News - April 2011                           Previous Month         Following Month

Headlines of the current month's news items are listed immediately below. Click on the headline of your choice to see the entire text of the article.

Chronology of the PI Review

Success of our 2010 Rand sign-up campaign exceeds expectations

Agriculture Union delegates empowered at

PSAC Conference for Racially-Visible Members

A very Happy Easter to PEI families from Local 90004

Chronology of the PI Review

(Posted April 16, 2011)

The following are milestone dates for the PI Review.  They reflect significant events in the PI Review but do not include every meeting leading to that milestone.  As such, the following were not included in this chronology:

• Discussions were held at almost every meeting of the National Office , i.e.: National Executive Members and Staff that had participated in the PI Review with CFIA since its implementation in 2000.  These meetings involved the different CFIA Presidents, Vice Presidents, Staff Relations personnel, HR personnel, etc

• A commitment was made by the National Office to discuss the PI Review with members at every opportunity, i.e.:  meetings specifically held on the PI Review with EGs, at local AGMs, Regional Seminars, National Council and National Executive Meetings.

• The PI Review was also brought up at the last two rounds of collective bargaining with CFIA and is also included in the upcoming negotiations.

• Several meetings were held with the PSAC Coordinator of the Representation Section as well as other PSAC legal officers to discuss strategy. 

• We also decided to leave out the campaigns that members did sat the local and regional levels as we did not have all the details at hand.

Some PI employees filed grievances prior to the Agency being created or prior to becoming employees of the Agency. 

April 1997 – The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is created.

June 1997 – PIs and all others who accepted offers of employment, became employees of the Agency.  The PIs from both Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and from Fisheries and Oceans Canada brought with them long-standing, unresolved concerns regarding the classification of their positions.  The PI’s filed a large number of grievances once they became employees of the Agency.  These grievances were mainly regarding pay and statement of duties.

October 1997 – The National Council approved a PI grievance campaign.  It was recommended that all PIs file statement of duties and acting pay grievances.

November-December 1997 – CFIA contacted us to discuss an alternative approach to the grievances filed by the PIs which  resulted in a meeting being held in January 1998.

January 1998 – The first union/management meeting was held regarding an alternate approach to resolving these grievances.

April 1998 – Agriculture Union and CFIA senior officials agreed on a process to review the classification of the PI positions within the Agency.  The Terms of Reference for this project were established and signed by the parties.

May 1998 – A meeting of the PI Review Steering Committee, management and union representatives, was held in Ottawa.  A plan was developed to identify and write about 30 representative job descriptions for PIs in all program areas across the country.  The seven identified program areas were designated as “Work Clusters”.  The union/management teams were tasked with gathering data for the consultant that was hired to write up the work descriptions.

June 1998 to March 1999 – The Cluster Groups identified 34 representative positions.  They then consulted with employees, managers, supervisors, program representatives and others to provide input to the work description writer.  The consultant hired to write up the work descriptions visited work sites across the country to meet with the Cluster Groups and other employees.

August 1998 to April 1999 – Joint union/management Classification Committees were held to review the work descriptions, cluster by cluster.  In addition to contacting the Cluster Groups and most of the incumbents of the positions submitted, the Classification Committees obtained additional information from various managers, trainers and program experts.

January 1999 – It became obvious that the work was not progressing as quickly as originally anticipated.  As well, it became clear that it would not be feasible to finalize the classification step-by-step as originally intended but rather to look at the  results of all the Committees after the classification reviews had been conducted.  The PI population was advised of this in a joint communiqué.  New time lines for completing the classification review were also established.

May 1999 – A union/management meeting was held to review the findings of all of the Classification Committees.  This resulted in a final joint union/management submission being presented to the Steering Committee.  The key recommendations were that the vast majority of the PI population should be moved into the Engineering and Scientific Support Group (EG) and that three working levels for front-line PI Inspectors should be established where there currently exists one.  One of the recommendations was that the Agency should move to a system of generic work descriptions for the PI population.  In this regard, a management team was assembled in late July to prepare preliminary drafts of about 20 generic work descriptions.  These draft work descriptions were based on the recommended working level structure and the original 34 work descriptions that were written during the Cluster Group process.

June 1999 – The Steering Committee agreed with the classification recommendations and this position was formally presented to senior management of the Agency.  These recommendations were approved in principle by the President, contingent on the ability of the Agency to secure the requisite funding.

July 1999 – The Vice-President, Operations, announced the intent of the Agency to move to the EG classification and provided a brief description of the new Working Level structure for the PI Group.  The Agency began to work with officials of central agencies and other sources to explore every option to secure the requisite funding necessary to implement the results of this project.

August 1999 to October 1999 – Work on establishing funding sources was intense and continued into the Fall.  The rest of the work to prepare for implementation was divided into two “Phases”.  Phase 1 comprises all outstanding Classification issues and Phase 2 comprises implementation issues.   Phase 1 work to finalize all outstanding classification issues and to complete the tools that managers will need to implement the results continued throughout this period.  For Phase II, a Sub-Committee of Regional Directors and a Management/Human Resources Implementation Team were established to evaluate the impact of implementing the results of the review and to prepare for possible implementation.

November 1999 – Information sessions in the regions were initiated.  As well, union/management meetings at the Executive Level were held and an enhanced communications plan was formulated. 

December 1999 – Work continued on Phase  1 and Phase 2 activities.  Following the release of the December communiqué, a conference call was held with representatives of the Steering Committee, the National Executive Vice-Presidents and the Regional Directors’ Sub-Committee.

January 2000 – A Core Group, including PI representatives, attended a training session on the Universal Classification System and participated in a consultation session regarding 14 draft generic work descriptions.  A Steering Committee meeting was held and a follow-up conference call will be scheduled.

April 2000 – The Steering Committee met and it was confirmed that there were no changes in the original agreements.  The retirees were included in the process.

May 2000 – The National Council was given some training by CFIA representatives on the job description as agreed to by the Cluster Groups.

June 2000 – The results came out.  A majority of the job descriptions and their classification level were different from what had been agreed upon.

July 2000 – Members started to file grievances.  Approximately 5,000 grievances were filed.

October 2000 – The National Executive decided to hire a full time Service Officer, on a term basis, to deal strictly with the PI/EG Review grievances.

September 2001 - Although some grievances are still at the first and second levels, we decided to proceed to the next level with the files we had and to represent at the final level. 

May 2002 – Representation at the final level of the grievance procedure was done before Larry Hillier.

September 2002 – Following meetings with PSAC, CFIA and the Agriculture Union, the parties agreed to expedite the process to adjudication.

October 2002 – Initial stage of the mediation process.  Representatives from the PSAC, the Agency and the Public Service Staff Relations Board met to establish initial contacts and to hold preliminary discussions on the process. 

April 2003 – The mediation process started and resulted in a settlement being reached.    Please refer to the chart below which shows when a mediated settlement was reached for all but one of the work descriptions.

At this time, only one remains to be settled: that of EG-03 - Plant Program Inspector (decision no. 20133).

January 2006 – CFIA advised us that, even though one group was still not settled, the job descriptions had been sent to classification.

March  2006 – The Agriculture Union writes  a letter to Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board in the Conservative minority government.  The purpose of the letter is to request a meeting to discuss a number of issues of concern to our CFIA members, including the PI/EG Review.

April  2006 – We were told that the results were forthcoming and that we would be notified of the results shortly.

May  2006 – Advised that significant departures from the HR and Labour Relations Section at the CFIA is causing a delay in the evaluation the classification levels for the job descriptions.

July  2006 – Major employer staff vacancies delaying process.  The National Office shares the frustration of our Canadian Food Inspection Agency members with management’s slowness in dealing with grievances flowing from the PI/EG Review.

October  2006 – Meeting with Minister Chuck Strahl's political advisors.

November  2006 – Letter sent from Agriculture Union National President Yves Ducharme to François Guimond, President of the CFIA, asking him to become personally involved to resolve the issue of lengthy delays caused by severe staff shortages within HR at CFIA.

January  2007 – High-level meeting between Agriculture Union National President Yves Ducharme and 1st NEVP Bob Kingston  meet face-to-face with Sr. level managers of CFIA to discuss our position and to try and resolve long outstanding issues.

January – March 2007 – Classification Review Committees’ meet to review the Slaughter Inspector job descriptions as well as their Supervisors’ job descriptions with a view of reclassifying them.

January – March 2007 – all mediated job descriptions were classified by the Classification Review Committee.  Letters went out to members advising them of the results of same in the Fall of 2007.

April 2007 – Further meeting between CFIA and Agriculture Union senior officials to discuss the PI/EG Review grievances.  Agriculture Union is cautiously optimistic that many of the grievances may be resolved in the near future, however no decisions were made regarding implementation.

May 2007 – Senior level meeting between officials of Agriculture Union and the CFIA to learn new information and to get a progress report.  Union was assured by CFIA that its new President will not have a negative impact on the PI/EG Review.   CFIA is optimistic that key decisions will be made soon.

June 2007 -  Agriculture Union & CFIA jointly announce a major classification decision flowing from the PI/EG Review.  Text of memo to employees with Q & A’s also posted.

August 2007 – Clarification that agreement was regarding mediated generic job descriptions for all but one job description.  There is no formal agreement with CFIA on other outstanding issues.

October 2007 – Union looking into concerns voiced by members receiving classification decision letters.

October 2007 – Asking members to help us to help them by sending in additional documentation in substantiation of their PI/EG Review Grievances.

December 2007 – Union voices concern that understanding reached between senior union officials and senior management officials is not being respected with regards to the processing of mapping grievances.

June, 2008:  Update on Agriculture Union website to advise CFIA meat inspector retirees that they also have the right to grieve for adjustment of lump sum payments and increment levels.

July 2008 Memo sent from National President of Agriculture Union to the Local Presidents and to the National Council regarding back-pay and increments.

August, 2008 – CFIA EG/PI Review:  Update re:  grievances concerning back-pay & increments.  A significant number of grievances have been filed following CFIA’s decision not to provide back-pay for the period of 1997 to 2000 to those inspectors who have had their work descriptions reclassified effective June 30th, 2000.  Attempts to resolve this issue through consultation with CFIA’s VP of Operations, Cameron Prince,  have been unsuccessful in our attempts to date. 

March 31st, 2009 – Term Service Officer hired to work full-time on the PI/EG Review.  Locals and NC/NE also sent an e-mail to advise them of this decision.

April 2009 – E-mail sent out to all Local Presidents and NC to introduce the new Term Service Officer and to seek their assistance.

June 2, 2009 – Posting on web-site New Term Service Officer focusing on the PI/EG Review. 

August  2009 – Initial meeting held with CFIA officials to discuss and plan how we will work on the PI/EG Review. 

November 2009 – Update provided to National Council and Local Presidents on progress to date.  

April 2010 – Update report provided to National Council on progress to date.

July 2010 - Hearings scheduled with CFIA for some of the Unique Cases to be heard, however were postponed by CFIA. 

July & August  – Many follow-up requests are made with CFIA to reschedule hearings but to no avail.

Summer 2010 – The parties meet to discuss the history of the PI/EG Review.  CFIA Sr. Officials ask HR to go back and check our facts.

September 2010 – Staff Relations Officer assigned to PI/EG Review at CFIA leaves.  CFIA assigns PI/EG Review to a Sr. Labour Relations Officer who also has his regular portfolio to look after.

October 2010 – Based on our previous meeting, the parties come to an agreement on the chronology of the PI/EG Review. Discussions continue between CFIA and Agriculture Union Senior Officials to explore ways of dealing with most of the outstanding PI/EG Review grievances.

November 2010 – National Council provided with a further update and concerns over CFIA not committing enough resources to the PI/EG Review and refusing to schedule any hearings.

December 2010 – February 2011 – Union continues to try and push CFIA to hold grievance hearings.

March 2011 - Both sides continue to explore ways to resolve outstanding grievances.

April 2011 – Update provided to the National Council.

Success of our 2010 Rand sign-up campaign exceeds expectations

(Posted April 15, 2011)

Wow! And thanks!

We finally took a breath to tally up the results of ‘The Great 2010 Rand Sign-up Contest’. And the results were nothing short of incredible.

When we launched this campaign in January of last year, our unofficial target was to sign up 800 Rands – co-workers who for a variety of reasons had yet to formally join the Agriculture Union (PSAC). Thanks to the hard work of dedicated Local members across the country, we beat that by a huge margin. No less than 1,113 new members were recruited! This brought our total number of Rands under the thousand mark for the first time in many years.

And extra congratulations to Local 10081 in Joliette, Quebec – the winner of our grand prize of a fully-funded observer to this August’s Agriculture Union Triennial National Convention in Vancouver.

Of course, what with all the ongoing hires, retirements, transfers and secondments, we’ll likely be back with a new Rand Sign-up Contest within several years.

Agriculture Union delegates empowered at PSAC Conference for Racially-Visible Members

(Posted April 14, 2011)

Agriculture Union activists from across the country joined over 150 other Public Service Alliance of Canada members at this month's PSAC National Conference for Racially Visible Members in Vancouver.

Delegates heard from Fernando Gapasin, a US activist who spoke on union organizing and the progressive agenda, as well as Régine Laurent on the fight of nurses in Quebec. They also participated in workshops on the post 9-11 environment, employment equity and leadership and were given an opportunity to network with other member activists. They debated and passed priority resolutions on a national racially-visible network, fair workplace nominee programs and human rights actions plans.

Our Agriculture Union delegates in the photo below are, from left to right: Vimbai Dune-Chitohwa; Terri Lee; Marie-Françoise Bertrand; Antony Paller, Kathy Pham, and, Meconnen Beyene.  Vicki Guzman was not available for the photo.

Delegates, including our own Terri Lee (in the photo above right), also participated in the PSAC's Polictical Action session entitled 'If I were an MP'.

A very Happy Easter to PEI families from Local 90004

(Posted April 12, 2011)

Once again, the Agriculture Union Social Justice Fund and Local 90004 are working together to deliver a happier Easter for deserving Prince Edward Island families.

Local members purchased the fine champion steer seen in the photo accompanying this article at Charlottetown’s annual Easter beef auction.

When it came to bidding, their secret weapon was Secretary-Treasurer Lloyd Kerry, whose father was an auctioneer. Those in the photo are, from left to right: Lloyd Kerry, Local President Eric Wonnacott and animal owner Jason Peters.

Once dressed and packaged, the product will be donated to Island food banks.

The generous donation has three objectives:
        • To benefit Island families who otherwise might have a less festive Easter;
        • To support local beef farmers; and
        • To highlight the importance of rigorous food inspection.

Congratulations to all those involved in this meaningful gesture.