Labour Program Union-Management Consultation Committee (LPUMCC)

1. Opening Remarks and Approvals

Opening Remarks

The co-chairs, Lori Sterling and Doug Marshall, welcomed members to the meeting. Lori Sterling emphasized the importance of Union-Management Consultation as a forum committed to discussing and resolving labour relations issues in the workplace of national interest.

Agenda Approval

The agenda of the meeting was approved by the members.

Minutes of Previous Meeting Approval:

The minutes of the meeting of October 31, 2016 were approved by members. Doug Marshall had proposed amendments on February 20, 2017. LPUMCC Secretariat confirmed they were all added. Doug Marshall suggested making a final review of the minutes.

2. Office Space 2.0

(Earl Hoeg, Stéphane Michaud, Sonia Powell, Donald McAllister, Matthew Zic)

An overview of the implementation Activity Based Workplace (ABW) design initiative was presented by PSPC. It was explained how the design and the allocation of work spaces are based on the work activities performed by workers. This type of workplace design is an integrated standard approach meant to offer a safe, healthy, universal and economical work environment. The ABW design incorporates collaborative spaces and meeting rooms to ensure that the workplace is favourable to current and future work trends such as cooperative work.

Linda Koo from UNE-PSAC, raised concerns with regards to a rise in work strains and accommodation requests. She questioned office sharing and how management views the spread of germs in the workplace.

Sonia Powell responded work strains have been demonstrated to be linked to repetitive movement and static workstations. The sit and stand offices offer huge improvements to these concerns. Cleanliness in unassigned work spaces is key to limiting the risk of spreading germs. Good practices such as hand washing will be reminded and clear desk policies will also be encouraged to allow janitorial services to clean bare work surfaces efficiently.

Amy Awad from CAPE asked how quickly this initiative will be implemented.

Earl Hoeg responded that the first areas that will see the implementation of the Departmental Integrated Design Standard (IDS) are areas that require additional space and areas that are requesting the implementation of the design voluntarily.

Andrew Gibson from CAPE enquired if multi-faith rooms, showers and spaces to allow physical or sport activities will be integrated in the IDS design. An example of current limitations is that individuals have to pool funds to rent a prayer space in Place du Centre. M. Gibson also requested an organizational chart indicating the work locations of EC employees at the Labour Program.

Earl Hoeg confirmed that the availability of small, medium and large collaborative work spaces will make the organisation of such activities possible.

Michael O’ Donnell from UNE-PSAC shared his personal experience with the implementation of the proposed design. He stated that his move to a new work environment did not comprise of all of the elements of the 2.0 office space. He questioned if it was due to inadequate funding of the move. He requested how management would ensure that the initiative is adequately funded and if it was possible to list the areas within the Labour Program that are scheduled for the implementation in the next year.

Earl Hoeg admitted that past moves were executed according to the available funding and resources. He acknowledged that moving employees required the use of significant financial resources. Hence, they have initiated consultations to ensure the proper funding and a multi-year and efficient implementation of the initiative. He further confirmed that he may not commit at the present time in providing the implementation plan of the design at Labour Program.

Doug Marshall brought up some of his concerns related to this matter. He noted that activity based work spaces seem to ignore the need for privacy and quiet spaces. Noise cancelling devices may be considered in this case.

Completed

3. Labour Program Priorities (Lori Sterling)

The upcoming year will have a busy policy agenda in light of the new ministerial mandate which focuses heavily on the Labour Program.

The Labour Program 2017-2018 priorities including the new Minister’s mandate letter commitments are as follows:

• The promotion of good quality jobs
• The proposal of initiatives to ensure workplaces free from harassment and sexual violence
• The implementation of fair wages policy
• The proposal of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to formalize the request of flexible work arrangements and new leaves of absence
• The development of options to support fairness in the workplace with pay equity
• The reduction of availability of unpaid internships
• The support of the timely passage of the amended Bill C-4
• The continued enhancement of service delivery to Canadian workers and employers
• The improvement of workplace conditions by fostering respect for international labour standards and federal regulatory standards.

The Labour Program will continue to support their employees in providing a safe and respectful workplace. Initiatives promoting well-being emphasizing mental health, diversity and mobilization will continue to be of importance.

Recruitment, development, retention of talented employees is a priority to the Labour Program. As well, sustained efforts to provide faster hiring processes to ensure strategic resourcing.

The Labour Program will continue to encourage innovation. There is a willingness on the part of management to encourage risk management in the experiment of new processes that could streamline current services and effectively empower employees in the process to meet the Labour Program’s objectives.

4. Update on the Phoenix Pay System (Jennifer Hamilton)

Phoénix related issues are still ongoing and this is a challenging time for employees.

Employees are encouraged to continue to utilise the ESDC’s Pay Action Escalation Process and the Phoenix Feedback Form to bring forward issues related to their pay.

With the imminent tax period, employees can access their T4 statements via the Compensation Web Application (CWA). The RL-1 statement is yet to be released. Employees will be informed of availability of the statement through the departmental Intersection Communiqué in the near future.

ESDC’s Compensation Liaison Office team is working closely with the Winnipeg Satellite PSPC Pay Centre to prioritize outstanding pay actions for employees leaving and returning from leaves of absence.

Employees facing financial hardship because of pay issues are encouraged to request emergency salary advances (ESAs) and priority payments. They may also enquire about the claims process for incurred out-of-pocket expenses when necessary.

Lori Sterling encouraged union representatives to engage management as soon as possible of any issues brought to their attention

Michael O’Donnell from UNE-PSAC asked if ESAs apply to other situations such as payments for stand-by duties. He confirms that he is aware of employees that have several outstanding payments for such duties. He states that the unresolved payment for such type of duties may impact certain employee’s collaboration in accepting to perform these duties.

Jennifer Hamilton confirmed that priority payments may be a possibility in these instances.

Lori Sterling added that she was informed that the backlog of pay issues is currently being addressed and several outstanding requests have been resolved. She acknowledged that the current situation is unacceptable but that the employer is available to provide as much support as possible to employees that are experiencing pay issues.

5. Performance Management Assessment (Ann Marie Julien and Lyne Pépin)

Ann Marie Julien, Director of People Strategies at the Human Resources Services Branch (HRSB) suggested that members consult the presentation while she highlights essential amendments in the application of performance management for the year 2016-2017.

She further confirmed that the announced TBS upgrade to the Public Service Performance Management Application planned for June 1, 2017 has been postponed to April 2018.

Ann Marie Julien confirmed that the rating definitions of core competencies have been modified to provide additional clarity and consistency in their application. These new definitions are pointed out at page 9 of the presentation deck.

Ann Marie Julien clarifies that there are two frequent occasions where "succeeded minus" is used. The first use may be to demonstrate that the employee is not meeting the required standard of their position due to their performance requiring improvement. The second main use of the rating is when an employee is new to a position, in training or in an acting assignment and does not fully meet the required standard of the occupied position. However, it is possible that an employee new to a position or acting is able to meet expectations and attain the "succeeded" rate. Employee performance ratings must be linked to the degree of success with the identified work objectives and the competencies demonstrated for the position.

Linda Koo mentions she is concerned that performance assessment may not take in consideration situations where employees are required to occupy substantive and acting related tasks.

Gary Robertson, Assistant Deputy Minister at the Labour Program, responds by saying that many factors must be considered when assessing performance where an acting assignment is performed. The review panels allow the normalisation of assessments and ensure consistency in the application of management’s rating. Adjustments by the review panel are rarely necessary.

Lori Sterling adds that the review panel considers the direct supervisor’s assessment as being important but not the only perspective to be considered in the assessment process.

Michael O’Donnell mentions that veteran employees have been responsible for larger workload and complex files that may affect how they meet their work objectives. He states that some of these employees are fearful of the effects on their performance assessment and of bringing this to the attention of their manager.

Gary Robertson states that performance assessment results should not be a surprise to employees since performance feedback is provided regularly to employees. Therefore, if an employee obtains a "succeeded minus" at this end of year review, this should have been reflected in general feedback at the mid-year review meeting or during meetings between the manager and his employee, even though an actual rating was not provided during these meetings.

Doug Marshall mention that new employees and consistent under performers should be treated differently since this could lead to demotivating new employees.

Ann Marie Julien further confirms that assessing seasoned employees the same way we assess new employees could also reduce motivation by not recognizing the performance gap. Employees must be rated based on demonstrated core competencies, effective behaviors and results achieved on work objectives. These observations must be evidence-based.

6. Round Table and Closing Remarks (All)

• Michael O’Donnell requests additional information related to the demographic profile data provided in the package to members. He states that following recent resourcing efforts, the data may have changed and there is an interest in getting additional details on the workforce’s employment status.
• Gary Robertson confirms that they can look into the requested information and will confirm what may be provided.
• Lori Sterling confirms that in the interim of completing staffing processes, management has been advised to hire casuals which may influence the number of individuals in the workplace but are not recognized as employees.

✓