Chief Grievance Officer: Kevin McPhail
Chair: Don Currie
Members: Mandeep Mahanger, Harpinder Sandhu, Donna Murray, Trent Snikkers, Jared Melvin

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 employers 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 denied at step 3 (now step 2) and has been elevated to arbitration and is scheduled to be heard on June 10 and 11 in Kelowna.

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 no dates scheduled as of yet.

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 heard and denied at Step 1. It has been elevated to step 2, to be heard on May 5.

Policy Grievance - Acting SA Position – Prince George II

An acting SA position was known to be longer than 3 months. Despite the new language in the CA requiring it to be posted, the position was simply awarded to one person, with the intention to give it to another individual afterwards.

The Union is asking for the CA to be followed in these circumstances by posting the position. We have recently negotiated new language with the employer specifically around this situation. We expect both parties will follow this new language. The manager may appoint if the position is known to be three months or less, but must post the opportunity if the position is to be greater than three months.

Status: This grievance was heard and denied at Sep 1. It has been elevated to step 2, to be heard on May 5.

Denial of Overtime – Okanagan

An employee with a busy PARP schedule requested to work an “off” day at the end of a 4 week cycle. The time was pre-approved by the employee’s supervisor in writing and the hours of work schedule was amended. The time in question was in excess of the 140 hour mark for the 4 week cycle.

The employee worked the day in question and submitted for overtime on ERP. The employee was denied the overtime and subsequently denied all pay for the day worked. This situation is an example inconsistent practices around the approval of overtime. The CA talks about the employer approving overtime. The employer may perceive this as meaning a manager must give approval. However, the employer has typically given bargaining unit supervisors the responsibility of managing scheduled and hours of work. Confusion can arise when an employee communicates with their supervisor and does not know what communication has occurred between the supervisor and he excluded manager.

Status: This grievance was heard and denied at step 1. It has been elevated to Step 2. To date, and the employee has not received any pay for the hours worked on the day in question.