FPSLREB Decisions

[1]   These grievances deal with the interpretation of a collective agreement and, more specifically, of provisions relating to pay administration. The parties agreed on the following joint statement of facts:

[Translation]

1. Suzanne Hébert, Josée Normand and Francine Boutin are employees of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at the Quebec Regional Office and are currently in EG-04 positions, "Food Processing Specialist Inspector". They are all members of the Agriculture bargaining unit.

2. The grievors are covered by the collective agreement between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which expired on December 12, 2002.

3. The employees grieved the calculation of their pay for their promotion from the PM-03 group and level to the EG-04 group and level.

4. The grievors qualified for a position at the EG-04 group and level through an internal competition. Suzanne Hébert and Francine Boutin received a letter of offer for the EG-04 position on April 24, 2002, and accepted their new position with an effective date of April 29, 2002. Josée Normand received a letter of offer for the EG-04 position on May 22, 2002, and accepted the position with an effective date of June 3, 2002.

5. The annual salary indicated in the letter of offer of May 22, 2002, to Ms. Hébert and Ms. Boutin was $51,822. This pay rate was calculated in accordance with Article 63, Pay Administration, of the PSAC collective agreement, which states that the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations must be applied:

      53.01 Except as provided in this Article, the terms and conditions governing the application of pay to employees are not affected by this Agreement.

6. At the time of their promotion to EG-04, Suzanne Hébert and Francine Boutin were receiving acting EG-04 pay at the rate of $51,822 annually. The regulation applied to determine their pay is in section 46(f)(1)(b):

   (1) An employee in receipt of acting pay who is deployed or appointed to a new substantive level that is:

   […]

   (b) higher than that for which acting pay is being paid shall:

   (i) be paid at the rate of pay calculated pursuant to Sections 24 or 26, and

   (ii) should such rate of pay be less than the employee's previous acting rate of pay, be paid at the rate of pay in the higher salary range that is nearest to but not less than the previous acting rate of pay.

7. Section 24, Rate of pay on promotion, states:

   24.(1) The appointment of an employee described in Section 23 constitutes a promotion where the maximum rate of pay applicable to the position to which that person is appointed exceeds the maximum rate of pay applicable to the employee's substantive level immediately before that appointment by:

   (a) an amount equal to at least the lowest pay increment for the position to which he or she is appointed, where that position has more than one rate of pay;

   24.(2) Subject to Sections 27 and 28, on promotion, the rate of pay shall be the rate of pay nearest that to which the employee was entitled in his or her substantive level immediately before the appointment that gives the employee an increase in pay as specified in subsection (1) above; or an amount equal to at least four per cent of the maximum rate of pay for the position to which he or she is appointed, where the salary for the position to which the appointment is made is governed by performance pay.

8. The letter of offer of May 22, 2002, for Josée Normand for the EG-04 position indicated an annual salary of $51,822. The pay for her substantive position at the PM-03 group and level was $49,394 annually at the time of her appointment to the EG-04 position on June 3, 2002. Her pay was calculated in accordance with subsection 24.2 above.

9. The PM-03 positions held by the grievors prior to their new appointment were reclassified to the EG-03 group and level on August 13, 2002, with a retroactive date of June 1, 2001. The grievors were not incumbents of these positions at the time of the reclassification because they had been in EG-04 positions since their promotions to this group and level.

10. The employees filed a grievance at the first step in the grievance process on September 5, 2002.

11. Following the grievance hearing on January 24, 2003, management issued a reply on February 19, 2003, which allowed their grievance in part. The grievors were paid for the previous period when they performed duties at the EG-03 level. Francine Boutin and Suzanne Hébert were paid at the EG-03 level for the period from June 1, 2001, to April 28, 2002. Josée Normand was paid at the EG-03 level for the period from April 9 to June 2, 2002.

12. The grievors and management agreement to bypass the second level. The grievors were then referred to the final level on February 28, 2003. The hearing at the final level was held on July 17, 2003, and the grievance was dismissed on September 12 of the same year.

13. On October 25, 2003, the grievance was sent to the PSSRB and its administration council carried out the appropriate review.

[2]   The adjustment made by the employer during the grievance process to the acting pay levels to which the grievors were entitled alters the rate of pay that must be used in calculating the new salary for each of them at the time of their promotion.

[3]   The grievances are allowed.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson

Ottawa, June 4, 2004.

P.S.S.R.B. Translation