ISSN 1710-5080

Presidents Message

Continued on page 2

In This Issue

Presidents Message ............ p.1

Jurisprudence ...................... p.1

The Accountability Act ........ p.5

The Long Arm of the Crown . p.7

Collective Bargaining .......... p.8

Consultations .................... p.11

Professional DialogueMarch 2007

Where Were Going and How

Were Getting There

As President, mypriority is to ensurethat the Associa-tion uses itsresources toprovide the bestservices to theCAPE membershipas possible. In thisrespect, myimmediate task isto focus attention on three areas inparticular communication, ECconversion, and governance. Thesethree priorities represent the coremessages you have communicatedto me in the past year at meetings,by e-mail and direct conversations.

Here is what I plan to do:Communication The NationalExecutive Committee and I areworking closely with the

Jurisprudence Relating to Abuse ofAuthority Cases

The Public Service Staffing Tribu-nal (PSST) is an independent andquasi-judicial body which has beenestablished pursuant to the newPublic Service Employment Act todeal with complaints related tointernal appointments and lay-offsin the federal public service. TheTribunal conducts hearings andprovides mediation services inorder to resolve complaints.

Two recent decisions issued bythe Tribunal are of particular valuebecause they will serve as jurispru-dence to better define abuse ofauthority, discretion in staffing

processes, and the expectations ofthe Tribunal with respect to thepresentation of a complaint,including the presentation ofevidence supporting the allega-tions. These decisions are Tibbs v.the Deputy Minister of NationalDefence, and Portree v. TheDeputy Head of Service Canada.

The Tibbs decision, the earlierof the two, establishes a definitionof abuse of authority, and conse-quently clarifies, to some extent,what evidence is required in orderto demonstrate that abuse ofauthority did occur.

Vol. 3, no. 1, March 2007 Newsletter of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees

TM

he Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) was amended

to accommodate changes to the appointment processTbrought about by the implementation of the Public Service

Modernization Act (PSMA). Included in these changes is the

manner in which employees can address disputed staffing

decisions. Where once an aggrieved employee could file an

appeal of a staffing process at the Public Service Commis-

sion, the revised PSEA allows employees to file complaints

with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal.

Continued on page 3

TOC

Presidents Message, contd from page 1

2

Communications Committee toensure that members getinformation in a timely fashion.This includes looking at thefeasibility of using cost effectiveforms of electronic communicationto better inform members.

Conversion Among the EC Group,the number one complaint andfrustration is with the classificationconversion. Management is notproviding information on whatshappening with the conversion andthe ultimate impact it is likely tohave on members classification.Where information is forth coming,it is inadequate. The Association willcontinue to work closely with theLocal Leadership to identify depart-ments where members are not beinginformed, and CAPE will be there toprovide an update.

Governance The importance ofimproving service to memberscannot be underscored. The Na-tional Executive Committee hasestablished a special GovernanceReview Committee to review theway CAPE governs itself and tomake changes, where necessary, toits governance structure in order tocontinually improve service tomembers. Information regarding allCAPE Committees, their mandates,and minutes from meetings, can be

found on the CAPE website atwww.acep-cape.ca.

The Association is working inparallel on other important issues.

Financial Incentive Plan Negotiations for this Plan forthe TR Group were com-pleted well before the March31 deadline.

TR Collective Bargaining ANegotiating Committee hasbeen established and workhas already begun on prepar-ing the issues for the nextround. Notice to bargain willbe sent to the Treasury Boardbefore the expiry date for theagreement April 18, 2007.

EC Collective Bargaining The Bargaining Committeefor this group has reconvenedto prepare for the continua-tion of negotiations with theemployer as the one yearbridging agreement signedlast year expires on June 21,2007.

Task Force on MembershipParticipation This commit-tee will examine ways andmeans of increasing partici-pation in the Associationsactivities, meetings, AGMs,etc..

Audit Committee Thiscommittee, which is the first

of its kind, will serve as anoversight committee,ensuring accountability andtransparency in the financialoperations of the Associa-tion.

Equal Opportunities andDiversity Committee Thiscommittee will ensure thatCAPE is aware of thechallenges in the implemen-tation of the EmploymentEquity Act and willproactively work in collabo-ration with other bargainingagents to support efforts toaddress existing and emerg-ing challenges.

Young Members AdvisoryCommittee This commit-tee provides an excellentopportunity for members toacquire experience necessaryfor the future leadership ofCAPE.

It is going to be a busy year andprogress on these issues will becommunicated to you periodically.

As the National President, I willcontinue to work closely togetherwith the Local Leaders, the NationalExecutive Committee, staff andwith you the members to providethe effective leadership CAPE needsin order to accomplish its collectiveagenda, improving service tomembers!

TOC

3

Jurisprudence, contd from page 1

Continued on page 4

In Tibbs, the complainantalleged that she was not appointedto a position because the selectionboard abused its authority by beinglenient in assessing the qualifica-tions of the person that wasappointed, and by being very strictin assessing her qualifications.Specifically, the complainantalleged that the selection boardsdecision to screen her out forfailing to meet one of the essentialqualifications constituted abuse ofauthority.

Furthermore, the complainantalleged that the appointee did notmeet two of the essential qualifica-tions for the position.

In his decision, the Chair, GuyGigure, establishes that

It is clear from the preamble andthe whole scheme of the PSEAthat Parliament intended thatmuch more is required thanmere errors and omissions toconstitute abuse of authorityAbuse of authority is more thansimply errors and omissionsabuse of authority requireswrongdoing. Accordingly, abuseof authority will always includeimproper conduct, but the degreeto which the conduct is impropermay determine whether or not itconstitutes abuse of authority.

The Chair attempts to furtherclarify what constitutes abuse ofauthority by citing five establishedcategories:

1. When a delegate exercises

his/her/its discretion with animproper intention in mind

2. When a delegate acts oninadequate material

3. When there is an improperresult

4. When the delegate exercisesdiscretion on an erroneousview of the law

5. When a delegate refuses toexercise his/her/its discretionby adopting a policy whichfetters the ability to considerindividual cases with an openmind.

When a manager exercises his orher discretion, but unintentionallymakes an appointment that isclearly against logic and the avail-able information, it may not consti-tute bad faith, intentionalwrongdoing, or misconduct, but themanager may have abused his or herauthority.

The chair also examines theissues of discretion in staffingprocesses, citing the Baker versusCanada decision, that states thatdiscretion in administrativedecisions must be exercised in amanner that is within a reasonableinterpretation of the margin ofmaneuver... Discretionary decisionsshould be reviewed only on limitedgrounds according to the generalprinciples of administrative lawgoverning the exercise of discretionand consistent with the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms.These same principles ofadministrative law apply to allforms of discretionaryadministrative decisions.

While in the present case, the

complaint was not upheld, thedecision is proving to be valuableto anyone considering filing acomplaint.

The same can be said for thePortree decision.

In this instance, the complain-ant alleged that she was notappointed to an acting position byreason of abuse of authority.

A candidate couldbe appointed if the

selection board

determines that he or

she is the right fit

even if they were

awarded less points

than other qualified

candidates.

In this decision, rendered byVice-Chair Sonia Gaal, the Chairstates:

There is no dispute that thePSEA changed the staffingprocess in the federal publicservice. Whereas the formerPSEA provided that people werechosen on the basis of a relativemerit system, the PSEA givesmore discretion to managers toselect the candidate who is theright fit for the position

The Vice-Chair goes to somelengths to provide guidance forfuture complainants.

TOC

4

Jurisprudence, contd from page 3

She recommends that acomplainant should start bytestifying as to the circumstancesthat allegedly constitute an abuseof authority, and then follow withdocumentary evidence to supportthe allegations.

At a hearing, a complainantshould present evidence, usuallythrough their own testimony andthat of witnesses, and supportingdocuments, in order to prove thefacts necessary to support aconclusion that an abuse ofauthority has occurred.

The decision makes clear that acomplaint is more than simplystating a perceived injustice. Acomplaint must provide the factsupon which the complainant reliesin proving the case.

The decision also articulatesthe Tribunals role. It is not toreassess a complainants marks on agiven answer. It is not to reviewresponses given during an inter-view, just because the complainantdoes not agree with the decision.

Ratings are no longer requiredunder the PSEA, and a candidatecould be appointed if the selectionboard determines that he or she isthe right fit, even if they wereawarded less points than otherqualified candidates. Simplydisagreeing with the results does notconstitute evidence of wrongdoing.

Again, in this particular case,the complaint was dismissed, butagain, valuable lessons were learnedabout the principles that the PSSTwill be using to determine whethera complaint of abuse of authority inmatters of staffing is founded or notfounded.

In sum, the Tibbs and Portreedecisions have allowed the PublicService Staffing Tribunal an oppor-tunity to delineate its ownresponsibilities in matters of staffingdecision disputes. Conversely, theyhave also shed light on the role ofthe informal discussion step in thestaffing decision process. Errors andomissions and similar matters thatdo not involve bad faith or incom-petence appear to be matters thatthe Tribunal expects to be addressedby means of informal discussion.

It should be noted that thisseparation of matters was antici-pated by SSEA cum CAPE when itreviewed C-25, the Bill that eventu-ally became the Public ServiceModernization Act. In its brief toParliament in 2003, the Associationargued for the inclusion of errorsand omissions among the groundsfor complaint to the proposed newstaffing tribunal. As almost allbargaining agent recommendationsat that time, CAPEs proposal didnot make its way into the newlegislation. Thus, we are left with theredress process as we now know it.

Amendments to the PublicService Employment Act broughtabout by the implementation of thePublic Service Modernization Act arescheduled for review. In 2010, theamendments that came into force in2005 will be subject to discussionsbetween the employer and bargain-ing agents. In the meantime, CAPEwill be monitoring the situation andpreparing for the review. All that theAssociation has asked, and all thatwe expect now and in the future, is astaffing redress process that ensuresfairness.

TOC

5

The Federal Accountability Act

The Federal Accountability Act is a complex Act that touches on a myriad of other legislation,requiring changes to these other Acts - changes that are to be implemented over an as yet undeter-

mined period of time.

Impacted by the Federal Account-ability Act are the: Parliament ofCanada Act, Canada Elections Act,Lobbyists Registration Act, PublicService Employment Act, Access toInformation Act, Privacy Act,Library and Archives of Canada Act,Financial Administration Act,Criminal Code, Canadian DairyCommission Act, Enterprise CapeBreton Corporation Act, NationalCapital Act, Auditor General Act,Department of Public Works andGovernment Services Act and whathas become known as theWhistleblowers act the PublicServants Disclosure Protection Act.

In addition, the Federal Ac-countability Act enacts newlegislation: The Conflict of InterestAct and the Director of PublicProsecutions Act.

Of greatest interest to CAPE asa bargaining agent are the changesthat will be made to the PublicServants Disclosure Protection Act(PSDPA).

The purpose of the PublicServants Disclosure Protection Act isto allow public service employeesto step forward if they believe thatwrongdoing has taken place, andprovides protection againstreprisal. It provides an objectiveprocess for those against whom

allegations have been made.

The changes to thisAct will:

1. Establish the Public ServantsDisclosure ProtectionTribunal and give it theauthority required to makeremedial orders in favour ofvictims of reprisal, and theauthority to order discipli-nary action against theperson(s) who took thereprisal.

2. Ensure that this protection isextended to all Canadians,not just public serviceemployees.

3. Ensure the prompt publicreporting by chief executivesand the Public SectorIntegrity Commissioner ofcases of wrongdoing.

4. Allow the Public SectorIntegrity Commissioner toprovide access to legal advice

The PSDPA requires TreasuryBoard to establish a Code of Con-duct for the federal public sector.Chief Executives of departmentsand organizations must establishtheir own codes that are consistent

with the Treasury Board code butadapted to the needs of their organi-zations. Chief Executives must alsoestablish an internal disclosuremechanism. Employees may make adisclosure to his or her supervisor, orthe senior officer designated for thepurpose. Employees may also makea disclosure to the Public SectorIntegrity Commissioner (PSIC).

Of greatestinterest to CAPE as

a bargaining agent are

the changes that will

be made to the Public

Servants Disclosure

Protection Act.

In extreme circumstances, anemployee may make a publicdisclosure if there is not sufficienttime to make the disclosure usingthe internal or independent thirdparty processes, and the employeebelieves that there is a serious breachof federal or provincial laws, or animminent risk of a substantial andspecific danger to the life, health and

Continued on page 6

TOC

6

safety of individuals or to theenvironment.

The Public Sector IntegrityCommissioner will be a neutral thirdparty reporting directly to Parlia-ment, and will receive all reprisalcomplaints. If the PSIC decides thatthe complaint is worth investigation,he or she will assign an investigator.Once the investigation report isreceived, the PSIC may apply to thenew Public Servants DisclosureProtection Tribunal to hear the case.The Tribunal, which will be com-posed of superior court judges, willdetermine whether any reprisaloccurred, and can order remedialaction. The Tribunal can also orderdisciplinary action against individu-als determined to have taken areprisal. Public service employeesmay still choose to deal with thematter through the grievance proc-ess, but can only use onemechanism, not both.

Public serviceemployees may choose

to deal with the matter

through the grievance

process, but can only

use one mechanism,

not both.

The CAPE Labour RelationsDivision is examining theinformation provided to dateregarding the Public ServiceDisclosure Protection Act, and isexploring the implications of theAct. The Association will be

Accountability Act, contd from p.5

establishing what guidance, adviceand services will be given to themembers, as the changes in thelegislation come about.

TOC

7

The Long Arm of the CrownEvery once in a while an employee, or a group of employees, finds itself in a position where it isreaping by accident, or not, greater rewards than is warranted by the terms and conditions of their

employment, their collective agreements, National Joint Council directives or other employment

contracts. Sounds like a good thing, right?

Maybe not. When this happens toan employee of the federal govern-ment, the results are not always asbeneficial as they at first appear.Whenever an employee receives inexcess of what is prescribed, theemployee ultimately becomesindebted to the employer, thefederal government - otherwisereferred to as the Crown. For everydollar earned above and beyondcollectively agreed upon salary andbenefits, the employee owes theCrown that same amount.

A simple example ofthis is as follows:An employee at the 4th incrementlevel of the pay scale is mistakenlypaid (for whatever reason - let's sayan error on the part of Pay andBenefits) at the rate allotted to anemployee at the 5th level. Eventhough the employee is unaware ofthe error, and is not responsible forthe error, once the error is discov-ered by the Crown, the employeemust repay the amount in question.Granted, there are mechanisms thatcan alleviate some of the immedi-ate financial discomfort that such asituation might cause, but there isno way to get out of it. The Crownwill exact its price.

A more complicatedexample:

A manager is faced with a difficultdeadline. He or she decides to offer agroup of employees, on a voluntarybasis, the opportunity to work extrahours at twice the compensationvalue, rather than at the premiumprovided in the collective agreement,i.e. at time and half. Several employ-ees volunteer, and thus agree to theconditions. Some do not volunteer.The work gets done. Everyone ishappy, and everything should befine, right?

Maybe not. The employer, readTreasury Board, is not bound by theagreement arrived at by the managerand a group of employees. The em-ployer, a.k.a. the Crown, will collectthe monies owed it, once it becomesaware of the issue.

On the flip side, the bargainingagent has a very clearly definedview a view defined by the gen-eral interest of the members. Firstly,if the conditions set into motion bythis manager are applied to a smallnumber of members, that meansthat most members are doing thesame work for a benefit of lesservalue.

Secondly, if the agreement fallsoutside the employment contractsbetween employer and bargaining

agent, well, it's just not legal. Moreo-ver, it undermines the authority ofthe collective agreement and the bar-gaining agent's ability to force theemployer to respect the agreement.How does a bargaining agent negoti-ate and defend a collectiveagreement if it takes the positionthat the employer should respect theagreement most of the time,but maybe not always?

Thirdly, why would a bargainingagent want to risk having its mem-bers subjected to garnisheeing oftheir wages, while the Crown recu-perates monies earned that shouldnever have been earned? Take as anexample the member who was toldthat he owed the employer $7,000 forreimbursements that he should nothave received under the Travel Direc-tive. An error had been made by theemployer, and the employee wasadvised of the $7,000.00 debt, twoyears after the fact. CAPE tries toprotect its members from this.

The responsibility of a bargain-ing agent is to advocate on behalf ofthe interests of all its members in aworld of labour statutes, other lawsand collective agreements. Bargain-ing agents do not always have goodnews to communicate to the mem-bers that they represent. But,contracts are contracts, and lawsare laws.

TOC8

Collective Bargaining 2007

Collective agreements covering entitlements and rights of over 90% of federal public serviceemployees will expire in the year 2007. By the end of the calendar year, no less than eighteen

bargaining tables will be active. Before year end, quite possibly even before spring turns into summer,

Canadians will have a new national government, and federal public service employees will have a new

political mandate directing their work. Circumstances are definitely conspiring to make 2007 quite

memorable.

Continued on page 9

The purpose of the following fewparagraphs is to briefly review someof the economic parameters thatwill effect bargaining of a new TRand of a new EC collective agree-ment. The focus of the text will bewage adjustments, the across theboard increases in pay that arenegotiated for a given occupationalgroup.

In the end, the mandate thatwill be brought to the bargainingtable by Treasury Board negotiatorswill depend on political decisions.However, the political decisions willbe made within a context ofeconomic realities.

Wage adjustmenttrends

Let us begin with a few bargainingreference points from 2006, whichcan be found in the February 15edition of the Workplace Bulletinby the Labour Program of HumanResources and Social DevelopmentCanada (contracts that involve 500employees or more).

In the month of December2006, public administration wageadjustments in Canada averaged2.8%. The government of Manitobawas the principal public sector

employer to sign new agreements inDecember. It signed seven agree-ments each of which included thesame average annual wage adjust-ment of 2.6% for a period of 48.3months ending on March 26, 2010.

Recent wageadjustments under

federal jurisdiction are

dragging down the

national average, and

federal public service

employees are

losing ground.

Taking a step back and compar-ing quarterly figures, fourth quartersettlements of public administrationagreements in 2006 across Canadaaveraged 2.8% annually over theterm of the new agreements, whilethird quarter settlements averaged2.8%, 3.0% in the second quarterand 2.7% in the first quarter.

Viewed from the perspective oflabour statute jurisdictions andacross both public and privatesectors, wage settlements under

federal jurisdiction averaged 2.2%in the fourth quarter with higheraverages in 6 of 9 provincialjurisdictions where there weresettlements. Only Saskatchewan(2.0%), Newfoundland andLabrador (1.9%), and Ontario(1.5%) had lower averages. Settle-ments averaged 3.9% in Alberta,3.7% in New Brunswick, and 3.4%in British Columbia.

Comparing annual figures for2006, agreements signed underfederal jurisdiction averaged wageadjustments of 2.3%, with higheraverages in 7 of 10 provinces. Wealso know that the trend of wageadjustments negotiated withTreasury Board was 2.5% in 2006which would tie British Columbiafor seventh place. These figuresseem to indicate that recent wageadjustments under federal jurisdic-tion are dragging down thenational average, and federal publicservice employees are losingground. In fact, Treasury Boardtrend adjustments have been lowerthan the average wage adjustmentin eight provincial jurisdictions in2003, seven in 2004, six in 2005,and of course seven in 2006.

Another important dimension

TOC

9

Collective Bargaining, contd from p.8

of settlements in 2006 was theduration of the new agreements.The average duration of newcollective agreements involving 500or more employees in 2006 was 43months. Predecessor agreementsaveraged 33 months. The durationof collective agreements hasincreased on average by almost anentire year, from an average of 2.75years to an average of 3.58 years.Similarly, the collective agreementsthat are expiring in 2007 for mostfederal public service employees are48 month agreements, the durationof which contrasts with the twoand three-year agreements thathave been more characteristic offederal public service agreements.

What kind of mandate can weexpect Treasury Board negotiatorsto bring to the table in 2007? Willthe Department of Finance (seeProfessional Dialogue, June 2006. p.6) set a two-year, three-year or fouryear mandate? Does the durationhave a relation to the actual rates ofadjustment that are brought to thetable?

ForecastingWage adjustments in the federalpublic service are closely related toinflation forecasts. If we take aquick look back for a moment atinflation in 2006, we find thataccording to Statistics Canadafigures released on January 23, 2007the average gain for all items of theConsumer Price Index (CPI) for2006 was 2%. The all-items averageresulted from higher monthly

adjustments in the first eightmonths of 2006, balanced out bylower adjustments in the four finalmonths of the year. But themonthly adjustments of the lastquarter of 2006 were clearlymoving back up to the annualaverage. However, this is the reality,not the forecast.

The most important forecasterof inflationary trends is the Bank ofCanada. The Bank of Canadacarries out the monetary policy ofthe government of the day. How-ever, recent national governments,regardless of political party, haveagreed that the bank would havethe mandate of keeping inflation at2%, within a control range of 1%to 3%. In fact, recently, on Novem-ber 23, 2006 the Government ofCanada announced that the Bankof Canada would continue to usethe inflation control target of 2% tothe end of 2011. This figure is animportant reference. The Bank ofCanada forecast is particularlysignificant because the Bankestablishes the availability ofmoney by means of setting the baselending rate to chartered banks. Bysetting the price of money, theBank can affect an inflationarytrend positively or negativelystewarding it to some extenttowards the 2% target.

The Bank of Canada forecastfor the year 2006, published on the26 of January 2006, was very closeto reality for the first half of theyear at 2.5%. But the bank esti-mated that the rate of increasewould gradually slow down to 2%by mid-2007. In fact, what actuallyhappened is that the CPI experi-

enced increases of 1.7% and 1.3%in the two final quarters of 2006,not rates between 2.5% and 2% asexpected. The typical wage adjust-ment of federal public servicecollective agreements during thesame period was 2.5%. As a result,federal public service employeeswere able to move marginallyahead of CPI gains.

The current roundof bargaining is the

round when the

employer must set into

place some of the

major building blocks

that will ensure that it

isnt trying to function

with empty offices

in a few years.

What did the Bank predict thisyear? On January 18, 2007 the Bankreleased its forecast for 2007 and2008. It reads as follows: "Totalinflation should average just above1 per cent in the first half of thisyear, returning to the 2 per centtarget in early 2008. Core inflationshould return to 2 per cent in thefirst half of 2007 and stay there."(Bank of Canada Press Release, 18January 2007. "Bank of Canadareleases Monetary Policy ReportUpdate.")

While noting that the core CPIforecasted by the Bank of Canada is

Continued on page 10

TOC

10

2% for 2007 and 2% for 2008, theBMO has forecasted a more modestCPI in 2007 in its February 2007Canadian Economic Outlook -1.7% and a slightly higher CPI in2008 - 2.1%. As of January 2007,the Royal Bank of Canada isforecasting a CPI of 1.6% for 2007,and 2.2% in 2008.

While the numbers are interest-ing, it is important to note here theforecast horizon of each of theseforecasts: 2 years. Most federalpublic service employees will seetheir collective agreements expiremid-year, 2007. While mandates arefinalized at the beginning of thebargaining process, depending onhow bargaining plays itself out atthe various tables in 2007, we couldstill be in the initial phase of theparties trying to estimate what itwill take to get agreements by thetime 2008 comes along. At thattime, the employer would havereliable forecasts for up to Janu-ary 2010.

Leap of faith, leapof policyInflation does not determine wagesin the federal public service, nor doinflation forecasts. There arecertainly other economic factorsthat are taken into consideration:

for example, the market compara-bility of wages and internalrelativities within the publicservice. But, in a setting of patternbargaining, the inflation forecastsare an important tool for theemployer in the preparation of thebase mandate that it will allow itsnegotiators to bring to the varioustables.

This need not be an obstacle toconstructive bargaining. Construc-tive bargaining can occur as long asthe employer doesn't simply act aspart of the government's arsenal ofinflation control, and as long as theemployer comes to the tablethinking like an employer, with amandate directed by humanresource objectives.

On February 26, Kathryn Mayreported in the Ottawa Citizen that:"Time is running out for the federalgovernment to get ready for thebiggest employment shock indecades, when the traditional draws- "making a difference" andgenerous benefits - won't beenough to keep or attract workersin a cutthroat labour market".Quoting Glen Hodgson, seniorvice-president and chief economistof the Conference Board of Canada,Ms. May writes: "There is still time,

but (the public service) will have torecognize this is a serious issue and itcan't be put off until 2010."

2010 will be too late. The currentround of bargaining is the roundwhen the employer must set intoplace some of the major buildingblocks that will ensure that it isn'ttrying to function with empty officesin a few years. A set of 3 year collec-tive agreements scheduled to expiresome time in 2010 would need toinclude pay adjustments in each ofthe three years that will outruninflation forecasts and allow federalpublic service agreements to catch upwith agreements signed in otherjurisdictions.

These agreements will need alittle imagination. New leave provi-sions targeting newer employees aswell as employees who are thinkingof retiring might be a good place tostart; and what about empoweringemployees to do their work, allowingemployees to take initiatives andcontribute creatively to the publicgood?

2010 will be too late to begin tobe creative at the bargaining table.

Collective Bargaining, contd from p.9

TOC11

Harassment Consultations

CAPE Labour Relations Officers consult with over 70 departmentsand organizations in the development of guidelines and policies.

These policies include, but are not limited to, departmental

Harassment Policies, Recruitment Policies, Telework Policies, Health

and Safety, Accommodations, Employment Equity, Electronic

Bulletin Boards, Apprenticeship Programs, Development Programs,

Work Description Initiatives, Functional Reviews, and the list goes

on. And on.

But consultation, is just that consultation. The employer maypolitely ask us what we think, andeven how we think things shouldwork, but the bottom line is thatthe employer has sole authority todevelop and implement thesepolicies as it sees fit, which does notalways fit with CAPEs vision of agood workplace.

Most recently, we had this tosay about the consultative processundertaken to develop a Harass-ment Policy in one of thedepartments where our membersare present:

In reviewing this draft, com-ments were made that it flies in

the face of the supposedly voluntarynature of the ICMS (InformalConflict Management System)model, and that it serves to formalizeeven further a process or series ofprocesses which, according to theirinitiating legislation, were intendedto be informal

If the employer introduces a newpolicy concerning harassment in theworkplace which reflects this currentdraft policy CAPEs position willbe to recommend to its members thatthey do not make use of this policy atall; our members will be advised toaddress harassment issues throughthe formal grievance process. In itscurrent state, CAPE simply cannot

recommend to its members that theymake use of the measures andprocesses set out in the policy as it iscurrently drafted, particularly inlight of its unjustifiable focus onICMS and the employers continuingfailure to address adequately CAPEsconcerns with the ICMS initiative onthe public service wide level.

The consultation process doesnot oblige management to addressconcerns expressed by CAPE orother bargaining agents. And whilemany managers enter into mean-ingful consultation where theylisten and consider views that maybe at odds with their immediateinterests, the final decision remainsmanagements. The same can besaid of co-development. Co-development allows for a sharing ofthe responsibilities for the develop-ment of policies and practices, onlyif the employer allows for thesharing of the responsibilities. Notnecessarily a different process, justa different word.

TOC12

Jos Aggrey President jaggrey@acep-cape.caClaude Danik Executive Director cdanik@acep-cape.caJean Ouellette Director of Labour Relations jouellette@acep-cape.caHlne Paris Research Officer hparis@acep-cape.caDeborah Fiander Communications Officer dfiander@acep-cape.caSylvie Richard Information Officer srichard@acep-cape.caLiana Griffin Professional Services Assistant lgriffin@acep-cape.caSandra Wensink Finance Officer swensink@acep-cape.caSylvie Francoeur Finance Officer Assistant sfrancoeur@acep-cape.caClaude Archambault Labour Relations Officer carchambault@acep-cape.caIsabelle Borr Labour Relations Officer iborre@acep-cape.caKaren Brook Labour Relations Officer kbrook@acep-cape.caIsabelle Germain Labour Relations Officer igermain@acep-cape.caBertrand Myre Labour Relations Officer bmyre@acep-cape.caCatherine O'Brien Labour Relations Officer cobrien@acep-cape.caLionel Saurette Labour Relations Officer lsaurette@acep-cape.caClaude Vzina Labour Relations Officer cvezina@acep-cape.caDonna Martin Manager of Administration Services dmartin@acep-cape.caAnita Bangiricenge Administrative Clerk abangiricenge@acep-cape.caChantale Lebel Administrative Clerk clebel@acep-cape.caFrancine Logan Administrative Clerk flogan@acep-cape.caJulie Parisien Administrative Clerk jparisien@acep-cape.caSharon Wilson Administrative Clerk swilson@acep-cape.ca

Canadian Association of Professional EmployeesNational Office Staff

Professional Dialogue is the newsletter of the

Canadian Association of Professional Employees,

representing approximately 11,000 federal

professional employees across Canada.

100 Queen Street, 4th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9

(613) 236-9181 1-800-265-9181 Fax: (613) 236-6017

Web site: www.acep-cape.ca

Professional DialogueTM

Canadian Association of Professional EmployeesNational Executive Committee

In December 2006 elections were held for the positions of President, EC Vice-President, TR Vice-President and five EC Directors. The newNational Executive Committee (NEC) took office on January 1, 2007. You can find minutes of past NEC meeting minutes on the CAPEwebsite at www.acep-cape.ca.

Jos Aggrey President CAPE 613-236-9181 1-800-265-9181 jaggrey@acep-cape.caCarl Lakaski EC/LoP Vice President Public Health Agency of Canada 613-954-8645Lionel Perrin TR Vice President Public Works and Government Services - Translation Bureau 613-992-8355Jean-Rony Benoit EC Director Library and Archives Canada 819-953-0513Carol Card TR Director Public Works and Government Services - Translation Bureau 613-995-3184Ghislain Dussault EC Director Public Works and Government Services 819-997-1518Marcy Holyk EC Director National Defence 613-541-5010Maurice Korol EC Director Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 613-759-7284Sarah Lawson EC Director Natural Resources Canada 613-947-6816Robert McVicar EC Director Statistics Canada 613-951-3542Andr Picotte TR Director Public Works and Government Services-Translation Bureau 819-994-1288Anna Sipos EC Director Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 613-944-0211Stan Spak EC Director Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 204-983-8467Sebastian Spano LoP Director Library of Parliament 613-995-7918Clayton Therrien EC Director Statistics Canada 613-951-4006Michael Zinck EC Director Veterans Affairs Canada 902-368-0866Claude Danik Executive Director CAPE 613-236-9181 1-800-265-9181 cdanik@acep-cape.caJean Ouellette Director of Labour Relations CAPE 613-236-9181 1-800-265-9181 jouellette@acep-cape.caDonna Martin Manager of Administration Services CAPE 613-236-9181 1-800-265-9181 dmartin@acep-cape.ca