To all members:
CIU Local #16
Niagara Falls
September 2011

In October I attended my last Board of directors meeting in Ottawa and also represented the membership at Convention. I have had the privilege of being President of Local #16 In Niagara falls for 11 years, during which time I believe we went great strides ahead. Now we are entering a different time period, a period where being Unionists is being looked at as being on the wrong side. Unions are being attacked on all fronts, and so are our members. It will surprise no-one that we are entering a time when Unions are fighting management more often than before, and most grievances are going to 4th level or higher. It seems we can’t settle our grievances at the local level anymore; it is a time when management on a scale of 1 to 10 are hitting our members at least with a 9. Gone are the days of reasoning, and therefore I am speaking out on the election of the next President, something I had promised myself I would not do. I believe we need a President who has done his or her homework, who knows the ins and outs, and who has the contacts to get the job done. I have had contact with our National President by e-mail where I stated I was going to support Shelly Kurgan for the job. I do believe she has the credentials to serve our membership well. When voting, please take this into consideration. Shelly has been my right hand person for years, attending many meetings at various levels. Our national President had enough confidence in Shelly to make her his campaign manager in 2008 when running for National President.

Personally, I could not have done it without Shelly, she has been and still is my friend and loyal Vice-President, and for that I will be forever grateful. The new president will need new Vice-Presidents he or she can count on, elections are coming. If interested in any Vice-President position, put your name forward. Remember, this is YOUR Union, in CBSA nothing comes for free, it will need to be won, and that takes members to fill those positions. To our stewards, you have been the finest bunch of people to work with. I am getting closer to my retirement date, and I must say I can’t wait. There was a time when I couldn’t wait to get to work; now, I can’t wait to get home. A chief once said many years ago at Queenston: “remember folks this is not a career, it is just a job.” Many years later I realize just how right she was, a good place to start and get experience, not a place to stay

I was in Ottawa for the last week attending the CIU Convention where we had the chance to elect a new Executive. Attending with me were Shelly Kurgan, Carol Urban, Corinne Reilly, Brian Holmes and Robin Edwards. The following were elected to the Executive, Jean Pierre Fortin as President, Jason McMichael as 1st. V.P.; Carmen Felice as 2nd.VP; Peter Russell as 3rd VP and Ron Moran as 4th VP.
Ron could not run for President as he had three consecutive terms and was not able to run a 4th time due to our constitution prohibiting this.

The Board of Directors in Ottawa saw it fit to have a youth member sit on the Board. To qualify a member needs to be in good standing and not have attained the age of 31. This is something we are looking to copy at the local level, and with the elections coming up someone could be nominated.

I have brought with me “Lawyer Up” cards for everyone, make sure you take one and keep it with you; it may just save your career one day. Many of you will remember when we had an accidental discharge at QB we paid for a lawyer to represent our member.

Last week while in Ottawa, IAD came to town to interview one of our members. I am sure it was just co-incidence that both Shelly and I were out of town while IAD came here? We had a lawyer flown in to Niagara Falls from Ottawa to represent our member to make sure management was in no shape to railroad our member. Everyone here is guilty until proven innocent; and I thought in Canada everyone was innocent until proven guilty? I guess I was wrong. Once again your local union taking care of our members to make sure their rights are protected. It should come as no surprise to anyone one of our executive members is being investigated for doing her job, representing a member. When IAD was contacted why this person was being investigated, we were told that there would only be a letter on file. Considering that no investigation has taken place, it is obvious our member is being found guilty before the investigation has taken place. I guess within CBSA it is OK to take your Charter Rights away from you and we are supposed to be scared, well not us. We will fight to protect the rights of our members; Policy does not trump law, although management seems to think so.

For those of you close to retirement, I brought some books to help you and what you need to do; these are located at Rainbow Bridge although I will distribute some to your stewards at other sites.

I do wish everyone the best in your career and I hope that one day our bosses will wake up and realize that the wheel has already been invented.
Although I will only be President for a few more weeks, I will remain a member of the bargaining team. I will continue to do my utmost in this portfolio to make sure we get the best possible contract. When asked by the new President, I will remain a steward on behalf of the membership.

Fred Milligan
President
CIU Local #16
Niagara Falls

 

 

 

Board of Directors Report
October 2011
Niagara Falls Branch

 

This will be my last report as President of CIU Local #16 Niagara Falls. I have had the pleasure and privilege to serve as President for the past 11 Years. I wish I could say that things have improved over the years, but unfortunately the opposite is true. Whereas before we were able to meet with management and settle our differences, now we are fighting each other at every level. So far this year I have had more 3rd. level grievances than I have presented in my entire career. Surely this shows the lack of respect towards our members who may or may not have strayed from the norm. I should not be a surprise to anyone that when our members are accused of wrong doings, they are suspended, yet when management does the same they say they have just made a mistake. I was told by one senior manager when pointing out that a wrong was committed by management:” So what are you going to do Fred, slap our hand?” This double standard has resulted in the lowest morale I have ever seen in Niagara Falls. Not only have we hit rock bottom, but we have started to dig. Now more than ever management is focussed on punishing our members instead of looking at the root of the problem. I for one am glad I am close to finishing my days at CBSA, a place where now Union representatives are being harassed for doing their jobs. Here is an example of e-mails we are receiving in Niagara Falls from Management.

Subject: Complaints - Service Standards
Importance: High

I find that traveler complaints are ever increasing at this location. The Rainbow Bridge now has the distinction as one of the highest number of complaints in the Southern Ontario Region at this time. The administrative time to address these complaints is very significant and takes away from the focus of our respective jobs. Most of the complaints allege specific unprofessional, disrespectful and rude behaviour from our officers. All complaints are taken very seriously and the Regional Director General is responsible to investigate and action all complaints that are received.
I want to reiterate to everyone that I see our operation as a professional environment with highly trained and skilled staff that is mandated to facilitate low risk traffic and to administer responsible border protection. That said, I do not support unprofessional behaviour in administering our mandate in any circumstance. We simply will not tolerate behaviour that is not fully reflective of our values, being Protection, Service and Integrity.
Please ensure that we are taking the required time to enhance our service standard by clearly explaining our processes and protocols to the client and that the Superintendents are quickly informed of any circumstance that has the potential for escalation.
I would suggest that we give consideration to the old adage of treating our travelers the way that you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.

Chief, Traveller Operations | Chef,
Niagara District | District de Niagara
Canada Border Services Agency | Agence des services frontaliers du Canada
4551 Zimmerman Avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 3M5

My reply,

This is just a great message to send to the members here in Niagara Falls at a time when most of us if not all worked their butts of all summer to keep the traffic moving. I’m sure that the level of morale has just increased tremendously. This after being denied leave for all the wrong reasons, staying after the shift has finished while very being very tired, missing out on family events, etc. I’m sure you forgot to add what a lousy job we do. Maybe you can send one of these e-mails on a monthly basis as a measuring stick how low we can go. Thoroughly disappointed with this,

Fred Milligan
President
CIU Local #16
Niagara Falls

From one of our members:

Disappointed that everyone is painted with the same brush, many of us have nothing to do with the rash of complaints yet we are included in the email.
Disappointed that we cannot be granted an hour or two at the end of our shift to participate in "life” because our supervisor is not allowed to approve any partial leave if someone is on over time regardless of bridge conditions.
Confused that we get an email from the director thanking us for our professionalism and doing a great job.  Than receiving an email from our chief stating we're not being professional and thus generation numerous complaints.
Disappointed that no thought is put into the hourly rotation, not uncommon to have 4 straight hrs. of busy primary; line (backed up), foot (backed up out the door), bus (backed up) and then back to the line, backed up.   
Disappointed that the moral at the Rainbow Bridge is being pulled down to the levels of other bridges internally.
Disappointed I felt I had to write this email.

 

By his own admission, the new RDG admitted that 95% of all complaints are totally unfounded, so I do wonder when complaints are counted, are the full one hundred counted or just five?

The message is clear, DO NOT SEIZE or do anything that may bring about a complaint, instead, point out how wrong you are that you have to tell “our clients” that they made an honest mistake when they reported goods worth $1500.00 for $100.00 and even though one receipt was for $800.00. Do tell them that we will give them a new calculator, because obviously the one they are using is not working properly. Bend over backwards to assist the traveller, and even though some low life scumbag is standing in front of you, smile and treat them with kindness and respect, because otherwise you may have a complaint against you. Client service is now the number one action any Border Services Officer needs to do. Explain to the travellers that even though someone inadvertently put a computer in the trunk while they were not looking, they will still have to pay duties and taxes on the item, but for God’s sake, say PLEASE. Remember, the client is always right and we are always wrong, no matter what has occurred.

 

 

I would like to say a few words of thanks to some Union members whom have been instrumental in my success fighting management:

I’ll start with our National President Ron Moran, who was always available no matter when I called or what the subject was.

To my friend and loyal Vice-President Shelly Kurgan, without whom surely I would have made some mistakes and whose guidance at times was a valuable resource for me. I hope she will run and become the next President of CIU Local #16 as we need a President at this time with the knowhow. Shelly has the connections necessary any President needs to be successful.

To my Executive and stewards, many of whom spend many hours of their own time in order to work on behalf of the membership, you were and still are the best.

To the membership for allowing us the time and space sometimes to get the job done, at times you carried a greater workload, while some of you were very helpful by aiding us with information on what was going on in the workplace.

To Erik Lupien, a person I am glad to call friend, welcome back Erik where you belong.

To the entire Executive, I do thank you for everything, I was always asking for your time and knowledge, you never refused.

To the staff of CIU, we the NBOD can’t function without you.

I hope to continue to offer my services to the bargaining team to the best of my ability and hope to be there at convention when a new National President is chosen for the PSAC.

My thanks to each and every one of you,

It has been my pleasure to serve as President for 11 years, a time where our local grew from 160 members to over 450 members. We have a solid bank account to take care of our members, send our Union stewards to school to serve you the membership better. Now it is time for you the younger members to take over where we leave off. We have the nucleus here to keep the employer in check, and believe me when I say management does not give anything to the membership without a fight. Don’t sit back for someone else to do the job, become an active Union member. Management needs to know, we want to be treated by YOU the managers the way you expect us to treat the public.

Respectfully submitted
Fred Milligan
President
CIU Local #16

  

Here are the highlights of reports from convention as well as local news and events. The full reports can be found on the CIU National Website. Please keep checking our website which is being updated on a regular basis.

 

To all CR’s:

For the last time as President I am writing to you on where we are with the reclassification process.  As we all know this process has been going on for years now. As the attachments will show you, it is not because of lack of trying. CIU even went as far as creating a sub-committee with the sole purpose of having our clerks reclassified and being paid what you are worth. As officers we know just how hard the clerks work. We truly believe that all members should be paid the same money for the same work. This is especially true now that we are once again one region. The CIU is committed to bringing this fight to a successful completion with our hard working CR3’s re-classified to CR4’s where you should have been years ago, shame on CBSA for prolonging this fight. Once again I spoke with our new RDG when we met in London about this ongoing issue. I was told we should have news by the end of this year

Please look at the attachments and should you have any questions, ideas or comments, please feel free to pass this on to us.

 

Fred Milligan
President CIU
Local #16
Niagara Falls

 

UNION/MANAGEMENT

REFERRAL FORM

TO:
Union/Management Committee at the:                 REGIONAL LEVEL

Name of Management Representative:                 Rick  Comerford, Regional Director-General
Southern Ontario Region

Name of Union Representative:                            Jason McMichael, 4th VP, CIU National
FROM:
Union/Management Committee at the:                 LOCAL LEVEL

Name of Management Representative:                 David Berardi    
District Director, Niagara Falls                                                                                                                             
Name of Union Representative:                            Fred Milligan
President, CIU – Local 16

The following topic was discussed at the REGULAR meeting of union and management on
MAY 18, 2011, in the Niagara Falls DISTRICT, could not be resolved and
is referred to your level for discussion and possible resolution.

 

 

______________________________                                            _______________________________
Management Representative/date                                                Union Representative/date

 

 

HUMAN RESOURCES:  
Reclassification: From the national VP:

One of the most memorable although unfinished issues has been the campaign to ensure proper job descriptions and classifications for our CR/AS CBSA Support Staff members. When I first became a National Vice-President, the CR/AS members had over 187 various and mostly outdated job descriptions. Many of these members felt they were not only working on non-relevant, non-reflective descriptions but they also felt their classification levels should be re-assessed. In order to properly assess classification levels, a current and accurate job description is required and there laid the catch these members were faced with. The CBSA was simply ignoring their plight and to CIU members it appeared it was all about money and a lack of respect for this hard working, much deserving group. The National Board of Directors (Nbod) was very supportive and voted for the formation of a CR/AS Sub-Committee to address the situation and to convince the CBSA to enact reform. This Committee consisted of Nbod members: Sister Sue Neumann, Sister Francine Stuart, Brother Pierre Allain, and Brother Brett Evans, as well as our Equal Opportunities Representative, Sister Karen Church, and myself as Chair. We felt strongly that the CBSA Support Staff group was being marginalized and that the CBSA was taking advantage of them by keeping them on vague inaccurate descriptions to save money as well as get them to do work that a current description would not include. The Committee decided to launch a campaign. We then had terse dialogue with the CBSA and significant Mobilization events such as a demonstration in Montreal with most of the Nbod present as well as members from that Branch. The CBSA was then soon ready to invest resources into the re-writing of all job descriptions for this group. The CBSA also formed a committee of its own to which I have a standing invitation; it is chaired by the Director of Classification. I am pleased with the progress thus far however there is much more work to be done. The first phase encompassing CBSA Program Support Staff has been completed as promised by the CBSA and we are now embarking on the second phase, which will cover CBSA Administrative Support Staff. There have been regional issues that have not been resolved as of my writing this report. The CIU will strongly support members in Regions that are being unfair. Brother Craig Mercer, 1st VP of the Hamilton Branch, has been instrumental in his assistance for his CR/AS members and with him we are trying to resolve a GTA regional discrepancy. I have already met
with the CBSA VP of Human Resources and should we not find resolve with her office, we will fight by forming a grievance campaign augmented by information pickets and other such information activities at the respective regions. I personally will not rest until every CR/AS job has been reviewed and every classification in doubt has been challenged.
I also assisted our Brothers and Sisters in Arming and Defense Training who felt their work was not properly reflected in their job description nor do they feel properly classified. A new description has been submitted and we will continue to assist and support this group.
Our Brothers and Sisters who function as dog handlers have also been fighting for the re-establishment of their positions. Brother Erik Lupien, one of our esteemed CIU Labour Relations Officer has worked diligently on this file and I thank him myself and on behalf of the members in that field.
On May 19, 2011, the PSAC filed an application with Federal Court for judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal in the matter of a detector dog handler, Neil Smith. The following is the overview of the Factum that was submitted by Barristers & Solicitors Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck on behalf of the PSAC and a CIU member.

1. This application for judicial review concerns the decision of Member Joanne B. Archibald of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (“Tribunal”), rendered December 13, 2010. Member Archibald dismissed the complaint of our CIU member, the present Applicant, on the basis that the subject matter of the complaint was beyond her jurisdiction, pursuant to sections 74 and 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA).

2. The Applicant performed dog handler duties with the Canada Border Service Agency (“CBSA”), and with the predecessor Canada Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”), almost continuously from December 2003 to March 2009, when he was assigned to other duties. CBSA advertised the dog handler duties and selected XXXXXXXXX to be trained to assume the Applicant’s responsibilities. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant maintained that the selection of XXXXXXXXXX for assignment to dog handler duties constituted an abuse of authority, pursuant to section 77 of the PSEA. In addition, he maintained that the removal of his own dog handler duties constituted a revocation of his dog handler position within the meaning of section 74 of the PSEA.

3. The Supreme Court established in Brault and Doré that an assignment of an employee to new duties, involving a substantial change in function of his or her position, may constitute an appointment within the meaning of the PSEA. The legal test of whether there has been a new appointment of a person already employed in the federal public service is an objective one, depending on whether the employee has in fact been assigned distinctly different duties and functions. The parties’ intent is not determinative of this question.

4. Member Archibald concluded that the Tribunal was without jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s complaint, because no appointment or revocation occurred within the meaning of the PSEA. The Member found that, since joining the public service as a Canine Handler with CFIA, the Applicant’s duties were transferred to the CBSA, upon its creation in 2003, and eventually subsumed within the generic Border Services Officer (BSO) work description. The assignment of, or removal from, dog handler duties could not comprise additional functions within the Brault and Doré standard, because they were referenced within the Applicant’s generic work description, even though not all BSOs perform these duties.

5. In arriving at this decision, Member Archibald failed to properly apply the legal principles arising from the Supreme Court jurisprudence. In particular, the Member failed to undertake the required contextual analysis of the circumstances of the Applicant’s complaint to determine objectively whether an assignment to dog handler duties in fact constituted an appointment notwithstanding the wording of the generic BSO work description. Rather, the Member deferred to the stated intent behind CBSA’s staffing decision, and as result, erroneously declined jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Applicant’s complaint. Accordingly, the decision should be set aside and remitted to a different Tribunal Member for a new hearing.

CBSA Immigration members have also been fighting battles in the Human Resources area due to their non-reflective classification level. The CBSA has not listened to our reasoning concerning these members and has stuck their heads in the sand. We intend to pluck these heads out. Brother Mike Matuzic has been very vocal and involved in this fight, having shared his knowledge and given us much insight into the plight of these members.

 

Home and car Insurance:

Your local has agreements in place with an Insurance company that offers our members cheaper insurance for their homes and cars. Many of our members have taken policies with this company and received this benefit. Attached is a flyer and contact person should you wish more information. The nice thing about this company is that you actually speak to a person,

Cell phones:

It is my pleasure to announce to our local has signed an agreement with Bell Canada. By the end of October we should have an agreement ready to distribute to the membership in Niagara Falls. Until this agreement was reached, the region of Niagara HAD the best agreement with Bell, now we have. The plan will be available to all members and their families and will start at $22.50 per month. A copy is attached to the report for your convenience. The data plan will be $30.00 for six GB bytes, while the plan will be $22.50 per month. I negotiated over about a six month period and believe the membership will be well served by the plan.

 

Bargaining:

Last year a call was made to the membership in order to make a list of demands. I can tell you that this time we received the most demands from the membership ever. The committee then met in Ottawa and we went through each and every demand send in from the membership. These were rated as to how many we got in each category and which once were new demands. From those demands we came up with a list for presentation to the delegates at the bargaining conference. From that conference a final list was made up for presentation to the employer. A list of those demands can be found on our website, a list of the employers demands can be found on the website also.

Bargaining started again in March of this year when we met for the first time in Ottawa with the employer. I have attached the flyers the Union send out after every meeting for your convenience. It should come as no surprise that in the future some sort of action will be required by the membership in order to let this employer know that we need a good contract, a contract that keeps us in line with other law enforcement agencies. I have also attached reports from our national President and Vice-Presidents on bargaining. Remember, you the members will by your actions determine how good a contract you will get. Should we get into a strike position, you can be sure management will look how unified we are and determine on that basis should they bargain in good faith or not. We at the bargaining table only parlay your message to Treasury Board and CBSA.

 

Respectfully submitted,
Fred Milligan
President
CIU Local #16
Niagara Falls

From the Report of the 3rd. National Vice-President:

When we convened at the Convention in 2008, I would not have predicted that we would have a signed contract by the spring of 2009. In part, this belief was fueled by the amount of time it was taking, and still is, to reach Essential Service Agreements. The single greatest contributing factor to this change of events was the global economic meltdown and the government’s need for labour peace and long term predictability. Thus a 4-year contract. While it can be argued that we negotiated with a “gun to our heads” on the monetary package, I believe that the Treasury Board had a “gun to their heads” for non-monetary issues. Significant gains were made in this area.
Seventeen days after Convention 2008 adjourned; we were back at the bargaining table for 3 days and were beginning to see some progress on seniority. Less than a week later, we were back in Ottawa and the monetary offer was presented to the teams as a non-negotiable package that had to be signed, recommended and ratified by the FB, PA, SV and EB Tables, and indeed, there were no changes made to it. At the FB Table, the next 4 days focused on reaching an agreement for the Memorandum of Agreement on Alternate Work Arrangements, a letter of agreement to consult on the phasing out of students, a job security clause in the context of the arming initiative, a dispute resolution method for the negotiation of VSSAs and seniority for VSSA members. At the PA Table, the focus was on the MOU on Classification Reform and the definition of family, which was moved to Interpretations and Definitions and at the SV Table on the elimination of regional rates of pay, although the success on this 40-year battle was obviously monetary.
The ratification process ran for approximately 6 weeks. I spoke at 15 different locations over that time and the overwhelming majority of members that turned out to vote spoke strongly in favour of the agreement, especially in the context of the economic environment at that time. To be more accurate, I have never heard more commendations for the union in my entire Union career.
Reaching these collective agreements had the additional benefit of reducing the pressure to sign off on Essential Service Agreements (ESA), giving us a better chance to get the best possible ESA’s that will protect our members’ right to strike in the future. There are three stages to the negotiation of ESA’s. You may recall that I reported at the last Convention that Sister Laurel Randle and I had completed the first stage, which was
between CIU and CBSA. Following this unsuccessful stage, it was sent to the next level, which was between PSAC and the Treasury Board (TB). To nobody’s surprise, this was also unsuccessful. We are now at the third and final stage of hearings at the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB). The first hearings before the PSLRB involving CBSA positions were held in Ottawa September 16-17, 2009, with follow-up hearings November 2-3, 2009. Andrew Raven and Sister Helen Berry acted as counsel. These hearings were to deal with the BSO position and focused on the “bundling of duties” issue. The primary focus was on the collection of revenue, but there are a number of other non-essential services that are performed by BSO’s, such as the collection of statistics. The ruling came out in November 2009, and was very much in favour of the CIU/PSAC position. Dates have not yet been set for all of the other FB positions or any of the CBSA positions in the other TB Bargaining Units.
The employer is now trying to establish levels of service at 100%. The PSAC challenged the levels of service at Service Canada and CBSA. Recent decisions have ordered the employer to release the information and rationale they used to establish the levels of service for both the FB and PA Units. In our case, it is anticipated that, once the ESA for the BSO job description is settled, all the other jobs descriptions will fall into place. We have agreed for the BSO position, the breakdown will be by business lines and by region. For all other FB positions, the breakdown of essential services will be by jobsite.
The January 29, 2009, signing of the FB Collective Agreement marked a major milestone in the history of our union. It was the culmination of decades of work and struggle. Classification has been a controversial subject throughout our entire 40-year history and it continues to be. But, it did mark the first time in our history that the vast majority of our members had their own occupational group, were represented by their own bargaining unit and had a contract of their own with only their priorities taken into consideration. It is difficult to fully grasp what an amazing accomplishment this is. In an era where reducing the number and increasing the size of bargaining units, we “bucked” the trend. Very few unions can claim the kinds of successes that we have achieved.
The MOU on Classification Reform at the PA Table was also significant. If this were to lead to the long awaited changes for which we hope, this could lead to significant gains for our members at that table. The elimination of regional rates of pay was also a major achievement for our members at the SV Table. This had been a “thorn in our side” since its inception. The employer at times had used that policy as an argument to reduce wages in some cases. It was admittedly a greater benefit to some members than it was to others. Our members in the Prairie Region were among the greatest beneficiaries because they had been the lowest paid in the SV Bargaining Unit prior to the 2009 signing.
All that being said, Collective Bargaining is an on-going process. There were some unfortunate failures in the 2009 round as well. While we were successful in the market adjustment for FBs, pursuant to the Morneau-Sobeco Pay Study, we did not achieve the economic increases that we wanted. We also did not regain “Day is a Day” and we did not entrench Doubling-Up into the Collective Agreement. These issues remain priorities demands in the current round of bargaining. The economic conditions remain perilous and the political conditions have deteriorated due to a majority government, so we will face challenges.
As mandated by the Nbod in March 2009, I drafted a letter to the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee (PSPAC) outlining our position on pension reform, which is “25 & out”. It was sent to the PSPAC through our representatives, Brothers Gordon and Turcq.
For the current round of bargaining, the PSAC deadline for the submission of bargaining demands was October 1, 2010. The CIU Collective Bargaining Committee met in Ottawa, August 5-7, 2010, at the National Office to review and prioritize the bargaining demands that were received from the field as result of the Input Call that was issued in NO-Memo 17 on June 21, 2010. I am pleased to say that this was the most demands ever submitted by our members. It is an indicator that our members are engaged and ready for this round of bargaining. We received so many demands that the Committee had to extend our meeting by a day. The Committee came to Ottawa a day ahead of schedule for the September 2010 Nbod to review late demands that were submitted until September 21, 2010, as was announced in No-Memo 27.
On June 21, 2010, CIU was advised that the limit of 20 bargaining demands would not apply to the FB Table since it is a single Component bargaining unit, as is the case with CRA and Parks. We already had approximately 150 bargaining demands that had been submitted. The National Bargaining Conference and the FB Bargaining Team finalized the priority demands.
At the September, 2010 Board we elected 4 members of the FB Bargaining Team. They are: Sisters Brea Lewis and Karen Church and Brothers Doug Tremblett and Fred Milligan. Sister Diane Lacombe and Brother Karim Lawji were appointed pursuant to the PSAC Regulations and the CIU Nbod Regulations.
On September 19, 2010, the original FB Bargaining Team, along with all of the TB Units were summoned to Ottawa and briefed by Brother John Gordon. Behind the scenes negotiations had been taking place and there was a non-negotiable monetary package on the table, which included the phasing out of severance pay, and each team was allowed 5 non-monetary demands. We were advised that we were in a “black out”. That afternoon, the FB Team met at 56 Sparks Street and began our deliberations. On September 21, 2010, we finalized our demands: Pension Reform, Alternate Work Arrangement (AWA), Arming-Job Security, scheduling and paid lunch. That afternoon, we met with the employer for the first time. Apart from the severance demand, the biggest concession in the history of the PSAC, the employer was also seeking concessions on short shift changes (reduce 7 days to 48 hours), an amendment to Article 30, which would have reversed the Clarkson decision and an amendment to Article 33, which would have required validation of requests for leave, such as medical appointments. As most of you are aware, negotiations did not succeed at the FB Table. On September 27, 2010, while many of you were demonstrating in Montreal on our CR/AS Campaign, the FB Team returned to the table for an attempt at more negotiations. When we finally met in the late afternoon, it became clear that the employer was not willing to move on any of our five priority demands. The next morning, we attended an All Teams Meeting and later advised the employer that there was no point in meeting as we were awaiting a reply with regard to our demand for pension reform. That afternoon, we were briefed by Sister Lisa Addario on a number of salient files. The following afternoon, we met with John Gordon who presented a letter from Bill Jones of the Pay and Benefits Section who committed to research and analyze the data necessary in order for the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee (PSPAC) to review our proposal in the spring. That did not take place because of the federal election, but we were recently advised that it will be on the PSPAC agenda on November 28, 2011. Thursday afternoon and Friday were primarily focused with discussions regarding Alternate Work Arrangements. On Saturday, October 2, 2010, at 2:30 PM, we declared that we were at an impasse and advised the Alliance accordingly. The following morning, we met one last time to be briefed on the progress of the other tables and to sign the letter that would go out to the members from the team.
On October 5, 2010, conference calls were held to brief the Board members by region and the team went into the field to hold information sessions. Over the next month, I conducted sessions at Inland Enforcement in Calgary, the Port of Coutts, and Calgary International Airport. Many work locations did not feel they needed these sessions.
With the signing of the agreements at the PA, SV, and EB tables, the regional bargaining conferences were cancelled. The FB National Bargaining Conference was held in Ottawa on January 20-22, 2011. We gave Brother John Gordon a “warm” CIU welcome as we grilled him on a recent ruling that determined that Branch Presidents are no longer considered national officers for the purpose of regional conventions. It was an excellent opportunity to meet new and veteran activists from across the country and to discuss what would become important issues in the current round of negotiations.

Your new FB Bargaining Team met for the first time in Ottawa on February 16-17, 2011, to do some final work on our package of demands. The PSAC served Notice to Bargain on February 21, 2011 and the teams met March 8-9, 2011, to exchange demands. Soon after, the FB demands were posted on the PSAC and CIU websites. The teams met again on April 12-14, May 2-4, and June 21-23, 2011. I think it is important to note that this is the first time that we have met with the employer three times before the contract expired with the fourth meeting on the days immediately following the June 20th expiration of the agreement. That certainly does not ensure an expeditious settlement, especially since with we just went through a federal election, but it is progress.

 

Collective Bargaining:

As mentioned in the preamble to this report, the beginning of the 2008-2011 cycle was marked by the completion of the worked aimed at achieving collective agreements for all CBSA workers represented by CIU. I would suggest all of us were very pleased with the outcome of that round of collective bargaining. What’s remarkable is that this came at a time when every developed country and every industry was being hit by a recession; job loss was rising at an alarming pace, and Canadians were in the midst of seeing their pension fund and/or other investments dwindle disastrously.
While the yearly percentage wage increases on their own were certainly modest, bargaining units have made considerable advancements in other areas such as classification conversion, pensionable lump-sum payments, or with the elimination of pay zones, the latter of which had been sought for over thirty (30) years by the GL/GS (blue collar) workers represented by CIU.
What was pleasantly surprising to all of us is the fact that these gains were attained without any form of strike or labour dispute. The reality is that the high-end majority of CBSA‟s current workforce wouldn’t remember this ever happening to them in the past.
While it didn’t represent all of what we had hoped for, those of us belonging to the FB Bargaining Unit nonetheless saw what can only be described as an appreciable wage adjustment. When the Union was successful at obtaining a separate FB Bargaining Certificate from the Labour Relations Board, most had no appreciation for what this really meant. The announcement of this victory came at the same time the Union was also announcing it had successfully lobbied the government into arming and doubling-up the country’s front-lines; understandably, arming and doubling-up overshadowed the FB Certificate announcement at the time.
To the average member, the fact that the Union had been successful at establishing a separate bargaining unit for those CBSA workers who perform law-enforcement duties didn’t mean much; that is, until the FB tentative agreement was reached. The first FB collective agreement made it crystal clear what can be achieved when negotiating at a separate table. And the advancements weren’t only noticeable in the area of wages, but also in contractual language improvements, which included seniority rights and arming implementation job security rights. What is now also clear in everyone’s mind is that negotiating at a distinct table is certain to continue generating dividends in future rounds of collective bargaining; and this for generations of workers to come.
While I have the privilege of orchestrating the processes which lead to such results, there is no way such accomplishments could even come close to being possible without the hard work of many Union Officers and Union Activists. Many thanks are owed to CIU and PSAC elected. Officers and staff as well as to the members of every bargaining team including of course the members of our own FB Team. A special tip of the hat goes out to the FB Negotiator, Brother Morgan Gay, who took on his role with unprecedented dedication and passion and who took the time to familiarize himself with CBSA operations by meeting with many of you at your worksites.
However, by far, what is most important to remember is that it’s to those of you who had begun mobilizing that these gains are owed. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that with the precarious state of Canadian politics at the time and with the Olympics literally around the corner, the last thing the government needed was the likes of us acting up; the engine of our steam-roller was clearly running and that had everything to do with the achieved results.

The 2010 Expedited Round of Bargaining :

For their part, the more recent fast-tracked attempts at negotiating tentative deals which took place outside the legislated collective bargaining process at the end of 2010 were without any form of precedent. Given the extremely divisive results thus generated, I suspect and certainly hope we will never witness such an approach to collective bargaining again.

The current Round of bargaining:
As you know, the FB and TC Bargaining Teams respectively turned down the employer’s offers during the expedited round, preferring to stick with the legislated process. These two (2) collective agreements expired in June 2011 and, as you well know, the current round of bargaining is well on its way. Most of us on the CIU National Board of Directors, along with over 60 additional FB activists, attended the FB Bargaining Conference here in Ottawa at the end of this January 2011. The conference was the perfect forum for finalizing the FB Package of Demands and establishing the strong mobilization strategy, which will be key for what is shaping up to be an extremely confrontational round of bargaining.
I am always extremely proud to be at the helm of our organization, but, as I told the group attending the FB Conference, never more so than when I find myself in the same room with those who, by every definition, „are the Union’. In my address to them, I reminded CIU‟s front-line activists that they truly are ‘la crème de la crème’; their ability to mobilize and bring the ranks together when it counts most has been the key to our countless achievements thus far. It is this solid and unwavering approach that will make the difference in the current battle, and those to come. The next bargaining dates are November 15-18, 2011 and December 6-9, 2011.

Essential Service Agreements :
Unlike the designations process where a ratified bargaining settlement ended the process of identifying positions to be „designated‟ in the event of a strike, the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) now obligates the parties to reach Essential Services Agreements (ESAs) after notice of essential services has been filed and irrespective of the status of current bargaining. ESAs then remain in effect unchanged unless major workload re-organizations take place, and they must be in place for any bargaining unit to be in a legal strike position. Accordingly, given outstanding ESAs are now before the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB), the absence of an ESA for the FB Group may well end up hindering the collective bargaining process should we reach impasse prior to this ESA being in place. PSAC and the various employers governed by the PSLRA will continue negotiating/addressing ESAs until either signed agreements are reached, or PSLRB rulings are handed down. The Chair of CIU‟s National Collective Bargaining Portfolio, Brother Steve Pellerin-Fowlie, will be providing you with a more detailed ESA update.

 

From the report of the National President:

As you know, collectively, we also continue to lobby very aggressively on many fronts which includes our sustained push for a CBSA led Border Patrol as well as for a better Frontline Lookout System. While much work remains ahead of us, the border patrol file has nonetheless 2 seen colossal movements with the 2009 launch of the Lacolle area border patrol pilot project. For its part, the Lookout System file is also currently seeing considerable attention and movement with the litigation of a case involving Sister Gina Martin-Ivie, as well as via numerous media articles, all of which tend to categorically support our position that the CBSA Lookout System is in urgent need of an overhaul.

 

Grievance Administration in the National Office:

I am pleased to report that the grievance database enhancements we undertook during this term are now complete, as is the development of our new Grievance Administration Tracking System (GATS). Though, as expected, tweaking is ongoing and will continue during the implementation period, I am pleased to report that the overall performance of the GATS is nothing short of impressive; I have absolutely no doubt this System will provide dividends to CIU for decades to come, and may well also generate interest from other Unions.
As announced in NO-Memo 36-10, the National Office began using the GATS this January 2011. We are now at the stage where we are working on the last related outstanding issues including: the capacity to group grievances without compromising their individuality, identifying which existing grievance files to input in the GATS and how to input them (the GATS will accommodate files mid-stream, which is good since most of our current grievance files are of course already in play); completion of employee training on the use of the GATS; finalizing the Standard Operating Procedures for grievance administration in the National Office; and monitoring, adjusting, and fixing bugs in the GATS during implementation.  Also new, and incorporated to be part of the GATS, is the development of a new Grievance Report (GR). The GR is an enhanced grievance précis; LRO‟s have been asked to use the GR to summarize grievances, outline their analysis, and record their recommendation to proceed with or close a grievance file. The CIU National Office Director has accordingly been asked to record her decision to proceed with or close a file on the GR.
Attached to this report as Appendix “B” are two (2) reports, which were generated from the CIU grievance database. The first report provides the current national snapshot of open grievance records in our database and speaks to the workload ahead. The second report provides an overview of actions taken and outcomes obtained for grievances received and administered by the National Office during the past 12 months, broken down on a month by month basis. I provide these for your information as well as to show you examples of the many different reports now available to us through our new system.
As a next step, we are moving towards developing an application similar to the GATS to help us manage Public Service Staffing Tribunal (PSST) complaints. Preliminary work has been done to configure our grievance database so that it can be used to gather data for PSST complaints however this still requires refinement.
Please note that, in the spirit of providing enhanced service to our members, National Office Labour Relations Officers have been asked to call and speak with either the Branch Representative or the Grievor about a grievance before the LRO can make his/her recommendation to close our file and/or withdraw the grievance.

Arming and Joint-Force Initiatives:

As the National President of our union, part of my job was to point out when members of CBSA management weren’t doing theirs. Depending on the issue and who’s occupying what chair at a given time, the frequency and forum of those, shall we say, pointed observations can vary as members who’ve followed our battles can attest.
During the summer of 2010, I gave an interview in a story that ran in the Ottawa Citizen where I described how CBSA‟s policy to refuse our officers to be armed while performing duties away from a port of entry was unreasonable, unjustified, and unlawful. I cited a Montreal case which was before the Occupational Health and Safety Review Board where we were representing members who are seeking an end to this clearly dangerous and unjustifiable practice.
These days the CIU even being in the news seems to get under the skin of certain management types who aren’t exactly used to dealing with unions that actually speak up and are out to defend their members, so a reaction from 191 Laurier was certainly not unexpected when the story ran. To my surprise and pleasure however, I am pleased to announce that CBSA‟s then Executive V.P., Monsieur Luc Portelance, wrote to the national media to point out that the case in question dealt with Officers assisting police agencies but not on CBSA related actions. Mr. Portelance went on to note,
“The safety and security of our officers is one of the Canada Border Service Agency's (CBSA) highest priorities. As is clearly stated in the agency's policy, when the CBSA takes an active role in Joint Force Operations with other agencies, CBSA armed officers are authorized to carry their firearms.”
Sadly, on Christmas Eve 2010, CBSA announced that it would no longer assist the rest of the law enforcement community in any type of non-CBSA operation. Make no mistake, we will do whatever it takes to continue underscoring the ill-advised nature of this decision, as we will do whatever it takes to ensure authorization such as outlined above by Mr. Portelance be extended to Officers in police assistance situations. That said, we were nonetheless extremely glad to see CBSA completely, unequivocally, and publicly acknowledging CBSA Officers are fully and lawfully empowered to perform mandate duties, while armed, away from designated points-of-entry. This has been the CIU‟s position for years so it was truly good to see we now had a management partner agreeing with us. So….let’s talk about that Border Patrol project, Luc…

C-11: AN ACT TO AMEND IRPA:

Background - The CIU has maintained an ongoing interest in the issues relating to refugee determination and removals as a result of its memberships‟ duties relating to refugees. This has included third party discussions with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding improving the process of refugee determination and safely expediting the removal of failed refugee claimants from Canada. As a result the CIU was aware that these kinds of changes were being contemplated and that further improvements consistent with Officer and public safety (and our Lookout System recommendations) regarding Immigration screening and enforcement may be forthcoming so the Bill in no way came as a surprise to us.
The Purpose of Bill C-11 is to expedite the refugee determination process by creating professionally (public servant) staffed refugee determination and appeal bodies that are to be aided by:

 Defined and dramatically reduced timelines for decision making (8 days to schedule hearing and 60 days thereafter for the hearing) with anticipated appeal decision within four months.

An initial IRB meeting to help prepare cases for first hearing within 8 days.

 Reduced avenues of appeal for denied applicants especially in relation to discretionary relief (bar on access within one year during which the removal is anticipated).

 Designation of presumptive „safe‟ countries for expedited refugee claim consideration (criteria to be set by regulation) and reduced appeal access (to Federal Court but not new Refugee Appeal Division).

Better informed initial decision making and administrative appeal with a single judicial (Federal Court) appeal in addition (whether such multiple judicial appeals can be removed is a potential issue).

 Creation of a Toronto based pilot program whereby „incentives‟ for departure will be offered (plane fare and „re-settlement‟ funding on departure). C-11 has already created the need for new Immigration Inland Enforcement Officers. There is also an intended reduction in the numbers of failed/abandoned refugee claimants who have disappeared which has been calculated to be in the 38,000 range by the Government. This will create additional investigative and case preparation work for CIU members. Additionally, given the anticipated shorter decision and appeal process, it is recognized that this may mean more detentions in custody or, as CIU has previously recommended, enhanced supervision and Officer Safety measures such as using electronic monitoring on select deportees as they await removal.
These changes are supportive of enhanced screening mechanisms at Points-of-Entry to prevent the return of inadmissible or fraudulent (false identity) refugee claimants. This also supports other CIU initiatives relating to an enhanced Lookout System available at Points-of-Entry. Expedited decision making and removals for failed refugee claimants is also supportive of a broader policy reform to expedite the removal of persons who are inadmissible on criminality or security grounds. If successful, C-11 should produce significant cost savings in the immediate and long term which will then permit funding for other desired measures as noted by CIU. It is reported that C-11 will be accompanied by $540M over five years with $85M of that to cover faster decisions and removals.
Bill C-11 received Royal Assent June 29, 2010; CIU will continue monitoring the success or lack thereof with respect to removals; we will also track the expenditure results of the Bill and will closely monitor CBSA‟s implementation of C-11 as their initial presentation incorrectly defines refugee inadmissibility by not referencing serious criminality and criminality.

 

From the report of the 1st National Vice-President:

Border Security:

 

One of my duties as the 1st National Vice-President during the past three years was to chair the Border Security Committee of our National Board of Directors. In that capacity, and with strong support and assistance from the Committee Members, I actively monitored implementation of the arming initiative at CBSA.
Today, I’m delighted to report that approximately 1,800 CIU Members are armed, which means that the Agency is right on track – time-wise – with its implementation targets. In addition, the Agency is finally amending its arming policies to allow our members to practice their shooting skills on their own time, and to give them access to more shooting ranges, which includes remote (containers) shooting ranges. Also, in smaller airports where a police presence is missing, our members will be allowed to wear their sidearm for up to four hours to clear a flight. All steps in the right direction, and taken as a direct result of our lobbying.
On a less positive note, CBSA policy continues to micro-manage where and when our members may wear their firearms, which puts their safety and security at risk, and which shows that managers refuse to accept the law enforcement direction of the Agency and the professionalism with which our members can support that mandate.
On numerous occasions, we brought to management’s attention the poor administration of the arming initiative, especially as it relates to the massive costs they incurred for travel and accommodations. Members who live in the west of Canada were travelling east to train, and members living in the east of Canada were travelling west. It would have been so cost-effective to give our members local access to shooting ranges for training and testing. Obviously, some managers didn’t want to make decisions that were mindful of taxpayers, while others wanted the arming initiative to run amok with cost overruns hoping it would be axed for financial reasons.
Another development that casts a negative light on the management of CBSA arose just before the launch of the last federal election when Canadian and American officials were discussing the North American security perimeter. While those discussions were taking place, CBSA managers were asking Cabinet to agree to reduce hours of operation at some Canadian land border crossings, and close operations altogether at others.
It is important to remind you that the closing of some land border crossings happened unilaterally, and without any consultation with our American counterparts. This is probably why the Americans not only did not change anything on their side but decided to build new facilities at crossings where we closed ours. It is difficult to understand why the Conservative Government, who we credit with increasing security along the border, decided to listen to CBSA bureaucrats that went against all logic. In clear terms, we cut security while the U.S. increased theirs.

I would like to thank Sisters Karen Church and Lisa Addario for their tireless effort to assist our members with respect to the employer’s policy on hand approach to the duty to accommodate. Their efforts help ensure many of our members’ rights are protected and they make the employer accountable. It is important to note that in certain work locations the employer has been telling some of our members who could be or may need to be accommodated that they may lose their jobs, and the employer is not even trying to explore accommodation options with them, which is clearly against the spirit of the duty to accommodate and human rights.

Border Patrol:

If you live anywhere other than Quebec or haven’t kept up with CIU news you may not have noticed that Canada set up a pilot Border Interdiction Patrol Unit, otherwise known as a Border Patrol and that the pilot has been operational in Quebec along the Canada-U.S. border for some time. Canada never had a border patrol to enforce the border between points-of-entry. The RCMP had that mandate but never really did anything with it – there never was a “patrol” in the true sense. So it was great news to learn that the Conservative Government would set up that pilot.
The pilot, launched in fall 2010, is still in effect in Quebec today. The RCMP is the lead organization and CBSA contributes through an intelligence role. Sadly – and again a reflection of the thinking that our members should not play an enforcement role – none of our members sit alongside any RCMP officers who drive any of the RCMP vehicles that patrol the border.
Again, it is a beautiful example of some CBSA managers’ refusal to let our members participate in law enforcement activities at the border. And as if there were not upsetting enough, we learned that the QPP – a provincial police force – is a full partner when it comes to patrolling the federal border in Quebec. So while CBSA managers tell us our members don’t have the legal authority to patrol the border between points of entry, they add insult to injury by telling us that a provincial police force has that authority to enforce in a federal jurisdiction. That said, while I realize that we are far from where we want to be on this front, I remain confident that our members will eventually be patrolling the border as that is the most logical and cost-effective option.
Lastly, CBSA managers keep saying our members are not police officers. But when they informed us about the name-tag initiative, they said it was to put our members in line with other police forces across Canada. Hypocrisy does have a name, it’s called CBSA managers.

 

Report from the 4th national Vice-President:

Name Tags:

By now, most of you have received word through various forms of communication about the rollout of this initiative. In early 2011, Ron Moran, Jean-Pierre Fortin and myself were briefed on the rollout of metal name tags for all uniformed staff in the CBSA. At the time, all of us expressed our concern and extreme opposition to this initiative. In the following months, as word of it spread, I can only describe the members’ response as a loud and decisive outcry. I received over 250 separate emails from members, all of whom expressed their overwhelming opposition to this. Indeed members who had no history of union activism, stood together in solidarity against this proposal. This item has been an agenda item on National Labour Management Consultation Committee (NLMCC), NPSHC, and at least 3 offline meetings with management. We have, to date, not succeeded in stopping this attempt by the employer to “bring us in line with other uniformed enforcement agencies”, which we know will endanger our members. We will continue to oppose it up to and continuing on through the anticipated roll out.

Niagara Falls :

The Niagara Falls Branch and Brother Milligan have been busy throughout the term. Freddy and his team, like Sarnia, Windsor and Fort Erie are also adjusting to the new reporting structure. This restructuring saw the new Regional Director General (Rick Comerford) take over, and included 10 affected members. Thankfully all were placed. Freddy and his team have overcome most hurdles including scheduling and a number of contentious union management issues. These sensitive issues cannot always be reported on, but suffice it to say, we have worked through them, and as always, for the most part we have come out strong and on top. Thanks to Freddy, Shelly, and the rest of their team.

Universal Identifiers :

This is an issue that has been ongoing for years, and has transcended both the NLMCC and NPSHC. The issue being that “CBSA” is not universally recognizable to other Languages and cultures and that our members who work in enforcement environments inland (Inland Immigration, Criminal Investigations, and Intelligence) should have a more universally recognizable identifier such as “IMMIGRATION” or “CUSTOMS”. This issue was referred back to the NLMCC by me and after much debate was referred to the Uniform and equipment working group, of which I am a member. This group is made up of union and management reps from all over the country and meets a couple times a year. I am very happy to report that at the last meeting of this working group, the members unanimously agreed that the identifier is a problem. I am confident that we are finally on the right track to correcting this huge health and safety issue.

Youth Activism :

This portfolio is one that was newly formed as one of my first orders of business as a newly elected National Vice-President. We have made such advances as forming a CIU youth activist Facebook page and having a section of our website devoted to these young workers, the future of our Union. I have also done such things as a youth meet and greet at convention, and will attempt to continue to build this network of young activists that are so vital to our Union.

Cell Phones in the work place :

This topic was shared by me and Brother Pellerin-Fowlie at different times throughout the term. It came as a result of multiple instances of corruption in the work place in many different regions. The consistent application in these instances was the use of cell phones. As such, the employer mandated that employees, while on duty would not be permitted to use or even carry personal cell phones with them. This initiative was opposed by the Union, and ultimately it was agreed that, although the policy was still in place, the employer would not actively enforce it unless non-compliance was obvious. The employer would not be undertaking pro-active efforts to ensure compliance such as search of members and their belongings. It was also agreed that members may use personal cell phones in non-public areas, on their own time (breaks, lunch).

Audio Video Initiative:

This policy is being rolled out as we speak. The first notion of this began early in my term when we were made aware of the anticipated rollout by then VP Human Resources, Paul Burkholder. After multiple meetings and statements of our opposition, the program was put on hold for over 2 years. It has once again reared its ugly head. Although the most recent meetings would be more aptly described as briefings rather than consultations, the employer has agreed to consider Joint Learning Program (JLP) live training on the rollout in the hopes that this will quell many of the concerns brought forward by the Union. I can assure you, that at every available opportunity, I have stated our overall opposition to this program. The Employer has insisted that this program will benefit our members and protect them, however, only time will tell how truly intrusive it is for our members.

 

From the report of the Equal Opportunities Representative:

DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE :

Over the last three years, I have responded to over thousands of emails and phone calls from Members who were seeking accommodation and have been refused by CBSA. The lack of an established Duty to Accommodate Policy by CBSA opened the door for Regional Managers to refuse accommodation requests. That all changed with the Johnstone decision. Thanks to the perseverance of Sister Johnstone and the legal expertise of Sister Addario and Andrew Raven, CBSA was charged with wilful and reckless conduct. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered that CBSA cease discriminatory practices against Employees based on family status. They also ordered CBSA to establish written policies satisfactory to Sister Johnstone and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. CBSA has just recently released a Duty to Accommodate Policy.

DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE MEMBERS WITH DISABILITIES :

There are 11 prohibited grounds for discrimination. Accommodations due to a disability have been one of the most significant issues. I have spent most of my term challenging CBSA over accommodating Members with disabilities both physical and non-physical. As co-chair of the National Union Management Accommodation and Disability Committee, I have been successful in some instances of securing accommodation for Members and at the same time, have challenged CBSA to provide for, and secure policies and procedures that would enable Members to receive full support in their endeavour to return to work and to be treated with dignity and respect that they rightfully deserve. I spent a significant amount of time exploring ways for Members who have a non-physical disability due to alcohol, gambling and chemical abuse to receive the treatment needed without suffering a financial burden. CBSA’s response to this was to extend sick leave if needed and offer EAP and a few counselling sessions available through Sun Life.
The RCMP offer full support up to and including arranging for a rehabilitation centre, financial support and personal support during and after treatment. Ways for EAP to become more involved and take an active role will be followed up by Brother Filice. As a Member of the FB Bargaining Team, I raised this issue and asked that we explore ways of having language put in the collective agreement that would support our Members. CIU is committed to continuing this challenge.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY:

At the beginning of my term, I, along with Labour Relations Officer Sister Randle and PSAC Human Rights Officer Allison Pilon attended National Union / Management Employment Equity Committee meetings. As co-chair of this Committee, I raised questions about CBSA’s Employment Equity Plan and Duty to Accommodate and to be provided with an update on the Canadian Human Rights Commission Audit. I raised concerns that the MMPI Test, the psychology test given to Officers prior to Firearm Training was culturally biased. Each question was answered with “we’ll get back to you”. CBSA indicated that due to budget restraints, the Employment System Review was put on hold. This meeting was in June of 2009 with the next meeting scheduled for November. The November Meeting was cancelled. After nine months of requesting a meeting, CIU was informed in January 2011 that CBSA decided to discontinue this Committee without Union consultation and to form a new Committee (National Employment Equity Advisory Committee (NEEAC)). I immediately sent an email to CBSA Vice- President Camille Therriault-Power advising her that these actions were contrary to the Employment Equity Act citing section 15 of the Act, which states that the Employer must consult with the Bargaining Agent regarding Employment Equity. A second letter had to be drafted reiterating our position and I am pleased to report that CBSA reorganized the NEEAC structure to include Union collaboration on all Employment Equity matters.
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The first meeting I attended in June, topics discussed included proactive recruitment, outreach practises specifically targeting Aboriginal Peoples, Persons with Disabilities, and Visible Minorities and ways to narrow the employment gap. Self-identification for members with disabilities was a topic of concern. The CHRC Audit was discussed and was reported that the CHRC would be closely monitoring the EE Plan with regards to implementation and representation put forth by CBSA. The Terms of Reference for NEEAC were edited to include involvement of Bargaining Agents.

.
BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL REQUIREMENT :

One of the greatest challenges in my term has been the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) for Officers to complete CDT and or Arming Training as a requirement for Officers to perform their duties. To recap the events up to the present, after the Coupal hearing, the Courts tasked CBSA to undertake an internal review of the duties of an Officer, and site visits to be conducted. The guiding principles for this review was to work in good faith and to be in full consultation with the Union. Specifically, the review will consider what duties require Officers to be proficient in CDT and in the use of the Firearm. In cases where CDT and Arming proficiencies are required, the review will consider job re-bundling, team work, modification of existing duties, non-site specific duties (cpic, canpass, targeting), workplace restructuring and the double up initiative. The review will include an analysis of all costs associated with the alternatives, reviewed by the Union and verified by an independent third party. Suffice it to say, no consultation took place, and very few of the instructions from the Court were followed. Next was the retaining of Richard Grounds (independent third party reviewer). Site tours followed, Grounds wrote his findings and then November 10, 2010, CBSA released to its Employees, that it was a bona fide occupational requirement for Officers to be tooled and/or armed. There was never any consideration given to re-bundling of duties, restructuring worksites and no consultation with the Union leading up to this statement. There was an immediate challenge to the Public Service Labour Relations Board by the Union.

BFOR COMMITTEE
This Committee was struck immediately and tasked to review the Grounds Report and to present any challenges. No easy task! The Grounds report was over 500 pages and broken down to different modes of operation, discrimination (gender, age, etc), medical assessment (cat.III). The Committee sat twice along with LRO Sister Laurel Randle, Sister Addario and Brother Morgan Gay. Challenges were raised and forwarded to legal counsels. It was quite a challenge, but thanks to Sister Gagnon, Sister Hughes, Sister Neumann, and Brother Milligan, we were able to complete the task. Finally after 2 years, the case will be presented at a Public Service Labour Relations Board Hearing starting October 31 until November 4, 2011. The decision of this Board will have long term effects on all BSO’s not only the one’s currently without tools. We are all one heartbeat away from needing an accommodation.

 

For the last time,
Respectfully Submitted
Fred Milligan
President
CIU Local #16
Niagara Falls