FPSLREB Decisions

Rate of pay - Whether extension of secondment or new secondment - Whether extrinsic evidence admissible - Law Group bargaining unit - the grievor was seconded to an area advocate position at Veterans Affairs Canada - area advocate positions were classified at the LA-2 group and level and were paid at a rate in the LA-2(II) scale - other employees were pension advocates, whose positions were classified at the LA-2 group and level and who were paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale - over time, the duties of pension advocate and area advocate positions had become the same - those other employees sought to be paid the same as area advocates, at a rate in the LA-2(II) scale: Bisal et al. v. Treasury Board (Veterans Affairs Canada) , (2002) 41 PSSRB Summaries 12 2002 PSSRB 43 (166-2-30176 to 30179) - in response, the employer decided to reorganize its workforce and that new area advocates would be paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale - the employer also grandfathered the rate of pay of existing area advocates - the employer informed the grievor that her secondment would be extended and that she would continue to be paid at a rate in the LA-2(II) scale - however, she was asked to sign an extension agreement showing that she would be paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale - she signed the agreement under protest and grieved the employer's decision to reduce her salary - in their 1990 collective agreement, the employer and the bargaining agent had introduced two scales of rates for employees in positions classified at the LA-2 group and level - that collective agreement contained a pay note stating that "[a]n employee whose position was classified at the LA-2 level on or after January 1, 1990, and who was paid on or after December 31, 1989 at a rate of pay in the LA-1 scale of rates, shall be paid in the LA-2(I) 'A' scale of rates, other than an employee who is appointed to a position to which the LA-2(II) scale of rates applies" - on December 31, 1989, pension advocates were paid at a rate in the LA-1 scale - another pay note stated that "[e]ffective January 1, 1990, an employee paid in the LA-2 scale of rates on December 31, 1989 shall be paid in the LA-2(II) 'A' scale of rates at the rate of pay which is immediately below the employee's rate of pay as of December 31, 1989" - on December 31, 1989, area advocates were paid at a rate in the LA-2 scale - those pay notes had not been reproduced in subsequent collective agreements - the grievor wanted to adduce extrinsic evidence to explain the ambiguity which she perceived in the collective agreement - the adjudicator found that there was no such ambiguity - the grievor argued that she was the only area advocate paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale - she alleged that the employer had unilaterally re-interpreted the 1990 collective agreement to suit its purpose - she added that, mid-way through her secondment, the employer decided to reduce her level of salary - the employer responded that the extension of the grievor's secondment was a new secondment and that it could change the grievor's salary on that occasion - in this case, it decided to appoint the grievor to a position to which the LA-2(I) scale of rates applies - the adjudicator found that, in the circumstances, the extension of the grievor's secondment was not a new secondment and that the employer could not change the grievor's rate of pay. Grievance allowed. Case cited:Bisal, 2002 PSSRB 43 (166-2-30176 to 30179).