Service Union Management Consultation Committee (SUMCC)

1.1 Opening remarks

Discussion

Stan Buday welcomed participants to the meeting.

Cliff Groen stated that this was the third meeting of the SUMCC and that it has so far shown value added to union-management relations.

Mr. Groen confirmed that new rules were established by the Translation Bureau to avoid injury to their personnel using equipment with uncontrollable decibel readings. The rules have been sent to committee members.

Actions

Mr. Groen mentioned that Kathleen Tremblay will communicate with union members of this committee to discuss future conferencing solutions that will work for everyone.

1.2 Approval of the Record of Discussions and Decisions of the February 25, 2019 meeting

Discussion

The Record of Discussions and Decisions for the February 25, 2019, meeting were approved as submitted.

Actions

No action identified

1.3 Status of Outstanding Action Items of the February 25, 2019 meeting

Discussion

Stan Buday confirmed that all five outstanding items were actioned.

Actions

No action identified.

Update on Citizen Services Network

(Standing Item)

Discussion

Evelyne Power provided an update on in-person activities held since the last SUMCC meeting:

1. Passport Modernization:

   A joint in-person UNE and CEIU, IRCC /ESDC Union Management Meeting was held on April 24, 2019, following the Treasury Board submission approval in February on the Passport Modernization Initiative. The intention of the meeting was to demonstrate the new intake tool and provide an overview of the communications and engagement strategy launched in May. IRCC, as the owner of the system, spoke about the intake tool (Tempo). Ms. Power added that the GCMS system was not available for a demo but there is a commitment to demonstrate that part at another joint meeting.

   The unions provided feedback and expressed a desire to understand the impact on roles and workflows as a result of these applications.

   Ms. Power stated that IRCC is planning to deploy the intake tool on June 4th. Communications to support both organizations will be synchronized as much as possible. There is a commitment to ensure communications are timely and transparent. On May 21, the communications package was shared which included a background, speaking points for managers, a scenario note on the cascade of information throughout the regions as well as Q&As for staff. Regions launched it successfully and had the opportunity to provide staff with information on the next steps for Passport Modernization.

2. Operational update provided secretarially to CEIU & UNE (May 10, 2019):

   Protocol for Dealing with Abusive Client Behaviour: In the Spring of 2018, the need to develop a consistent approach in dealing with abusive clients was identified at the Human Resources Union-Management Consultation Committee and, following consultations with CEIU and UNE, a draft document was developed. Feedback is currently being sought from regions. An update will be provided to CEIU and UNE as this work progresses, possibly by the end of June.

   Fabienne Jean-François mentioned that regions are waiting for the procedures for dealing with abusive clients. Ms. Jean-François stated that at this time, there are no clear guidelines and that her members are still being abused. Ms. Power responded that there are currently guidelines in place. The work underway is to consolidate and develop a consistent approach in dealing with abusive clients. If there is something in particular that needs to be addressed now, Ms. Power encouraged union representatives to raise them with her directly or within the region. Current guidelines will be shared with committee members.

   Update on Biometrics Collection implementation: There is a delay for in-country deployment of biometrics collection implementation at ESDC and we await information from IRCC on when that may occur. It is not anticipated to start before December at this point.

   Update to the Directive on Hours of Service: The Directive on Hours of Service for all in person sites (Service Canada Centres and Passport Service Centres), establishes core hours as 7.5 hours, and regions now have the flexibility to operate outside of core hours as a result of operational /local realities.

   Update on Email Initiative for Passport Network: A successful launch took place in Chicoutimi, with very positive feedback. In the last two weeks of June, the Calgary Hays and Calgary Sundance buildings will also gain access to Outlook. Ms. Power mentioned that the department could not launch in all offices all at once because the existing IT structure is unique, site by site. Lessons learned from each site will be incorporated and Ms. Power is hopeful the process can then accelerate for a complete shift to Outlook at all sites. Ms. Power stated that they are on track for the Passport network to be on Outlook by October.

   In response to Jacques Perrin’s inquiry, Ms. Power said that the CSB union/management meetings are set on a quarterly basis and that the next meeting will be on July 16.

   Jim McDonald thanked Ms. Power for the update and said that there were a lot of changes between these meetings and asked if a deck could be shared ahead of time to support what is being done. Ms. Power committed to sharing these reports in advance of the meetings.

Action

1. Current Guidelines for Dealing with Abusive Clients to be shared with committee members.
2. Future updates to be shared in advance of the meetings.

2.2 Update on the Individual Quality Feedback (IQF) in the Medical Adjudication Quality Assurance (MAQA) Program and in Employment Insurance

Discussion

Trevor Kraus introduced Martin Dufault, Director of Quality Services, who has worked on both IQF and MAQA programs. The IQF program was paused in July 2018 following concerns from unions and then successfully relaunched in the EI program on April 1st incorporating lessons learned. Mr. Kraus emphasized that these programs were very important in the development of staff and communities served by the Department.

Stan Buday, supported by Adele McLean, took the opportunity to thank Mr. Kraus for speaking with the unions last week and that preliminary discussions about IQF were helpful.

Mr. Dufault provided a comprehensive update on the IQF for EI, CPP and OAS, and on the implementation of the IQF component of the MAQA.

The IQF program is intended to bring national standardization to different regional individual quality review programs. It is also intended to provide a source of quantitative and qualitative information regarding the individual quality of processing.

In terms of MAQA IQF, Mr. Dufault stressed that there will not be a direct link between IQF results and the performance management of Medical Adjudicators (MAs) as the sample of files being pulled for this program are a year old. Information obtained could, however, be used for coaching purposes.

Mr. Dufault explained the MAQA feedback process, the roles and responsibilities of the NHQ MAQA Team, Medical Adjudicator Consultants (MAC) reviewers, MAs, managers and regional MAC reviewers and future training initiatives. Also discussed were the themes selected for Year 1: analysis and written communications; the change management strategy consisting of Web-Ex sessions with MACs, managers and MAs; intranet pages, Q&As, and a soft implementation plan.

Further to Vanessa Miller’s and Fabienne Jean-François’s inquiry about eventual presentations at the regional UMCCs, Cliff Groen responded that the material will be provided to regional management and if there is an interest within the region, they will determine how to roll that out.

Jacques Perrin wanted reassurance that this would not impact performance evaluations and Mr. Groen responded that there was no talk about this for the CPPD MAQA program at this point but does not rule it out for the future. If it is being considered, Mr. Groen said that it would be brought to this table for discussion.

In response to Mr. Perrin’s concerns about privacy and the type of repository this will be managed from, Mr. Dufault responded that it is an Access database, with an interface. A privacy impact assessment is being finalized and will be submitted to the responsible committee in the coming weeks, thus addressing privacy concerns.

Ms. McLean mentioned that under NHQ, MAQA team roles and responsibilities, it is noted that they will collect the feedback from MAC reviewers and distribute to MAs. What is the plan to provide feedback that is specific and related to medical? Mr. Dufault responded that the MAC reviewers are the ones who provide feedback on the medical conditions as his team does not have expertise in this area. The feedback is developed as the file is being reviewed and as the questionnaire is being completed. The role of Mr. Dufault’s team is to extract the feedback from the access database, transfer-it to a feedback form and provide access to this material and the client’s file to the MA. This team also ensures that the feedback provided is consistent with the feedback methodology, which includes: appreciation, evaluation and areas for development.

Ms. McLean stated that PIPSC is concerned that non-medical staff will be working with MAs when feedback is related to medical cases, and further noted that there is an issue with the MAC reviewers being anonymous.

Mr. Groen shared some of these concerns himself about the anonymous nature of reviewers, however, in implementing this first wave, and in order to be able to do it effectively, the decision was made that it will be anonymous at this point.

Ms. McLean asked if a MA finds that feedback includes something related to a policy not being followed but the MA finds it does not follow legislative criteria; where and who does the MA send his/her concern to? Mr. Dufault responded that any concerns are to be directed through the GD mailbox and they will work with the appropriate individuals to address the concerns, be they related to policy, operations or training.

Mr. Perrin requested that, instead of saying that unions were briefed, would management please indicate instead that ‘we are working in collaboration with the unions’.

Dean Corda asked for an explanation of the ‘CPP triennial legislation factors’ (slide 6 of the presentation specific). Mr. Dufault explained that this is meant to ensure that some factors that were implemented, since the program was paused, were now reflected as part of the current environment. Mr. Groen added that under CPP triennial review, there were further legislative changes introduced in January. That point essentially says that legislative changes that came into effect are now included into the overall quality regime.

Actions

Unions to nominate a member to participate on the MAQA IQF working group.

2.3 Change Fatigue

Discussion

Stan Buday introduced this item stating that while MAs are not opposed to change they believe there has been too much at the same time, namely the adjudication framework, new applications, Post-Retirement Disability Benefit (PRDB), new decision summaries, IQF, and templates. Mr. Buday has received comments from stewards and members, in particular Carolyne Hynes and Faith Cormier from the Atlantic who presented this item at the Atlantic Union-Management Consultation Committee (AUMCC). Their comments were echoed independently by other consultation teams.

Mr. Buday further explained that MAs are fully engaged and accepting but do not have enough time to absorb all the new changes and that training is felt to be inadequate. MAs are further concerned about inconsistent interpretation of some of the new processes. In summary, they want to do their job well and meet expectations, and are also concerned that this could impact their performance reviews.

As ADM responsible for the benefits delivery, Cliff Groen responded that this ties in with one outstanding action item related to production standards. Mr. Groen further stated that management realises that there has been significant change to the CPP DI program and that much of the work stems from the Auditor General’s report of February 2016 which identified significant challenges that are currently being addressed in a multi-year plan.

Mr. Groen further mentioned that in the future they will be interested in reviewing the production standards towards more consistency and bring forward potential changes. Work will be initiated this year for completion before the end of the fiscal year. The analysis and any changes will be shared with the unions.

Mr. Groen mentioned that management is aware of the change fatigue. Activities, such as those conducted by Susan Ingram’s team, implement a much more consistent approach to management of change activities. There is, however, no option not to proceed with a number of these initiatives as per the Auditor General’s report but Mr. Groen agreed that management can do better to help members and staff to adapt. He is open to having the CPP DI team and Ms. Ingram’s team working with the unions towards resolution of some of these concerns.

Mr. Buday thanked Mr. Groen and indicated the union’s willingness to work with management on this.

Mr. Buday stated that changes are brought down by non-medical managers and this might be a reason for messaging inconsistency. This particular concern will be brought to this table again with guests to speak to this.

In terms of consistency related to decisions made, Adele McLean asked who is reviewing the Social Security Tribunal (SST) decisions. Mr. Groen responded that the Appeals Review Committee consists of a number of areas such as CPP disability policy team (which has medical doctors), legal services, as well and people involved in the direct delivery of the program. Mr. Groen stated that SST decisions are very closely watched to ensure that the right interpretation of the legislation are made in the issuance of a decision. If there is a disagreement with the initial decision, either at the 1st or 2nd level, they will pursue appeals to the additional recourse level.

Action

No action identified.

3.1 Transformation Overview Update

Discussion

Susan Ingram provided the quarterly overview of the Service Transformation and Integrated Service Management projects and their implications on the ESDC workforce. Ms. Ingram’s team works very closely with the transformation teams and with colleagues in the investment project management part of the organization to reinforce the standards with regards to change management and project implementation. Ms. Ingram stated that she and Cliff Groen wish to evolve this piece to include broader changes that are occurring across the organization like IQF, policy, budget or operational changes.

Ms. Ingram’s team is also working on an integrated change map which will look at the change landscape that is occurring in the organization. As stated under an earlier point, there is a lot happening and this may assist in orchestrating changes or at least help prepare the workforce adequately for these changes.

The chart provided to meeting participants captures the transformation implementation changes happening over the next 10 months. Ms. Ingram noted that this list is not all-inclusive nor does it reflect the entire lifecycle of the project. Ms. Ingram’s team works with regional colleagues to ensure that appropriate change management plans are made, and works collaboratively with colleagues and union colleagues as well.

Ms. Ingram provided details on the 13 projects that are reflected in the report and the different initiatives. The item HCCS for Pensions was removed and she was happy to announce that this implementation went smoothly. Some great work was done in collaboration with employees and management teams across the call centres that were receiving this new technology. Results so far are very positive.

Members were invited to communicate with Ms. Ingram if there is an interest in seeing demonstrations of the CPPD application and the OAS/ DI combined application.

Adele McLean appreciates the inclusion of the unions on the many changes and transformations taking place. She wished to remind that one of the essential parts to providing a complete training regimen is providing in-class training and that webinars and PowerPoint presentations do not always suffice. Ms. McLean added that having complete and proper resources associated with the change will result in the process flowing positive and efficient. An example of the recent Post-Retirement Disability Benefit release resulted in increased time in adjudicating, writing submissions and reassessments as resources like the letters to clients were not ready and this affected the processing of files resulting in frustration for the MAs, as well as, SCBOs (benefit officers). Training was non-existent and ineffective for the levels of adjudication.

Ms. Ingram assured that they work with the College to appropriately assess the right training.

Actions

No action identified.

ESDC Integrated Quality Framework

Discussion

Russell Egan provided a progress report on the development of the Enterprise Quality Framework (EQF). Mr. Egan wished to emphasize that ESDC already has strong approaches on quality. This, however, is an enterprise approach and does not replace quality monitoring that is happening in other parts of the business (e.g. IQF).

Mr. Egan stated that they are building on practices that already exist and drawing together better practices, establishing links between them and policy, program, and delivery. He further stated that continuous improvement is a critical aspect of the EQF process and that the process will mature over time.

The Department has been basing its approach on the tools, guidelines and resources offered by ISSA (International Social Security Association) which is a leading international organization for social security organizations, government departments and agencies. Through professional guidelines, expert knowledge, services and support, it enables its members to develop dynamic social security systems and policy throughout the world. It was created in 1927 under the auspices of the International Labour Organization, and today has over 320 member institutions from over 150 countries. Service Canada has been a key contributor for some time.

Mr. Egan mentioned that a Community of Practice (CoP) was established and will be a reference as they continue to develop the framework. The CoP members vary in level, experience, program and background, and it brings a range of people with different perspectives to bear on quality.

Mr. Egan described the next steps where engagement from staff will be sought throughout the process and the future engagement and communications approach i.e. WebEx sessions, internet pages, among other activities.

This initiative is conducted in partnership with the Western Territories Region, and Wendy McMurray stated that Mary Angus and herself had a follow-up session with individuals engaged in the first round of support and discussions, and then included new staff to come in and talk about the definition and principles of EQF. The definitions truly resonated with the staff and Ms. McMurray believes they will continue with this level of engagement as it is the right direction to take.

In response to Jacques Perrin’s inquiry as to how activities would qualify as ‘discrete’, Mr. Egan responded that the word is used for individual activities. It is in addition to looking at programs end to end and there is a need to look at various elements of each process. This signifies that they will look at programs in a more horizontal way as to how it all fits together.

Vanessa Miller asked whether PM-03 and lower levels were engaged, and Mr. Egan said that staff engagement sessions were held in the regions and that it included front-line employees. The same process will be used in the development of guidelines.

Adele McLean asked if there has been consideration given to how these align to the legislation of programs e.g. CPPD legislation and criteria for clients to qualify for the benefits and the changes co-existing together. Mr. Egan responded that it is one good example, and that they intended to link policy to delivery. Cliff Groen added that he sees this as a strength of the EQF approach. In the past, we have had a myriad of quality initiatives but driving a link between policy and legislative and delivery outcomes is new and will be valued added.

In response to Fabienne Jean-François’ inquiry, Mr. Egan explained that a series of engagement sessions were held between October and January, across the country. They engaged in the regions on how to reach out to their employees. Engagement sessions were held with each business line nationally and then targeted consultation took place with quality practitioners at all levels.

Actions

No action identified.

4.1 RoundTable

Discussion

Sylvie Bérubé informed participants that she will be attending the CEIU joint Western Canada Presidents’ Conference, on June 7th and is looking forward to the discussions.

Sara Filbee mentioned good discussions were conducted at their recent UMCC and thanked committee members for today’s informative meeting.

Mary Crescenzi stated that Mary Ann Triggs will be giving opening remarks to the Ontario Regional CEIU at their conference.

Jacques Perrin mentioned that some employees are still experiencing problems with Phoenix in spite of using the established networks and protocols. Danièle Besner responded that this will be brought to her colleague’s attention and that this will be discussed further at the June 10th HRUMCC where it is a standing item.

In keeping with the March 4th launch of the TB Directive on Automated Decision Making, aiming at guiding federal government departments in the transparent and accountable use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Dean Corda informed that PIPSC wishes to obtain further details on this important subject, specifically:

1. Is the department planning on introducing artificial intelligence in any of its processes? If so, which ones?
2. If the department is planning to introduce artificial intelligence in its work processes, what will be the impact on skills, tasks and employment of PIPSC members in the department?
3. Has the department introduced artificial intelligence in any of its work?
   1. If yes, please describe
   2. If yes, how has the artificial intelligence been evaluated post implementation?
4. If considering or implementing automated decision-making systems, what steps is the department taking to comply with the Treasury Board Directive on Automated Decision-Making?

Cliff Groen thanked Mr. Corda for raising this question and requested that this topic be placed on the agenda for the next SUMCC meeting.

Action

Departmental approach to TB Directive on Automated Decision Making (Artificial Intelligence) to be placed on the next meeting’s agenda.

4.2 Closing Remarks

Discussion

Stan Buday thanked participants for their active participation and stressed that collaboration remains a priority. Cliff Groen wished to thank Kathleen Tremblay for doing a great job at keeping these important meetings on track. He is looking forward to future discussions at the next meeting especially in terms of AI in the workplace.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 11:50.

Action

No action identified.