Date:  20191008

Files:  466-HC-414 to 416

Citation:  2019 FPSLREB 100

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Before an adjudicator

BETWEEN

Luc Brunet, Claude Vinette, and Marc Routhier

Grievors

and

Parliamentary Protective Service

Employer

Indexed as

Brunet v. Parliamentary Protective Service

In the matter of individual grievances referred to adjudication under section 63 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Before:  Marie-Claire Perrault, adjudicator

For the Grievors: Sylvain Beauchamp, counsel

For the Employer: George Vuicic, counsel

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario,

April 23 and 24, 2019.

(FPSLREB Translation)

REASONS FOR DECISION FPSLREB TRANSLATION

I. Grievances referred to adjudication

[1]  On March 10, 2016, Luc Brunet, Claude Vinette, and Marc Routhier (“the grievors”) referred three grievances about their respective job descriptions to the Public Service Labor Relations and Employment Board (which, on June 19, 2017, became the Federal Public Sector Labor Relations and Employment Board; “the Board”).

[2]  Messrs. Brunet, Vinette, and Routhier work as part of the House of Commons Security Service for the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS or “the employer”). Their original grievances, dated May 19, 2015, were addressed to their employer as of then, the House of Commons. Since June 23, 2015, employees responsible for parliamentary security have been under the PPS.

[3]  When they filed their grievances, Mr. Routhier was a constable, Mr. Vinette was a corporal, and Mr. Brunet was a sergeant. All three complained about the same omissions in their job descriptions.

[4]  In its response to the grievances, the employer took the position that they were premature, since the House of Commons’ classification policy already provided a schedule for reviewing positions, which was every three years for major changes, and every five years for minor changes. The last review had occurred in June 2012, so the May 2015 grievance was premature.

[5]  The employer also did not note any changes to the job descriptions other than those already conceded, which were about the change of employer. Therefore, the grievances were dismissed.

[6]  Their bargaining agent, the House of Commons Security Service Employees Association (SSEA or “the bargaining agent”), represented the three grievors at the hearing. All three grievances were filed as representing all the members (“employees”) of the bargaining unit that the SSEA represents. Consequently, in this decision, the SSEA is considered a party.

II. Summary of the evidence

[7]  Eric Fortin, a sergeant with the PPS (in 2015, when the grievance was filed, he was a corporal), and Roch Lapensée, the SSEA’s president and an operational sergeant with the PPS, testified for the grievors. Guillaume Vandal, a superintendent with the PPS, testified for the employer.

[8]  Section 27 of the collective agreement (which expired on March 31, 2017) between the House of Commons and the SSEA states that an employee is entitled to “… a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of the employee’s position …”.

[9]  Recall that on June 23, 2015, the PPS replaced the House of Commons as the employer. Under the transitional provisions of the Act that created the PPS, the collective agreement remained in effect and was fully binding on the PPS, as the employer.

[10]  The grievors claim that the current job description is not a complete and current statement of the House of Commons security officers’ duties and responsibilities.

[11]  Effectively, the House of Commons’ classification policy provides for possible changes every three and five years. It also states the following: “[translation] However, positions may be subject to review for diverse reasons, such as grievances, reorganizations, and mandate changes or following control exercises”.

[12]  According to Mr. Lapensée, several changes were made to the grievors’ duties, but none was made to their job descriptions.

[13]  It is important to emphasize that the job description referred to in this grievance is the one that was in effect in May 2015, when the grievance was filed.

[14]  Mr. Fortin testified about the changes to the duties of constables and corporals between June 2012, when the job description was updated, and May 2015. Evident is that the triggering event was the attack on October 22, 2014, when a man armed with a rifle accessed the interior of Parliament’s Centre Block. From then on, all constables have had to carry a firearm; before that event, only a few positions required armed incumbents.

[15]  Carrying a firearm requires a qualification. Initially, it consists of five days of training, with a regular one-day requalification.

[16]  Mr. Fortin also noted that the job description does not include a requirement that employees be familiar with the Daily Activity Bulletin and the post orders. Each one has about 100 pages, and employees must become familiar enough to quickly find the information they may need. The Bulletin includes one-time events (such as dignitary visits), while the post orders are permanent.

[17]  According to Mr. Lapensée, several aspects of the employees’ work are not reflected in the job description, meaning that it is not complete. At the hearing, the bargaining agent proposed a written amendment to the job description, which I will cover point-by-point in the analysis.

[18]  In his testimony, Mr. Vandal confirmed that employees sometimes work outside the Parliamentary Precinct for special events. He also confirmed that employees accompany the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in visually inspecting vehicles entering Parliament Hill, particularly to help recognize members of Parliament and senators.

III. Summary of the arguments

A. For the grievors

[19]  The bargaining agent claims that under their collective agreement, employees are entitled to a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities. The relevant provision of the collective agreement reads as follows:

27.01  Upon written request, an employee shall be provided with a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of the employee’s position, including the classification level and an organisation chart depicting the position’s place in the organisation.

[20]  According to the bargaining agent, its proposals have merit. The parties’ practice was to include the context of employees’ work; the employer did not demonstrate that such a practice was not founded or justified. As an example, the bargaining agent cited the superintendents’ job description (which is not in dispute in this case), which includes an addendum, the first three paragraphs of which the bargaining agent wishes to add to the employees’ job description. That addendum was included in the superintendents’ job description as of April 30, 2015.

B. For the employer

[21]  The purpose of a job description is to accurately reflect the essential duties the incumbent in a position performs. There is no need for repetition or redundancy. In particular, the employer cited a few examples from the jurisprudence.

[22]  In Jennings v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 20, the adjudicator reviewed the job description of two grievors responsible for public communications with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. After acknowledging that a job description need not set out an employee’s work in detail, nevertheless, the adjudicator found that an omission in the job description needed correcting.

[23]  In Hughes v. Treasury Board (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69, the adjudicator did not amend the job description, finding that it was sufficient, contrary to Mr. Hughes’ claims that it was incomplete. The following paragraph explains the adjudicator’s reasoning:

…

[26] In my view BBWD 00518 adequately and sufficiently describes in general terms the full range of duties and responsibilities attributed by the employer to the grievor’s position. A job description need not contain a detailed listing of all activities performed under a specific duty. Nor should it necessarily list at length the manner in which those activities are accomplished.

…

[24]  In Jaremy v. Treasury Board (Revenu Canada - Customs, Excise & Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59, the grievance was primarily about the lack of detail in a job description. According to the employer in that case, the generic descriptions were sufficient to cover all the duties being performed. The adjudicator found in the employer’s favour; according to him, the job description presented the grievors’ duties and responsibilities without the need to go into detail.

[25]  In Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development), 2016 PSLREB 24, the issue was the job description of client service officers working at the Department of Employment and Social Development, as it was then called. The Public Service Alliance of Canada, the bargaining agent for the grievors in the case, argued that changes were needed to better reflect the grievors’ duties.

[26]  The adjudicator found that there was no need for the requested changes, either because the duties were already included or because the proposed addition did not reflect the reality of the grievors’ work.

[27]  The employer summarizes its position as follows: the grievors are trying to add fine detail to polish an existing text.

IV. Analysis

[28]  One of the difficulties of this decision is the situation over time. The parties acknowledged that the protective officers’ role changes constantly, based on evolving demands. For example, the document that Mr. Lapensée prepared to argue the grievance at the third level of the grievance process proposed changing the employer’s name from the House of Commons to the PPS, which was accurate on January 20, 2016, as of the third-level hearing. However, the grievance was filed in May 2015, before the PPS was created.

[29]  Although the employer acknowledged that most of the additions were accurate, it challenged the need to add them to the description, based on the reasoning cited in the jurisprudence, namely, not all the details of the duties are needed for a complete job description.

[30]  I note from the text of the collective agreement and from the jurisprudence that the job description must provide a “complete statement” of an employee’s duties and responsibilities. In most of the bargaining agent’s proposed additions, I see nothing that does not reflect reality. I believe that these additions are part of the employees’ general responsibilities. Insofar as the employer recognizes the accuracy, I agree to incorporate them, unless otherwise indicated, as they are part of the employees’ duties as presented in the adduced evidence.

[31]  The employer challenged some changes more fundamentally. I will deal with them in the following paragraphs. Some grammatical corrections will be made to the bargaining agent’s proposed text.

[32]  The parties agreed to change the title of the position from “[translation] security officer” to “[translation] protective officer”.

[33]  The bargaining agent proposed adding the phrase “[translation] without geographic limitation” to the first paragraph of the job description, under [translation] Summary of General Duties/Responsibilities, to make the paragraph read as follows (proposed changes in bold):

[Translation]

The protective officer is responsible for carrying out the approved security plans and measures to ensure the protection of people and goods and to maintain peace and order within the House of Commons and areas designated as part of the Parliamentary Precinct, without geographic limitation.

[34]  I agree with the addition of this phrase. The employer objects to it, as generally, the protective officers’ work is performed within the Parliamentary Precinct boundaries. However, the evidence adduced at the hearing convinces me that at times, the House of Commons Security Service must operate outside the Parliamentary Precinct, to receive dignitaries or for special events. The concept of “Parliamentary Precinct” then becomes broader than its strict geographic boundaries.

[35]  The bargaining agent then proposes adding the following text after the first paragraph, just cited. It is very general in that it provides no indication of the protective officers’ general duties and responsibilities. For that reason, I would accept this addition:

[Translation]

The bargaining unit’s members must respond to specific security requests, duties that they have performed historically, since 1868, with professionalism and in an environment that constantly shifts and becomes more complex.

The House recognizes the paramount importance of the bargaining unit’s members, primarily with respect to fulfilling the House’s legislative function.

They perform the full range of security duties: risk assessment, access control, investigations, emergency response, the physical protection of the Parliamentary Precinct, the House and the committees, and the armed personal protection of the prime minister or of the prime minister and visiting foreign dignitaries.

They perform the protocol functions associated with the traditions of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, such as the Speaker’s Parade, Royal Assent, state visits and swearing-in ceremonies for members of Parliament.

[36]  Under [translation] Primary Responsibilities, the bargaining agent requests adding the following text. The employer did not challenge its accuracy. To me, it should be added, because it sets out a protective officer’s duties:

[Translation]

He or she officially investigates incidents that occur in areas within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. These areas involve criminal or security matters that may significantly impact the security of persons or goods.

A plain-clothes officer is the first involved in the close protection of the prime minister and visiting dignitaries and conducts comprehensive investigations of serious security threats and inspections of protections against technical intrusions (RCMP).

The members of the rapid response team (RRT) are responsible for helping with and resolving imminent dangerous situations, thus raising the level of security provided to members of Parliament, employees, visitors and dignitaries. The immediate and rapid deployment of members in situations in which there is an active threat could lead to death or serious bodily harm to innocent people.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person who commits or has committed an act that could jeopardize the protection of people or goods and continued peace and order within the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Precinct and in any other areas under the authority of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House or who it is reasonably believed has committed or is about to commit such an act.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person who has committed an indictable offence or who it is reasonably believed has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence involving a breach of security or that jeopardizes the security of people or goods within the Parliamentary Precinct.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person he or she discovers is in the act of committing an indictable offence involving a breach of security or that jeopardizes the security of people or goods within the Parliamentary Precinct.

[37]  Also under Primary Responsibilities, the bargaining agent proposes adding the following lines to the paragraph beginning with “[translation] The incumbent uses equipment, systems, processes and technical skills …”:

[Translation]

- Operates a sophisticated alarm control system that is connected to many buildings within the Parliamentary Precinct and occasionally throughout the City of Ottawa (including a fire alarm, an intrusion alarm, a distress alarm, motion detectors, etc.)

[38]  The employer did not challenge the accuracy of this addition, and I accept it.

[39]  Under [translation] Knowledge, Skills and Experience, the bargaining agent wishes to add, “[translation] Knowledge of some provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada”. The wording is so vague that I do not see what it could add to the job description.

[40]  The bargaining agent also proposes the following addition:

[Translation]

- Knowledge of the Parliament of Canada Act and its practical implications and of the policies, directives and regulations of the House of Commons, particularly with respect to protective operations and labour relations.

[41]  It appears that for their work, the protective officers need this knowledge, and the employer did not challenge its accuracy. I accept the addition.

[42]  The bargaining agent proposes adding the phrase, “[translation] The Parliamentary Protective Service deals with many emergencies that would require a coordinated response, such as fires, bomb threats, floods, demonstrations and armed intrusions”. I do not find that this falls under knowledge, skills, or experience.

[43]  The bargaining agent proposes the following wording: “[translation] Knowledge of Security Services procedures, policies and directives”. I agree with this addition.

[44]  The bargaining agent proposes adding, “[translation] Knowledge of investigation and evidence-gathering techniques”. As the employer conceded at the hearing that the protective officers have a role in investigations, this knowledge should be added.

[45]  The bargaining agent proposes the following two additions:

[Translation]

- Ability to deal effectively with people in difficult situations

- Impartially, effectively and firmly manage legal situations

[46]  The employer objected to the term “legal”. I agree, as the term is imprecise. Additionally, the two additions seem redundant. Under Knowledge, Skills and Experience, the description already includes the following experience: “[translation] Direct and regular experience interacting with people”.

[47]  The bargaining agent proposes adding, “[translation] Knowledge of items prohibited/restricted under the Criminal Code of Canada”. The employer objects. I received no evidence either way. It seems to me that it makes sense that a security service must know of items prohibited or restricted under the Criminal Code of Canada. I accept the addition.

[48]  The bargaining agent proposes two other additions under Knowledge, Skills and Experience. One is a description of “[translation] rapid deployment for immediate action”, for which protective officers must be certified. This description is not necessary in a job description. The other addition is a repetition of the protocol duties already added under Primary responsibilities.

[49]  Under [translation] Labour Relations, the bargaining agent wants to add the following after the first paragraph:

[Translation]

The incumbent must develop personal skills and considerable experience resolving sensitive issues, handling conflicts and applying sound judgment and an ability to listen to the many people who converge on the Parliamentary Precinct.

At a high level and at emotionally demanding times, the incumbent manages meetings with other stakeholders in parliamentary protective services, including the director, deputy director, chief of security operations and other senior officials and managers from political parties.

[50]  Although the first paragraph already addresses some aspects of these additions, I recognize that resolving sensitive issues, handling conflicts, applying sound judgment, and listening skills are not set out in the first paragraph. I accept this addition.

[51]  However, it seems to me that interacting with other stakeholders in parliamentary protective services is more related to the new reality that was put in place on June 23, 2015, with the PPS’s founding. I would not add this paragraph to the job description that was in effect in May 2015. I do not think that the reality of the protective officers’ work was to manage meetings with security service officials at “a high level”. Certainly, I did not receive any related evidence.

[52]  Under [translation] Other Responsibilities, the bargaining agent wishes to add the following paragraphs (the parts that the employer contests are highlighted):

[Translation]

The buildings and activities in the Parliamentary Precinct attract national and international attention. That interest arises from the heritage nature of the buildings and Parliament’s role as the centre and symbol of national political and governmental activities. Those two factors also present clear challenges for protective officers to ensure a balance between the need for and ease of access, democratic openness and the obligation to identify risks, threats, actual intrusions, emergencies and criminal activities.

[53]  I agree with the employer that there is no need to expand on the importance of Parliament in a job description. Nevertheless, the protective officers’ work falls within a particular framework, which largely determines the very nature of that work. The parties may agree on the form. I will leave the bargaining agent’s proposed wording, to reflect the reality of the workplace.

[54]  The second paragraph reads as follows:

[Translation]

It is also difficult to provide a wide range of complex security services and functions across the Parliamentary Precinct, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for a clientele accustomed to high service standards. Another challenge is the need to ensure the security of major events for which the degree of risk is proportional to the public nature of the event and the large number of participants. The incumbent has a high level of diplomatic skills and excellent knowledge of how to deal with sensitive political issues. The work requires the ability to maintain an effective working relationship with all sectors of the House, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the RCMP, CSIS and other departments.

[55]  I agree with the employer’s objection that the employer’s mandate, although challenging, can hardly be called “difficult”, since it is the employer’s very mandate. I would propose the following slight change: “[translation] The incumbents provide a wide range of complex …”.

[56]  I agree with the employer that the protective officers’ work does not require “… excellent knowledge of how to deal with sensitive political issues.” Officers follow post orders and are not required to deal with the media. Nor do I believe that they have “a high level of diplomatic skills”. Their ability to listen and interact with different clients has already been mentioned. I believe that is enough.

[57]  The third paragraph states as follows:

[Translation]

The incumbent is responsible for providing a full range of operational security functions, including risk assessment, access control, investigations, emergency response, the physical protection of parliamentary precincts and committees, and the armed protection of the prime minister and visiting foreign dignitaries.

[58]  This paragraph repeats what was already added under Primary Responsibilities; it does not need to be added here.

[59]  The fourth paragraph reads as follows:

[Translation]

The incumbent in the position is responsible for searching the bags of all visitors. The incumbent is in direct contact with visitors and their personal effects, which poses a risk to his or her health and safety, such as verbal attacks, physical attacks, violence, needles, weapons, explosive devices and other hazardous situations and items.

[60]  The employer suggests, “which could pose” rather than “which poses”. I agree with the employer that the risks are potential. Although the risks are very real, I received no evidence that violence and attacks are frequent or occur daily. Therefore, I would modify the terms about danger, particularly in working conditions, which I will address later.

[61]  The parties agreed to the fifth paragraph, which would read as follows:

[Translation]

Constables ensure that the security services they provide are delivered efficiently and effectively within the Parliamentary Precinct. Corporals and sergeants ensure that security services are delivered efficiently and effectively within the Parliamentary Precinct.

[62]  Under [translation] Working Conditions, Physical Effort, the bargaining agent’s proposal slightly modifies the existing text. This should be deleted from the job description, such that the text would read as follows (the changes are in bold, and the passages emphasized by the employer are highlighted):

[Translation]

Protective officers spend most of their time in a position in which they must always be highly vigilant. They may need to sit or stand for long periods, based on operational needs. The incumbent must provide a range of security services, including patrols, occasional evacuations, and security escorts for the prime minister and dignitaries in which he or she may face the risk of serious bodily harm while on duty. In an emergency, the incumbent must act quickly to minimize response time, use reasonable force, administer first aid, etc.

The incumbent must walk and climb (stairs or ladders) and must occasionally access confined areas as part of an intervention during a security incident. The incumbent must conduct manual and physical searches of bags and personal effects, thus being exposed to biohazardous materials and the risk of lacerations and more. The incumbent conducts vehicle searches alongside RCMP counterparts and therefore is exposed to possible assault. The incumbent must run toward imminent danger when assigned to the rapid response team (RRT) and therefore be exposed to danger and serious physical harm in an extremely stressful and hostile environment.

In his or her duties, the incumbent must wear a uniform and/or a suit and mandatory equipment, such as a defensive baton, a firearm, magazines, a radio, handcuffs, a soft bulletproof vest and covert communications equipment (a miniature earphone), which represents an additional load of over 10 pounds at the waist for the duration of his or her shift.

[63]  The employer challenged the fact that protective officers search vehicles. According to the evidence adduced at the hearing, they accompany RCMP members, particularly for the visual recognition of occupants in vehicles entering the Parliament Hill area. I would adjust the sentence to read as follows: “[translation] The incumbent may be called on to accompany RCMP members during vehicle searches and thus be exposed to possible assaults.” The employer’s view was that the phrase “therefore be exposed” for the rapid response team (RRT) should read, “may therefore be exposed”. I believe that the RRT members face a direct risk from their duties, and I would retain the bargaining agent’s wording. As for the weight of the belt with the equipment, I heard testimony but received no evidence about it. The bargaining agent claimed “over 10 pounds”, and the employer stated “7 to 10 pounds”. I believe this can be resolved by stating, “about 10 pounds”.

[64]  Under [translation] Physical Work Environment, the bargaining agent proposes additions that consist of rewording the existing text. The addition of the risk of contamination by contact with bodily fluids is unnecessary, as that reality is already included in the previous section. The main change, which the employer challenged, is writing, “[translation] The incumbent performs his or her work without geographic limitation.” I agree with the employer not to add that sentence. The idea of duties that may occasionally be performed outside the Parliamentary Precinct is already included in the current text, under “General Responsibilities”. It would be wrong to give the impression that a protective officer’s work could be carried out anywhere.

[65]  Under “[translation] Sensory Attention”, the bargaining agent proposes additions that the employer did not challenge with respect to accuracy, except for the following highlighted item:

[Translation]

The incumbent is required to focus for long periods and must adapt when new events create frequent disturbances. He or she must consult and use long excerpts of written text, either in electronic format or on paper. He or she uses a computer to prepare electronic documents, manages communications by email and searches for information using the Internet/intranet and other software. These activities cause considerable eye strain.

Long periods are spent using a computer.

[66]  I agree with the employer that computer activities “[translation] may cause” eye strain. I believe adding all these duties to the job description is justified, after I heard evidence on the importance of instructions and communications to this work.

[67]  Under “[translation] Psychological Stress”, the bargaining agent proposes adding the following:

[Translation]

Stress and fatigue are experienced due to multiple work demands, tight deadlines and the need to balance conflicting priorities and time constraints to address security issues and politically sensitive threats involving the prime minister, members of Parliament, dignitaries and senior managers in the House. Other occupational stress factors are imminent, such as verbal or physical abuse by people who are angry, frustrated or in distress.

The incumbent may be involved in a life-or-death situation, leading to a considerable increase in psychological stress.

[68]  I agree with the employer that stress and fatigue “[translation] may be” experienced as a result of a work situation, but it is not necessarily a daily reality.

[69]  The employer claims that “tight deadlines” apply only to corporals and sergeants. It seems to me that they apply to everyone, including constables.

[70]  The employer proposes “[translation] changing” priorities, rather than “conflicting”. I understand the difference in perspective, but the term “conflicting” is a bit too charged and even harmful to the employer. I believe that it is better to speak of changing priorities.

[71]  The term “politically sensitive” adds nothing to the parliamentary context and may lead to confusion. I agree with the employer that the other occupational stress factors are potential and not necessarily part of everyday reality. Stress caused by a situation that could endanger the incumbent’s life is included in the current job description.

[72]  Under “[translation] Addendum”, the bargaining agent proposes an addition about demonstrations, the risk of violence, and other dangers that Parliament can face and the protective officers’ role countering these different dangers. Given the particular context of parliamentary security, and given that the text is already in the superintendents’ job description, I find that it is appropriate to add it. Clearly, protective officers do not have the superintendents’ responsibilities as they have different ones. That said, on one hand, the bargaining agent’s argument convinced me that the parties’ practice is to specify the work context, and on the other hand, protective officers are entitled to have that context in their job description, to clarify their duties and responsibilities. The employer objected to including the highlighted parts. As they are already included in the superintendents’ job description, I do not see why, again for context, they would not be in the protective officers’ job description. The addition reads as follows:

[Translation]

Context

The essential elements of the democratic process require that members of Parliament be able to work without interference and that their privilege be ensured at all times within the Parliamentary Precinct. Every year, several demonstrations take place that aim at obstructing or disrupting parliamentary work. The demonstrations can unite thousands of people, who sometimes succeed in entering the Parliamentary Precinct with overtly hostile intentions. Appropriately containing these demonstrations of disagreement, which are largely peaceful, is a continual challenge given the right of people to legitimately oppose legislation.

Other attempts to disrupt the work, smaller in number but much more dangerous, are made by persons with intellectual disabilities or by extremists with violent designs (such as the events of October 22, 2014). Other legislatures in Canada have been subjected to similar acts of violence that have resulted in the loss of life. These acts reflect public dissatisfaction with government institutions and elected officials.

A security system composed of qualified human resources and highly technical resources has been put in place to protect against such threats and against fire and theft, all of which represent a danger to buildings and their contents, which have an inestimable intrinsic and heritage value. Protecting the buildings of Parliament is a major challenge, as approximately 500 000 people visit there each year and 100 000 go there as part of their work.

[73]  For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

(The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order

[74]  The job description for protective officers (constables, corporals, and sergeants) responsible for ensuring security in the House of Commons shall be amended as follows.

[75]  Under Summary of General Duties/Responsibilities, the text reads as follows:

The protective officer is responsible for carrying out the approved security plans and measures to ensure the protection of people and goods and to maintain peace and order within the House of Commons and areas designated as part of the Parliamentary Precinct, without geographic limitation.

The bargaining unit’s members must respond to specific security requests, duties that they have performed historically, since 1868, with professionalism and in an environment that constantly shifts and becomes more complex.

The House recognizes the paramount importance of the bargaining unit’s members, primarily with respect to fulfilling the House’s legislative function.

They perform the full range of security duties: risk assessment, access control, investigations, emergency response, the physical protection of the Parliamentary Precinct, the House and the committees, and the armed personal protection of the prime minister or of the prime minister and visiting foreign dignitaries.

They perform the protocol functions associated with the traditions of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, such as the Speaker’s Parade, Royal Assent, state visits and swearing-in ceremonies for members of Parliament.

[76]  Under Primary Responsibilities, after the first paragraph, add the following text:

He or she officially investigates incidents that occur in areas within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. These areas involve criminal or security matters that may significantly impact the security of persons or goods.

A plain-clothes officer is the first involved in the close protection of the prime minister and visiting dignitaries and conducts comprehensive investigations of serious security threats and inspections of protections against technical intrusions (RCMP).

The members of the rapid response team (RRT) are responsible for helping with and resolving imminent dangerous situations, thus raising the level of security provided to members of Parliament, employees, visitors and dignitaries. The immediate and rapid deployment of members in situations in which there is an active threat could lead to death or serious bodily harm to innocent people.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person who commits or has committed an act that could jeopardize the protection of people or goods and continued peace and order within the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Precinct and in any other areas under the authority of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House or who it is reasonably believed has committed or is about to commit such an act.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person who has committed an indictable offence or who it is reasonably believed has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence involving a breach of security or that jeopardizes the security of people or goods within the Parliamentary Precinct.

The incumbent may detain without a warrant any person he or she discovers is in the act of committing an indictable offence involving a breach of security or that jeopardizes the security of people or goods within the Parliamentary Precinct.

[77]  In the paragraph beginning with “The incumbent uses equipment, systems, processes and technical skills …”, add the following lines:

- Operates a sophisticated alarm control system that is connected to many buildings within the Parliamentary Precinct and occasionally throughout the City of Ottawa (including a fire alarm, an intrusion alarm, a distress alarm, motion detectors, etc.)

[78]  Under Knowledge, Skills and Experience, add the following lines:

- Knowledge of the Parliament of Canada Act and its practical implications and of the policies, directives and regulations of the House of Commons, particularly with respect to protective operations and labour relations;

- Knowledge of Security Services procedures, policies and directives;

- Knowledge of investigation and evidence-gathering techniques;

- Knowledge of items prohibited/restricted under the Criminal Code of Canada.

[79]  Under Labour Relations, add the following text after the existing text:

The incumbent must develop personal skills and considerable experience resolving sensitive issues, handling conflicts and applying sound judgment and an ability to listen to the many people who converge on the Parliamentary Precinct.

[80]  Under Other Responsibilities, after the first paragraph, add the following text:

The incumbents provide a wide range of complex security services and functions across the Parliamentary Precinct, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for a clientele accustomed to high service standards. Another challenge is the need to ensure the security of major events for which the degree of risk is proportional to the public nature of the event and the large number of participants. The work requires the ability to maintain an effective working relationship with all sectors of the House, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the RCMP, CSIS and other departments.

The incumbent in the position is responsible for searching the bags of all visitors. The incumbent is in direct contact with visitors and their personal effects, which could pose a risk to his or her health and safety, such as verbal attacks, physical attacks, violence, needles, weapons, explosive devices and other hazardous situations and items.

Constables ensure that the security services they provide are delivered efficiently and effectively within the Parliamentary Precinct. Corporals and sergeants ensure that security services are delivered efficiently and effectively within the Parliamentary Precinct.

[81]  Under Working Conditions, Physical Effort, the text reads as follows:

Protective officers spend most of their time in a position in which they must always be highly vigilant. They may need to sit or stand for long periods, based on operational needs. The incumbent must provide a range of security services, including patrols, occasional evacuations, and security escorts for the prime minister and dignitaries in which he or she may face the risk of serious bodily harm while on duty. In an emergency, the incumbent must act quickly to minimize response time, use reasonable force, administer first aid, etc.

The incumbent must walk and climb (stairs or ladders) and must occasionally access confined areas as part of an intervention during a security incident. The incumbent must conduct manual and physical searches of bags and personal effects, thus being exposed to biohazardous materials and the risk of lacerations and more. The incumbent may be called on to accompany RCMP members during vehicle searches and thus be exposed to possible assaults. The incumbent must run toward imminent danger when assigned to the rapid response team (RRT) and therefore be exposed to danger and serious physical harm in an extremely stressful and hostile environment.

In his or her duties, the incumbent must wear a uniform and/or a suit and mandatory equipment, such as a defensive baton, a firearm, magazines, a radio, handcuffs, a soft bulletproof vest and covert communications equipment (a miniature earphone), which represents an additional load of about 10 pounds at the waist for the duration of his or her shift.

[82]  Under Sensory Attention, add the following text:

The incumbent is required to focus for long periods and must adapt when new events create frequent disturbances. He or she must consult and use long excerpts of written text, either in electronic format or on paper. He or she uses a computer to prepare electronic documents, manages communications by email and searches for information using the Internet/intranet and other software. These activities may cause considerable eye strain.

Long periods are spent using a computer.

[83]  Under Psychological Stress, add the following text:

Stress and fatigue may be experienced due to multiple work demands, tight deadlines and the need to balance changing priorities and time constraints to address security issues and threats involving the prime minister, members of Parliament, dignitaries and senior managers in the House. Other occupational stress factors may arise, such as verbal or physical abuse by people who are angry, frustrated or in distress.

[84]  Under Addendum, a new section added to the end of the job description, add the following text:

Context

The essential elements of the democratic process require that members of Parliament be able to work without interference and that their privilege be ensured at all times within the Parliamentary Precinct. Every year, several demonstrations take place that aim at obstructing or disrupting parliamentary work. The demonstrations can unite thousands of people, who sometimes succeed in entering the Parliamentary Precinct with overtly hostile intentions. Appropriately containing these demonstrations of disagreement, which are largely peaceful, is a continual challenge given the right of people to legitimately oppose legislation.

Other attempts to disrupt the work, smaller in number but much more dangerous, are made by persons with intellectual disabilities or by extremists with violent designs (such as the events of October 22, 2014). Other legislatures in Canada have been subjected to similar acts of violence that have resulted in the loss of life. These acts reflect public dissatisfaction with government institutions and elected officials.

A security system composed of qualified human resources and highly technical resources has been put in place to protect against such threats and against fire and theft, all of which represent a danger to buildings and their contents, which have an inestimable intrinsic and heritage value. Protecting the buildings of Parliament is a major challenge, as approximately 500 000 people visit there each year and 100 000 go there as part of their work.

October 8, 2019.

FPSLREB Translation

Marie-Claire Perrault,

adjudicator