Summary Anderson v. Treasury Board (Canada Border Services Agency) - Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board decisions.fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca
11,654 words - html page - View html page
One Line
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board upheld the entitlement of three border services officers to receive pay increments on their anniversary dates, rejecting the employer's argument and outdated policy.
Slides
Slide Presentation (7 slides)
Key Points
- The grievors challenged the employer's failure to pay their first pay increments on the applicable dates.
- The Board allowed the new arguments raised by the grievors since they did not change the nature of the grievances.
- The Board found that the collective agreement provision entitled employees to pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments.
- The employer argued that the grievors were only entitled to a pay increment after 12 months of actually performing their duties.
- The Board dismissed the employer's objection and concluded that the grievors were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates.
- The employer argued that the Pay Increments Policy and the Directive supported their position, but the Board rejected these arguments.
- The employer contended that the Pay Increments Policy filled a gap in the collective agreement and should be referred to when calculating pay increment dates.
- The grievors maintained that they were entitled to pay increments based on the anniversary dates of their appointments, as stated in the Pay Notes.
Summaries
36 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three border services officers. They rejected the employer's argument and outdated policy, affirming the officers' entitlement to pay increments on their anniversary dates.
67 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three border services officers. They found that the officers were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates according to the collective agreement, rejecting the employer's argument for a different calculation. The employer's reliance on an outdated policy was also rejected. The employer believed that pay increment dates were not automatic in all cases.
224 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three grievors who were border services officers. The Board allowed the grievors to raise new arguments and found that they were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates based on the collective agreement. The Board rejected the employer's argument that a different calculation of pay increments was allowed under the Directive. They also rejected the employer's reliance on an outdated Pay Increments Policy, emphasizing that pay increments were a presumptive entitlement. The employer argued that pay increment periods for seasonal employees were properly calculated based on the time worked in their positions. They claimed that this calculation aligned with the Pay Increments Policy. The employer contended that there was a gap in the collective agreement and that the Pay Increments Policy filled this gap. They argued that the grievors' interpretation of the collective agreement would create two tiers of pay increment entitlements and conflict with a clause in the agreement. The employer believed that pay increment dates were not automatic in all cases and that off-season periods should not be included in the calculation. The employer argued that the new argument based on the plain meaning of the Pay Notes did not change the nature of the grievances. They stated that the Burchill principle did not apply in this case.
394 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three grievors who were appointed as border services officers. They challenged the employer's failure to pay their first pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments. The Board allowed the grievors to raise new arguments at adjudication and found that they were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates based on the plain meaning of the collective agreement.
The Board interpreted the collective agreement and found that the Pay Notes required granting pay increments on anniversary dates. The employer's argument that the Directive allowed for a different calculation of pay increments was rejected. The Board also rejected the employer's reliance on its outdated Pay Increments Policy, emphasizing that pay increments were a presumptive entitlement.
The employer argues that the pay increment periods for seasonal employees were properly calculated based on the total time they actually worked in their Victoria positions. They claim that this calculation aligns with the Pay Increments Policy, which states that all periods during which an employee performs their duties or is on leave with pay are included in the calculation of the pay increment period.
The employer contends that there was a gap in the collective agreement regarding how pay increment periods for seasonal employees should be calculated. They argue that the Pay Increments Policy filled this gap and therefore could be referred to when calculating the grievors' pay increment dates.
The employer asserts that the grievors initially shared their view that the Pay Increments Policy was applicable and relevant during the grievance process. They argue that the grievors' interpretation of the collective agreement would create two tiers of pay increment entitlements and conflict with clause 33.02 of the collective agreement.
The employer argues that the pay increment dates for employees under the collective agreement are not automatic in all cases, as demonstrated by clause 33.02. They believe that the parties did not intend for the pay increment period to include extended off-season periods during which seasonal employees do not perform their duties.
In response to the grievors' preliminary objection, the employer argues that their new argument based on the plain meaning of the Pay Notes does not change the nature of the grievances. They contend that the Burchill principle does not apply in this case because the nature of the grievances remains the same.
695 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three grievors who were appointed as border services officers. They were initially hired on a full-time, indeterminate, and seasonal basis in Victoria, British Columbia. After being notified of their seasonal layoff, they were appointed as part-time, indeterminate, and seasonal border services officers at another location. Later, they were appointed as full-time, indeterminate, and year-round border services officers in Victoria or Sidney.
The grievors challenged the employer's failure to pay their first pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments. The employer objected to the grievors raising new arguments at adjudication, but the Board allowed the new arguments since they did not change the nature of the grievances. The Board found that the collective agreement provision entitled employees to pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments without exceptions for seasonal employees. The Board dismissed the objection and allowed the grievances.
The Board interpreted the collective agreement and found that the plain meaning of the Pay Notes required granting pay increments on anniversary dates. The employer's argument that the Directive allowed for a different calculation of pay increments was rejected by the Board. The Board also rejected the employer's reliance on its outdated Pay Increments Policy, emphasizing that pay increments were a presumptive entitlement.
In summary, the grievors challenged the employer's failure to grant them their first pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments. The Board allowed the grievors to raise new arguments at adjudication and found that they were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates based on the plain meaning of the collective agreement. The employer's reliance on its Pay Increments Policy and the Directive was rejected. The Board concluded that the grievances should be allowed and the employer's objection dismissed.
The employer argues that the pay increment periods for seasonal employees were properly calculated based on the total time they actually worked in their Victoria positions. They claim that this calculation aligns with the Pay Increments Policy, which states that all periods during which an employee performs their duties or is on leave with pay are included in the calculation of the pay increment period. The employer asserts that the Pay Increments Policy still provides guidance on pay administration as long as it has not been superseded by new policy.
The employer contends that there was a gap in the collective agreement regarding how pay increment periods for seasonal employees should be calculated. They argue that the Pay Increments Policy filled this gap and therefore could be referred to when calculating the grievors' pay increment dates. The employer believes that the Pay Increments Policy supports the collective agreement by clarifying how pay increments should be calculated when the agreement is silent and a specific directive applies.
The employer asserts that the grievors initially shared their view that the Pay Increments Policy was applicable and relevant during the grievance process. They argue that the grievors' interpretation of the collective agreement would lead to two absurd consequences. First, it would create two tiers of pay increment entitlements for year-round and seasonal employees. Second, it would conflict with clause 33.02 of the collective agreement, which states that time spent on leave without pay for more than three months should not be counted for pay increment purposes.
The employer argues that the pay increment dates for employees under the collective agreement are not automatic in all cases, as demonstrated by clause 33.02. They believe that the parties did not intend for the pay increment period to include extended off-season periods during which seasonal employees do not perform their duties. The employer contends that the grievors' argument is inconsistent with the collective agreement and that they clearly communicated how pay increment periods for seasonal employees would be calculated.
In response to the grievors' preliminary objection, the employer argues that their new argument based on the plain meaning of the Pay Notes does not change the nature of the grievances. They contend that the Burchill principle, which prevents introducing new grievances at adjudication, does not apply in this case because the nature of the grievances remains the same.
The grievors maintain
1364 word summary
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board reviewed a case involving three grievors who were appointed as border services officers on a full-time, indeterminate, and seasonal basis. After being notified of their seasonal layoff, the employer appointed them as border services officers at another location on a part-time, indeterminate, and seasonal basis. While working at the other location, the grievors were then appointed as border services officers on a full-time, indeterminate, and year-round basis. The grievors challenged the employer's failure to pay their first pay increments on the applicable dates. The employer objected to the grievors raising new arguments at adjudication, but the Board allowed the new arguments since they did not change the nature of the grievances. The Board found that the collective agreement provision stating that employees were entitled to pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments did not lead to an absurd outcome. Furthermore, the collective agreement contained no exceptions for employees appointed on a seasonal basis. The objection was dismissed and the grievances were allowed.
The grievors were initially appointed as border services officers in Victoria, British Columbia, on a full-time, indeterminate, and seasonal basis. They worked from May 1 to September 30 each year. Later, they were appointed as border services officers at the Port of Douglas in Surrey, B.C., on a part-time, indeterminate, and seasonal basis. They worked 30 hours per week from October 1 to April 30 each year. Finally, they were appointed as border services officers in Victoria or Sidney on a full-time, indeterminate, and year-round basis. The grievors argued that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to grant them their first pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments.
The grievors relied on the plain meaning of the language in the collective agreement to argue that they were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates. They contended that the collective agreement did not distinguish between full- and part-time employees or between employees working on a seasonal or year-round basis. The employer argued that the grievors were only entitled to a pay increment after 12 months of actually performing the duties of their positions, and that their off-season periods did not count toward this calculation. The employer relied on the Pay Notes in the collective agreement and the Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment to support their position.
The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary objection that the grievors raised new arguments at adjudication. The Board found that the new arguments did not change the nature of the grievances and were therefore allowed. The Board interpreted the collective agreement and found that the plain meaning of the Pay Notes required granting pay increments on anniversary dates. The Board rejected the employer's argument that the Directive allowed for a different calculation of pay increments, stating that the Directive referred to cases where the collective agreement was silent, but in this case, the collective agreement clearly defined the pay increment period as the anniversary date of the appointment.
The Board also rejected the employer's reliance on its Pay Increments Policy, as the policy was outdated and not incorporated into the collective agreement. The Board emphasized that pay increments were a presumptive entitlement and should only be ousted by clear language. The Board concluded that the grievors were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates, regardless of their seasonal appointments, and that the employer's failure to grant them these increments violated the collective agreement.
In summary, the grievors in this case challenged the employer's failure to grant them their first pay increments on the anniversary dates of their appointments. The Board allowed the grievors to raise new arguments at adjudication and found that they were entitled to pay increments on their anniversary dates based on the plain meaning of the collective agreement. The employer's reliance on its Pay Increments Policy and the Directive was rejected. The Board concluded that the grievances should be allowed and the employer's objection dismissed.
The employer argues that the pay increment periods for seasonal employees were properly calculated based on the total time they actually worked in their Victoria positions. They claim that this calculation aligns with the Pay Increments Policy, which states that all periods during which an employee performs their duties or is on leave with pay are included in the calculation of the pay increment period. The employer asserts that the Pay Increments Policy still provides guidance on pay administration as long as it has not been superseded by new policy. They also argue that the Treasury Board has the authority to determine and regulate pay for public service employees under the Financial Administration Act.
The employer contends that there was a gap in the collective agreement regarding how pay increment periods for seasonal employees should be calculated. They argue that the Pay Increments Policy filled this gap and therefore could be referred to when calculating the grievors' pay increment dates. They refute the grievors' reliance on the Broekaert case, stating that there is no contradiction between the collective agreement and the Pay Increments Policy in this case. The employer believes that the Pay Increments Policy supports the collective agreement by clarifying how pay increments should be calculated when the agreement is silent and a specific directive applies.
The employer asserts that the grievors initially shared their view that the Pay Increments Policy was applicable and relevant during the grievance process. They argue that the grievors' interpretation of the collective agreement would lead to two absurd consequences. First, it would create two tiers of pay increment entitlements for year-round and seasonal employees. Second, it would conflict with clause 33.02 of the collective agreement, which states that time spent on leave without pay for more than three months should not be counted for pay increment purposes.
The employer argues that the pay increment dates for employees under the collective agreement are not automatic in all cases, as demonstrated by clause 33.02. They believe that the parties did not intend for the pay increment period to include extended off-season periods during which seasonal employees do not perform their duties. The employer contends that the grievors' argument is inconsistent with the collective agreement and that they clearly communicated how pay increment periods for seasonal employees would be calculated.
In response to the grievors' preliminary objection, the employer argues that their new argument based on the plain meaning of the Pay Notes does not change the nature of the grievances. They contend that the Burchill principle, which prevents introducing new grievances at adjudication, does not apply in this case because the nature of the grievances remains the same.
The grievors maintain that they are entitled to pay increments based on the anniversary dates of their appointments, as stated in the Pay Notes. They argue that the employer's position that the collective agreement is silent on pay increments for seasonal employees is incompatible with the Pay Notes, which explicitly define the pay increment period by reference to the anniversary date. They dispute the employer's reliance on the Directive and the Pay Increments Policy, stating that these documents do not supersede or replace the Pay Notes.
The grievors highlight that the Pay Notes apply to both full-time and part-time employees and do not differentiate between seasonal and non-seasonal employees. They argue that if the parties had intended to exclude seasonal employees from the Pay Notes, they would have done so. They believe that the employer's interpretation would create a double standard for year-round and seasonal employees, despite both groups receiving pay increments on their anniversary dates.
The grievors assert that the collective agreement is not silent on pay increments for seasonal employees and that there is no need to refer to external documents. They argue that the employer's interpretation would violate the collective agreement.
In response to the employer's arguments about potential absurd outcomes and inconsistency with clause 33.02 of the collective agreement, the grievors point out that part-time employees already receive pay increments on their anniversary dates despite working fewer hours than full-time employees. They contend that the employer's interpretation is not absurd or unfair, as it is what the parties agreed to when they defined the