to and from their homes to the worksite from the date of implementation, and pay the affected employees for lunch on days worked at a location more than 32 kms from their office from the date of implementation.
Status: This grievance is set to go to arbitration. Chris Sullivan has been selected as the arbitrator Dec 19, 2012
Grievance–Letter of Reprimand Okanagan
A member in the Okanagan region has been disciplined with a letter of reprimand for wearing “Blue Jeans” during the Parp period of Feb 1st to Mar 15, contrary to local office policy that “recommends” not wearing of “Blue Jeans”. As the member thought that that this was simply a “recommendation” as opposed to an outright ban, he thought it OK to wear blue jeans on a non-Parp hearing day. This member was sent home to change; told “black” jeans were ok as long as they were “fresh”. The Union Grieves this letter due to the inequitable and inconsistent application of the corporate attire guidelines across the Province.
Status: This grievance has been heard and denied at step 3 and has been elevated to arbitration. Vince Ready has been selected as the arbitrator, Sept 25, 2013 has been proposed with the hearing to be held in Kelowna.
Policy Grievance–Half Day Illness- Flex
This grievance was filed in an attempt to deal with inconsistent practice throughout the company of the requirement to make up time for half day sick leave. It is the Unions position that a half day sick should result in having to make up half of the 45 minutes required for maintaining flex time. It is the employer’s position that the full 45 minutes must me accounted for.
Status: This grievance has been heard at step 3 and elevated to arbitration. Mark Atkinson has been selected as the arbitrator Dec 11, 2012
Policy Grievance–Acting Period
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: This grievance in abeyance to Jan 31, 2013.
Failure to Post Director Positions
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: This grievance was elevated to arbitration. Chris Sullivan selected as the arbitrator Dec 11, 2012
We claim the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement by excessively scrutinizing the work of a member, requesting them accept pay below their current salary and not accommodating them in the workplace.
We request a medical accommodation from the employer in the workplace with no loss of pay or benefits.
Status: This grievance will be heard on March 20th at step 2.
We claim the employer has violated the Collective Agreement by suspending a member without pay for one week despite their discipline-free employment record. We claim the employer denied our member the rights and privileges afforded them in the Collective Agreement.
We request the employer reinstate the five days with all wages and benefits that would have been accrued during that time and remove discipline from their personal file.
Status: This grievance is set to be heard at step 2.
We claim the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement by dismissing a member on a graduated return to work. We claim the employer denied our member the rights and privileges afforded them in the Collective Agreement.
We request the employer reinstate the member to their former position with all wages and benefits that would have accrued from the date of termination.
Status: This grievance to be heard at step 3.
Denial of Overtime
We claim the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement by ordering a member to work on their regularly scheduled day of rest as well as directing him to change his work schedule and work overtime against his wishes.
We request the Employer compensate the grievor at appropriate overtime rates for the scheduled day of rest.
Status; This grievance was heard at step 1.