Date: 20210729

File: 566-32-13506

 

Citation: 2021 FPSLREB 86

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

Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

Between

 

Julie Paré and others

Grievors

 

and

 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

 

Employer

Indexed as

Paré v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

In the matter of individual grievances referred to adjudication

Before: Marie-Claire Perrault, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

For the Grievors: Peter Engelmann and Darryl Korell, counsel

For the Employer: Stefan Kimpton, counsel

Heard via videoconference,

November 17 to 19 and December 1, 2, 14, and 15, 2020, and January 22, 2021.

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Individual grievances referred to adjudication

[1] In 2011, Dr. Julie Paré and 33 other veterinarians (“the grievors”) working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“the Agency” or “the employer”) filed individual grievances about the 2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652, classified at level 3 in Veterinary Medicine (VM) Group. Annex A to this decision lists the name of all grievors and the number of all grievances before me in this matter. The grievors are part of a bargaining unit represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (“PIPSC” or “the bargaining agent”).

[2] The parties have agreed to treat Dr. Paré’s grievance as the lead grievance. Dr. Paré’s grievance statement reads as follows: “I grieve that my work description is not a complete and current statement of my duties and responsibilities, as required by Article E1.01 of my collective agreement.” Clause E1.01 of the applicable collective agreement states as follows:

Upon written request, an employee shall be entitled to an official, complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of his position, including the position’s classification level and the point rating allotted by factor and organization chart depicting the position’s place in the organization.

 

[3] The corrective action requested by Dr. Paré was worded as follows: “I request that I be provided with a complete and current statement of my duties and responsibilities as required by Article E1.01 of my collective agreement retroactive to July 1^st, 2007.”

[4] The specific retroactivity dates requested varied among the different grievors. However, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, in granting the grievances at the final level of the grievance process, the employer set May 1, 2001, as the retroactivity date for a new, 2016 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 (“WD 2016”) that would replace the grieved 2011 version.

[5] Final-level decisions were issued on the grievances in late September 2016. The letters received by the grievors bear different dates (from September 19 to 26, 2016), but the decisions were identical for each of them.

[6] The employer granted the grievances in part by adding three new key activities to the WD 2016. On October 28, 2016, the grievors then referred their grievances to adjudication, en liasse, as they found the amendments insufficient. The Public Service Labour Relations Board opened a single case file with regards to all those grievances.

[7] The parties agreed, by way of an agreement signed on November 30, 2016, to request that the grievances be joined at adjudication. For the purpose of this decision, I will refer to the lead grievance; it is understood that it includes all the grievances referred to adjudication concerning the work description no 59652.

[8] On June 19, 2017, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board became the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”), and the titles of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act became, respectively, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (“the Act”) (see An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures (S.C. 2017, c. 9)).

[9] On July 6, 2020, the employer wrote a letter to the Board, stating its objection to the changes that the grievors proposed to the WD 2016 , as they were not the same changes asked for when the grievances were heard at the final level of the grievance process.

[10] The jurisprudence is clear that the grievances referred to adjudication must be the same grievances that were presented at the final level of the grievance process (see Burchill v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 1 F.C. 109 (C.A.)).

[11] Moreover, since the 2011 version of the generic work-description no. 59652 was amended by WD 2016, the 2011 grievances are now moot. The grievors should have grieved WD 2016.

[12] At the hearing, the employer also raised the issue of the effective date of the remedy should the Board agree to modify the work description. The employer argued that the remedy could go no further back than 35 days before the 2011 grievance was filed, following the reasoning in Canada (National Film Board) v. Coallier, [1983] F.C.J. No. 813 (C.A.) (QL). No matter any agreements as to the effective date for the work description, no such agreement existed for the referral to adjudication.

[13] In response, the grievors stated that evidence was necessary to determine the issues raised in the objections. I decided that the objections would be dealt with as part of the arguments, after a full hearing on the grievance referred to adjudication.

II. Summary of the evidence

[14] To facilitate the hearing, which was held by videoconference, I asked that the witnesses provide detailed written statements that would serve as their examinations-in-chief. Counsel were allowed to complete the examinations-in-chief at the hearing, but the purpose of the hearing was mainly to allow for cross-examination on the statements, which were solemnly affirmed at the beginning of each witness’s testimony.

A. The grievors’ evidence

[15] On behalf of the grievors, the following witnesses were called: Dr. Paré, the lead grievor; Dr. Faïza Aklil, Dr. Pascale Nérette, and Dr. Anne Allen, who were all also grievors; and Dr. Valérie Coupal, a VM-02 who has been an active member of the bargaining agent since 1998 (holding different positions) and the president of the bargaining agent’s bargaining team for the VM Group since 2003.

[16] In her testimony, Dr. Coupal provided an overview of the context in which these grievances arose. I believe it is useful to draw from that overview the facts that are relevant to these grievances, as summarized in the following paragraphs.

[17] The Agency was created in 1997 and integrated inspection services that had previously been carried out by the departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, and Health. In doing so, the Agency faced a major challenge of combining the different classifications of the employees it had acquired.

[18] From 2001 to 2011, both the Agency and the PIPSC worked hard on new work descriptions for the VMs. In 2001 and 2009, the VMs filed mass amounts of grievances against their work descriptions. All this led to new work descriptions that they received between July and September 2011. Those new work descriptions were also grieved, including the 2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 (WD 2011).

[19] In the course of the grievance process, before the grievances were heard at the final level in June 2016, the parties agreed on one lead grievor for each challenged work description. On February 27, 2015, the parties agreed to a joint consultation process, failing which a lead grievance would proceed to the final level, with any resulting change to the work description being effective as of May 1, 2001, or the date on which the work description came into effect if it was after May 2, 2001.

[20] The situation of the 34 grievors has not remained static: twenty have been promoted to VM-04 positions, five have received new VM-03 work descriptions, two are at the VM-05 level, and four are no longer with the Agency. Only three grievors still have the WD 2016.

[21] Dr. Paré, Dr. Aklil, Dr. Nérette, and Dr. Allen provided detailed statements concerning the duties they performed as VM-03s, to show that a number of those tasks were found in VM-04 works descriptions. They were cross-examined at length on the exact scope of the duties they claimed to have carried out at the VM-04 level while in VM-03 positions. For each grievor who testified, I will summarize what the grievors felt was missing from the WD 2016, as well as any evidence that came out in cross-examination.

[22] However, before doing so, I think it is important to reproduce the key activities and responsibility as defined in the WD 2011, which the employer amended in 2016. The three additions it made in 2016 are in bold. The key activities read as follows:

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

Contributes to the development of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certification/import conditions in collaboration with other specialists; maintains clarity of vision in the establishment of specific program design objectives.

Participates in the evaluation of accreditation and inspection program policies (i.e. export/import inspection program); regulations; directions; manuals; their subsequent implementation and through the analysis of specific situations and performance indicator data while identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation.

Conducts and reports audits on export programs, both nationally and internationally.

Recommends regulatory amendments and improvement to policies and contributes to the implementation and monitoring of inspection priorities and work plans.

Provides guidance, recommendations and advice to planning and research activities, including additional studies undertaken by CFIA or contractors.

Prepares written reports; responds to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance and develops recommendations and decisions for use by programs to enable uniformity and consistency.

Participates in negotiations, both nationally and internationally.

Participates in and conducts national/international environmental scanning activities that provide information, on new technology developments; political entities and public opinions which can/will impact on the necessity and acceptability of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and trade.

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

Occasionally represents the Agency by participating in working groups with national and international partners.

 

[23] Under the heading “Responsibility”, the following appears:

Decisions

The subject position (SP) is responsible for monitoring and reviewing program activities that contribute to the development, interpretation and evaluation of policies, regulations and legislation related to program inspection and enforcement issues. Decisions are made in collaboration with Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National Veterinary Program Managers.

Subject to committees and working groups’ terms of reference or directives from Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National/Network Program Managers, defines and applies techniques and approaches for studies and develops project reports. Latitude is necessary to identify new technology developments, monitoring and reviewing needs, field and operational trends as well as operational issues revealed through scientific and technical research and analysis as well as evaluation activities that may have an impact on the Unit’s business lines, frameworks and policies. Based on evidence produced by research and analyses, develops assumptions and scenarios that assist with the provision of guidance on priority-setting and planning; including recommendations and advice for additional studies undertaken by CFIA or contractors.

Prepares and develops background information and advice (through detailed written reports and responses to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance or existing policies and developing recommendations) based on the results of research, investigation and analytical processes that are used by PPB/Agency officials, internal and external stakeholders in order to coordinate activities and ensure the efficient exchange of information.

As a member of a national team or working group, responsibility will include the evaluation and development of inspection program policies; regulations; directives; import/export conditions and manuals; preparation of scientific, technical and others reports; and the organization and presentation of technical information to varied audience groups such as Division, Directorate Officers and Operations Staff.

Leadership

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from CFIA staff, industry and other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

[Emphasis in the original]

 

1. Dr. Paré

[24] Dr. Paré began as a VM-03 at the Agency in February 2001. She holds doctorates in veterinary medicine and epidemiology (PhD). From 2001 to 2007, she held veterinary positions in diagnosis and accreditation and then worked as a scientific analyst and advisor. In 2007, she obtained an epidemiologist VM-03 position in the Agency’s Epidemiology and Surveillance Section.

[25] The position she held from 2007 to 2012 (VM-03 program officer/evaluator, analyst) was in the Policies and Programs Directorate of the Epidemiology and Surveillance Section. Beginning in 2012, following a restructuring at the Agency, the position fell under the Science Directorate.

[26] In 2007, three or four veterinarians were at the VM-04 group and level in the Epidemiology and Surveillance Section, along with a few biologists and two VM-03s, including Dr. Paré. The supervisor was a veterinarian classified at the VM-05 group and level. Since 2009, all veterinarians hired for a professional VM position have been hired at the VM-04 group and level. This was confirmed by Dr. Ian Alexander, one of the employer’s witnesses, who testified that it is impossible to recruit veterinarians of the necessary calibre at a level below VM-04.

[27] In 2012, Dr. Paré accepted a temporary assignment to a position classified at the VM-04 group and level. In April 2013, following a staffing process, she obtained a permanent position at the VM-04 group and level, which she still occupies.

[28] Dr. Paré maintained that from 2007 to 2012, the work description for her position did not correspond to the duties she performed. She filed a grievance in 2010 to obtain a complete description of her duties. It was allowed in part in 2011, and the employer provided the WD 2011.

[29] According to Dr. Paré, the WD 2011reflected neither her exact duties nor the extent of her responsibilities. She filed a grievance in July 2011 (the lead grievance before me).

[30] According to Dr. Paré, between 2007 and 2012, she regularly performed duties that corresponded to the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level. Many of her activities appeared in that work description. When she held that VM-04 position, at first in an acting capacity and then permanently, her duties did not change in comparison to those she performed from 2007 to 2012 as a VM-03.

[31] Dr. Paré submitted into evidence her performance evaluations from when she was a VM-03 (for 2010-2011) and a VM-04 (for 2013-2014). The evaluations show that the duties and responsibilities were basically the same: bovine surveillance (the report and the development of continuous monitoring), bovine spongiform encephalopathy surveillance, and partnership through teaching and mentoring with the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the Université de Montréal (the Agency shares premises with the faculty at Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, where Dr. Paré works).

[32] Between 2007 and 2012, Dr. Paré was responsible for the bovine serological surveillance file, just as her VM-04 colleagues were responsible for a particular surveillance file for an animal species or a particular disease. Beginning in 2007, she was responsible for setting up and running the bovine serological survey. She had to set up technical and coordinating committees and was responsible for the working group. She worked independently, under the supervision of her immediate supervisor, a national manager at the VM-05 level.

[33] Before being appointed to the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist VM-04 position, Dr. Paré was also responsible for developing swine surveillance strategies (in co-responsibility with a VM-04), for bovine spongiform encephalopathy and for brucellosis. These duties continued after her VM-04 appointment; the level of responsibility did not change.

[34] Dr. Paré emphasized that her duties and responsibilities included key activities described in the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level. She provided seven examples. Here is the first:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Provides veterinary scientific or technical analysis, advice, interpretations, and recommendations to senior science and program managers; Science, Operations, and Policy & Programs Branch managers and staff; other government departments and Agencies; and Canadian and international non‑government organizations. This activity is done within an animal health subject matter area and on related issues within the mandate of the Branch and on the Branch’s interface within the CFIA.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

 

[35] Dr. Paré explained that she led the bovine serological survey technical committee, which made all the scientific decisions in the survey. The technical committee’s recommendations were sent to the Agency’s Budget Committee and to the director of the Terrestrial Animal Health Directorate. She had to uphold the international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health. She had to be in contact with the cattle industry (producers’ and processors’ associations) to obtain their cooperation in collecting samples. She was responsible for developing the national cattle surveillance plan. She acted as an expert for controlling diseases discovered in the course of the survey.

[36] One of Dr. Paré’s important duties, which continued after she was appointed to the VM-04 position, was to develop ongoing surveillance of the presence of brucellosis in cattle and swine. Unlike the bovine serological survey that was conducted periodically, this involved setting up an ongoing surveillance system that allowed for more effective animal-health monitoring. The project represented the application of a new epidemiological model. It was presented to Agency senior management for approval and was approved. This is her second key activity example:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Acquires, modifies and develops techniques and approaches in risk analysis; initiates, reviews, analyzes, evaluates, and prioritizes information respecting leading-edge scientific data and principles for the management of Agency science-based animal health programs.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Participates in the evaluation of accreditation and inspection program policies (i.e. export/import inspection program); regulations, directions, manuals; their subsequent implementation and through the analysis of specific situations and performance indicator data while identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation.

 

[37] In 2009-2010, Dr. Paré was the technical expert for investigating cases of anaplasmosis in Canada. In that capacity, she proposed a new approach for evaluating cases and prioritizing investigations. As part of that work, Dr. Paré advised the Minister’s office on the sampling rates recommended in her approach. Here is the third key activity example:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Organizes and writes scientific and technical information documents such as national and international discussion papers, scientific and management review reports, briefing notes, media inquiry responses, bulletins, and science policy and program correspondence.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Prepares written reports; responds to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance and develops recommendations and decisions for use by programs to enable uniformity and consistency.

 

[38] In that respect, Dr. Paré referred to the bovine serological survey report, of which she was the main author, and to a scientific article on the survey published in 2012. She also had to produce summary and explanatory documents on epidemiology for senior management and industry. This is the fourth example:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Contributes and brings recognition to the Agency by the advancement of the scientific and technical body of knowledge through presentations and publications of scientific and technical information.

 

[39] Dr. Paré gave the example of the scientific publication on the bovine serological survey, of which she was the main author. She was asked on cross-examination whether that was really a requirement of her position and not a preference on her part to continue to establish her profile in the scientific community. However, as she emphasized, the publication of her article was part of her work objectives when she was still a VM-03.

[40] She also spoke about the importance of continuous surveillance data to establish Canadian industry compliance with the animal-health standards established by the World Organisation for Animal Health. This is the fifth example:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Develops, establishes, and maintains a network of contacts with leading edge sources of information and subject matter expertise in other government departments and Agencies; provincial and non-governmental organizations; academia; industry; foreign governments; regulatory agencies; and international organizations to advance the Agency’s files and portfolio.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Contributes to the development of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certification/import conditions in collaboration with other specialists; maintains clarity of vision in the establishment of specific program design objectives.

 

[41] Dr. Paré spoke in this respect about her role in constituting and leading (or co‑leading) technical committees for bovine and swine surveys and the need to establish contacts both in the Agency (programs, operations, and sciences) and externally, with industry representatives, academic researchers, and international colleagues and agencies. The role also touches on the following example (the sixth) drawn from the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Leads and participates in committees within and outside CFIA; represents the Agency, as a science authority, in consultations and interactions with intergovernmental, national and international scientific meetings, and participates on expert/advisory panels examining scientific and professional issues relevant to the interests of the Agency.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

 

[42] Finally, Dr. Paré mentioned the supervisory and mentoring work she performs with the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the Université de Montréal. She has been a professor at the Faculty since 2010, with her supervisors’ support. Between 2008 and 2012, she supervised doctoral and master’s theses and participated in doctoral review boards. This is the seventh example:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Supervise student workers and trainees. Providing guidance related to the definition of functions and explains responsibilities; reports on progress of projects and provides feedback.

 

[43] In cross-examination, the employer tried to suggest that working with the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine was a personal choice. Dr. Paré replied that the Agency strongly encouraged working with the Faculty, which was in the same building as the Agency in Saint-Hyacinthe. Supervising master’s and doctoral students and courses at the Faculty were also part of Dr. Paré’s work objectives when she was still a VM-03, according to the 2010-2011 performance evaluation.

2. Dr. Aklil

[44] Dr. Aklil has a degree in veterinary medicine. She joined the Agency in 2005 at the VM-01 group and level. She held a VM-03 position from 2006 to 2012, first in an acting capacity, and then, beginning in 2008, permanently. In 2012, she was appointed to a VM-04 position.

[45] Dr. Aklil’s field is controlling the import and export of meat products used in the manufacture of food for companion animals. For convenience at the hearing, where Dr. Aklil testified in French, the English term “pet food” was used, and I will use the same term in this decision.

[46] Dr. Aklil explained that pet food is not regulated per se in Canada. However, the Agency closely monitors the products used in its manufacture, which could impact animal health in Canada.

[47] In 2011, Dr. Aklil filed a grievance against the WD 2011 because it did not reflect the complexity of duties or the level of responsibility associated with her VM-03 work. Like Dr. Paré, when she was appointed to a VM‑04 position, her duties and responsibilities did not substantially change — she had already performed those duties at the VM-03 level. In her testimony, she provided the following examples of the key activities that were part of the Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 group and level:

[Key activity, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 group and level]

Develops and reviews national and international standards and associated procedural documents and training materials in the areas of disease surveillance; prevention, preparedness, control and eradication; epidemiology and evaluation of veterinary services; regionalization and zoning; and animal welfare and negotiations related to trade and vet biologics components and provides recommendations regarding implications for CFIA’s policies and programs.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

 

[48] Dr. Aklil’s work consisted of ensuring that Canadian animal-health standards conformed to international standards, to facilitate trade. As an import specialist from 2007 to 2009, her priority was preventing veterinary diseases from being introduced through the import of pet food. To do it, she had to establish import conditions, work with the Science Directorate on risk analysis and prevention measures, and conduct audits abroad to control the safety of facilities. She was the subject-matter expert for pet food import and export, particularly within the Agency and in discussions with the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture to implement permits for importing American pet food into Canada.

[49] Dr. Aklil stated that she was responsible for developing national and international standards, including updating the Agency’s policy on pet food imports in accordance with the ban on livestock feeds, to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (the ban affected pet food ingredients). It took more than a year to develop and implement animal-health import and export conditions with several countries.

[50] Between 2007 and 2012, the national director of the pet food program was not a veterinarian, so the authority for scientific decisions devolved to Dr. Aklil. According to her 2009-2010 performance evaluation, her work objectives included the following:

[Translation]

…

•Continue auditing manufacturing plants to improve their performance and to provide suggestions as needed to improve their business.

•Participate in developing manuals by supporting the project manager.

•Act as a “mentor” to the new VM-03 hired in Ontario.

•Serve as a resource person for European regulations (1069) and guide the Pet Food Section on awareness of the changes made to the new regulations; follow the development of the regulations and ensure their application in our inspection activities.

…

 

[51] Dr. Aklil stated that as a VM-03, she was already responsible for negotiations with other countries on animal-health standards. She was also responsible for determining regional and national training needs for the pet food and gelatin programs in Canada. She led initiatives on Agency policies on importing pet food ingredients.

[52] Between 2008 and 2012, she also represented the Agency on many international committees. She participated in bilateral negotiations with several countries on the animal-health conditions required for the import and export of pet food and gelatin.

[53] The WD 2016 mentioned participating in different committees, while Dr. Aklil instead assumed a leadership and subject-matter-expert role.

3. Dr. Nérette

[54] Like Dr. Paré, Dr. Nérette is both a veterinarian and a holder of a doctorate in epidemiology. She began as a VM-03 in 2001. In 2010, she was transferred to the aquatic section of epidemiology, where the pre-2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 applied to her. According to her, the duties and responsibilities were the same as those of her VM-04 colleagues in the terrestrial section of epidemiology and surveillance. In 2015, she was appointed to a VM-04 position. According to her, her duties and responsibilities remained substantially the same.

[55] In 2019, she was informed that during her time as a VM-03, she should have had the Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59633, classified at the VM-03 level. The work description is dated March 30, 2011, retroactive to May 1, 2001. Prepares and writes national and international discussion papers, scientific review and management reports, and briefing notes based on the results of scientific and technical research, investigation, and analysis. Science managers and internal and external stakeholders use these documents to coordinate activities and ensure the efficient exchange of information.

[56] I note that many of the activities that Dr. Nérette said she carried out when she was a VM-03 are in the Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59633, at the VM-03 level. However, the first key activity mentions “… provides … analysis, advice, and recommendations … to the senior specialist …”, which is the title of the VM-04 position. Yet Dr. Nérette (like the other grievors) did not report to a VM-04. Also, under “Leadership”, it talks about leading working groups under the supervision of a manager or senior specialist. All the employees in the aquatic section of epidemiology reported to a national manager.

[57] Dr. Nérette testified about the duties she performed, which, according to her, were part of the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level, but not found in the WD 2016. According to her, the main duties she has performed since 2015 as a VM-04 correspond for the most part to those she carried out in the Aquatic Surveillance section between 2010 and 2015. The duties were the following:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

Provides veterinary scientific or technical analysis, advice, interpretations, and recommendations to senior science and program managers; Science, Operations, and Policy & Programs Branch managers and staff; other government departments and Agencies; and Canadian and International non-government organizations. This activity is done within an animal health subject matter area and on related issues within the mandate of the Branch and on the Branch’s interface within the CFIA.

 

[58] The difference between the WD 2016 for the key activity described is the level at which the incumbent provides his or her advice and recommendations. Dr. Nérette emphasized that she was the scientific veterinary authority (in aquatic epidemiology) whose analyses and reports influenced decisions made at the national level.

[59] Dr. Nérette gave the example of an epidemiological survey for diseases in molluscs that she designed and independently led. She developed the surveillance methods, wrote the analytical part of the report, and developed national recommendations, while considering international standards.

[60] Dr. Nérette was also responsible for a program that evaluated the surveillance of certain diseases in farmed salmon. She was the veterinary science authority on a Canadian-American team responsible for monitoring disease in aquatic animals. The related key activity reads as follows:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

…

Acquires, modifies and develops techniques and approaches in risk analysis; initiates, reviews, analyses, evaluates, and prioritizes information respecting leading-edge scientific data and principles for the management of Agency science-based animal health programs.

…

 

[61] According to Dr. Nérette, approximately 75% of her work as a VM-03 consisted of producing complex scientific-analysis documents related to aquatic epidemiological surveys. This was necessary for developing new tools and methods for carrying out analyses. The related key activity reads as follows:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

…

Organizes and writes scientific and technical information documents such as national and international discussion papers, scientific and management review reports, briefing notes, media inquiry responses, bulletins, and science policy and program correspondence.

…

 

[62] Dr. Nérette co-led the writing of three major national (decisions made at the national level) and international (repercussions for discussions with other countries) reports. The related key activity reads as follows:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

…

Contributes and brings recognition to the Agency by the advancement of the scientific and technical body of knowledge through presentations and publications of scientific and technical information.

…

 

[63] From 2010 to 2015, Dr. Nérette made presentations in academic settings on an evaluation model of the sensitivity of clinical surveillance and a methodology for assigning a regional health status. The related key activity reads as follows:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

…

Develops, establishes, and maintains a network of contacts with leading edge sources of information and subject matter expertise in other government departments and Agencies; provincial and non-governmental organizations; academia; industry; foreign governments; regulatory agencies; and international organizations to advance the Agency’s files and portfolio.

…

 

[64] Partnerships with industry, the provinces, and universities are essential to completing Dr. Nérette’s work. The studies and analyses cannot be done without the data provided by industry and the different laboratories. The related key activity reads as follows:

[Key activity, Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level]

…

Leads and participates in committees within and outside CFIA; represents the Agency, as a science authority, in consultations and interactions with intergovernmental, national, and international scientific meetings, and participates on expert/advisory panels examining scientific and professional issues relevant to the interests of the Agency.

…

 

[65] Dr. Nérette regularly participates in technical committees as a veterinary science authority. These are expert committees, in which the Agency, provincial and international governments, industry representatives, and universities participate.

4. Dr. Allen

[66] Dr. Allen holds a degree in veterinary medicine. She was hired by the Agency in 2003 at the VM-01 group and level. In November 2004, while still a VM-01, Dr. Allen started working with Dr. Dennis Will (who was a VM-04) on a special project to improve animal welfare at slaughter.

[67] In 2006, following recommendations from the project, the Agency created two new positions: a VM-04 for animal welfare at slaughter, and a VM-03 to support the VM-04. Dr. Allen was appointed to the VM-03 position on an acting basis (her substantive position by then was classified VM-02). Both the VM-03 and VM-04 positions reported to a VM-05.

[68] From March 2008 to March 2009, Dr. Will was on extended leave, and Dr. Allen was in the VM-04 position on an acting basis. In April 2009, she was offered a VM-03 position (her substantive position was still VM-02). She felt that she was carrying out VM-04 duties. Therefore, in 2009, she grieved the pre-2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652. In 2011, the employer allowed the grievance in part and produced the WD 2011, which is the subject of the present grievance. From 2009 to 2015, Dr. Allen was in a VM-O3 position (work description no. 59652) in animal welfare at slaughter. She was on extended leave from 2015 to 2018; after that, she returned to VM-03 positions with other work descriptions.

[69] While she was in animal welfare at slaughter from 2009 to 2015, according to her testimony, Dr. Allen performed the same VM-04 duties that she carried out during the acting period in 2008-2009. Her work consisted of assessing and redesigning the animal welfare at slaughter policies. This involved reviewing each policy, developing a general animal welfare at slaughter resource as well as performance standards to ensure consistency, and developing training material for the Agency.

[70] A major component of the animal welfare at slaughter project was writing a new Chapter 12 for the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures. While updating new animal welfare at slaughter requirements, it was also important to take into account international standards as established by the World Organisation for Animal Health. The European Union set January 2013 as the date for trade partners to implement animal welfare at slaughter programs.

[71] Establishing new animal welfare at slaughter standards required the cooperation and collaboration of the meat producing industry, such as the Canadian Meat Council and the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council, farm councils such as the National Farm Animal Care Council, and animal welfare groups such as the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada.

[72] Dr. Allen represented the Agency at national and international meetings as an animal welfare at slaughter subject-matter specialist. Another component of her work was responding to media inquiries or advising Agency media officers how to respond to animal welfare at slaughter inquiries. Growing concern about the treatment of farm animals has meant much more scrutiny from the media and the public.

[73] From 2007 to 2015, Dr. Allen always reported directly to a VM-05. From 2009 to 2015, she set her own daily tasks and activities. The following VM-04 key activities were her main ones:

[Key activity 1, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 level]

Develops and reviews national and international standards and associated procedural documents and training materials in the areas of disease surveillance; prevention, preparedness, control and eradication; epidemiology and evaluation of veterinary services; regionalization and zoning; and animal welfare and negotiations related to trade and vet biologics components and provides recommendations regarding implications for CFIA’s policies and programs.

…

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

 

[74] In her work as an animal welfare at slaughter specialist, Dr. Allen was responsible for establishing a new animal welfare at slaughter program that met international requirements and public concerns. This involved preparing material for guidance to Agency inspection staff and industry stakeholders, including the different slaughterhouses (for different species and different requirements, such as ritual slaughter (halal and kosher)). This was her second main activity:

[Key activity 2, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 level]

Reviews and researches information related to the development of policies, regulations directives and manuals in order to provide guidance and advice to senior management.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Recommends regulatory amendments and improvement to policies and contributes to the implementation and monitoring of inspection priorities and work plans.

 

[75] Dr. Allen testified that she conducted research and provided advice on animal welfare at slaughter and specific guidance to the Minister’s office in response to media enquiries on issues that stirred public opinion, notably horse-slaughter practices and ritual slaughter. She made recommendations for the implementation of new animal welfare at slaughter policies and programs to meet international standards. This was her third main activity:

[Key activity 3, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 level]

Represents the Agency and leads committees and working groups involved in bilateral and multilateral consultations and negotiations in relation to policies and programs.

 

[Corresponding key activity, Wd 2016]

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

 

[76] Between 2011 and 2013, Dr. Allen was the lead with respect to establishing equivalency with the European Union’s new animal welfare at slaughter standards. She made recommendations to ensure that Canadian policies would meet the new standards. She also participated on behalf of the Agency at several international forums, made presentations to foreign delegations to explain the Agency’s animal welfare at slaughter policies, and advised industry groups and other stakeholders. This was her fourth main activity:

[Key activity 4, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 level]

Audits and evaluates policies and programs: this includes assessing the need for changes to safety policies, regulations, program and tools, standards and program design in order to ensure the effectiveness of the CFIA in meeting its mandate.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Participates in the evaluation of accreditation and inspection program policies (i.e. export/import inspection program); regulations; directions; manuals; their subsequent implementation and through the analysis of specific situations and performance indicator data while identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation.

 

[77] Dr. Allen stated that she was charged with reviewing policies to identify any risks and gaps. She gave examples of situations she had reviewed in different slaughter facilities. She provided scientific support to drafting new regulations on animal welfare and helped draft new policies for Agency-inspected slaughter facilities. This was her fifth key activity:

[Key activity 5, Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator generic work description no. 59651, at the VM-04 level]

Provides subject matter expertise and interpretation on CFIA programs/policies/procedures to industry, national and international stakeholders and governments.

 

[Corresponding key activity, WD 2016]

Provides guidance, recommendations and advice to planning and research activities, including additional studies undertaken by CFIA or contractors.

 

[78] More than providing guidance and recommendations, Dr. Allen was the animal welfare at slaughter subject-matter expert. She provided that expertise throughout the Agency network. She also conducted on-site evaluations and was consulted for responses to media inquiries.

[79] In cross-examination, the grievors acknowledged that their supervisor, a national manager, had to approve all their work and recommendations. They also acknowledged that the work they accomplished was always done collaboratively. However, according to them, this was also true of the VM-04s. They stressed the fact that they were given the responsibility of a definite project or program and that they had to set up structures and committees, develop material, and represent the Agency both nationally and internationally.

B. The employer’s evidence

[80] The employer called three witnesses: Dr. Richard Arsenault, Dr. Primal Silva, and Dr. Ian Alexander. They testified about their knowledge of the work of VM-03s.

[81] In summary, the employer’s witnesses saw the VM-03s as more junior and as acquiring skills and experience that would eventually lead to VM-04 positions, as happened to a majority of the grievors. The witnesses emphasized that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the responsibilities of different levels, as activities cover a spectrum or continuum, and collaborative effort is always required. Finally, it was acknowledged that for both VM-03s and VM-04s, their managers have to approve their work, usually a VM-05 in a national manager position.

1. Dr. Arsenault

[82] Dr. Arsenault was hired by Agriculture Canada as a meat hygiene veterinarian in 1989. He has worked at every level of the VM classification, from 01 to 05 and became a national manger (VM-05) in 2005. In 2008, he was appointed the director of the Meat Programs Division, classified EX-02. In 2012, he was promoted to an EX-03 position in charge of the Agrifood Meat and Seafood Safety Directorate. He is currently the executive director of the Agency’s Inspection Support Directorate, Operations Branch.

[83] Dr. Arsenault’s work experience at the different VM responsibility levels informs his view of the VM-03 responsibilities. According to him, VM-03s may be called upon to perform the following duties:

•draft changes to procedural documents and contribute to training documents but not author national or international standards;

•carry out disease surveillance with its components, which are prevention, preparedness, control, eradication, and epidemiology and the evaluation of veterinary services;

•ensure animal welfare;

•nurture relationships with colleagues, and collaborate with them to advance the Agency’s agenda;

•support the implementation of the inspection program and its policies, regulations, directions, and manuals, and explain to others within the Agency or the industry how requirements apply;

•no formal audit work, but sometimes, carry out inspections and verifications of third parties; verify written procedures to ensure that they are complete;

•write reports (which involves reviewing and researching) that their manager will review;

•not manage employees; and

•be part of technical working groups and of larger groups led by a director or manager.

 

[84] Dr. Arsenault did not contradict the grievors’ testimonies. He could not speak directly to their perception of their tasks but only to what he had seen as he came up the VM ranks.

2. Dr. Silva

[85] Dr. Silva is currently the Chief Science Operating Officer at the Agency’s Science Branch, overseeing 13 laboratories. From 2008 to 2013, he was the executive director of Animal Health Sciences. In that role, he managed surveillance, risk assessment, and research management.

[86] His team included VM-03s (for example, Dr. Paré and Dr. Nérette). The VM-03s reported to their managers, who reported to a director, who reported to him. His understanding of the VM-03s’ role was as follows:

•carrying out surveillance work, essentially as data gatherers and analysts;

•preparing reports for review by national managers, who were responsible for the reports’ consistency and accuracy;

•contacting regulatory and outside bodies under a national manager’s supervision;

•providing information in the context of developing new policies but not as the final, authoritative subject-matter experts or as sole contributors;

•carrying out scanning activities under a national manager’s direction; and

•voluntarily writing scientific publications, but it was not an expectation of them.

 

[87] In his testimony at the hearing, Dr. Silva spoke of the VM-03s’ role in epidemiological surveys. He stated that the surveys are the product of teamwork and that all team members contribute according to their levels, whether VM-03, VM-04, or VM-05. The VM-03 is at a basic working level and in a junior analyst role. The VM-03 certainly contributes by participating and sharing knowledge, but other members do that too.

[88] When asked about committee work, he responded that there were two broad categories of committees — governance and technical. The governance committees have the decision-making authority and would include Agency senior management (the president, vice-presidents, and executive directors).

[89] Technical committees are set up, often on an ad-hoc basis, to address specific issues. They make recommendations to the senior management committee. VM-03s contribute their expertise to these committees. In carrying out their duties, they collect and analyze data to determine their significance and to evaluate risks.

[90] Dr. Silva testified that the work of the VM-03s and VM-04s differed as to the complexity of tasks. They might be involved in the same activities, but a VM-04’s work has more responsibility. VM-03s acquire experience that eventually leads them to VM-04 positions.

[91] The work of VM-03s and VM-04s might be similar, as in writing reports, but the difference would lie in how much review the national manager (or others) would put into the reports— there would be more intervention and direction for VM-03s, less for VM-04s.

[92] Dr. Silva emphasized the collaborative nature of all Agency activities. Neither VM-03s nor VM-04s would ever be sole contributors; they would contribute at different levels of experience and responsibility.

3. Dr. Alexander

[93] From August 2010 to December 2013, Dr. Alexander was the executive director (classified EX-03) of the Animal Health Directorate in the Agency’s Policy and Programs Branch. His responsibilities included the following:

•developing domestic programs for diseases of terrestrial and aquatic animals impacted by the Agency;

•negotiating international agreements, including export and import certificates;

•animal welfare and humane transport;

•developing biosecurity standards for farms;

•developing surveillance programs for terrestrial and aquatic diseases; and

•approving new feeds, feed ingredients, and veterinary biologics (vaccines).

 

[94] In 2012, the surveillance programs for aquatic and terrestrial diseases were transferred to the Animal Health Science Directorate. Dr. Alexander has been its executive director since 2014.

[95] In his written statement, Dr. Alexander described as follows the VM-03s’ duties as he understood them. He made two corrections at the hearing, as indicated:

•contribute to the development and review of national and international standards under direction from someone at a higher level;

•participate in, but do not create, networks of contacts outside the Agency established by more senior employees;

•do not provide authoritative subject-matter advice;

•contribute to reviews while not being responsible for their outcomes;

•never provide advice directly to senior management due to the management levels up to senior management but provide it to the national manager instead, who provides it to the next level before it goes to senior management;

•contribute to but do not direct national or international scanning activities. Dr. Alexander had first written, “A VM-03 does not direct or conduct … scanning activities”. At the hearing, he asked that the phrase “or conduct” be removed;

•at the manager’s request, participate in but do not lead committees. At the hearing, Dr. Alexander asked that the following sentence be removed: “A VM-03 would not represent the agency as a science authority outside the agency.” He explained that a VM-03 could represent the Agency as a scientific expert but not as an authority in the sense of having decision-making authority; and

•no expectation to develop training programs.

 

[96] As of the 2011 grievance, a good number of the 34 grievors worked in the Animal Health Directorate while he was its executive director. Dr. Alexander acknowledged on cross-examination that he had never been a VM-03 or VM-04; nor had he ever supervised either position directly. He had always been some 3 levels above them. His knowledge of the VM-03s’ work came from their work description, as did his perception that their work was less complex than that of the VM-04s.

[97] He recognized that Dr. Nérette, for example, had had to work on developing surveillance programs that did not exist. He also acknowledged that since 2016, veterinarians working in epidemiology were hired at the VM-04 level, never at the VM-03 level, to attract top-level epidemiologists.

[98] Dr. Alexander also stated that he could not speak as to the detail of Dr. Paré’s work. He stated that he knew that she was an excellent scientist and that as a VM-03, she had contributed to brucellosis research, but he emphasized that this was carried out with others, not alone. When it was suggested to him that Dr. Paré was the lead in the bovine serological survey, he answered that he did not know her role specifically.

[99] Nor could he speak to the detail of the work carried out by Dr. Allen. Although Dr. Aklil of the pet food program was part of his directorate, he also did not know the details of her responsibilities.

III. Summary of the arguments

A. For the grievors

[100] The principle at issue is that the grievors were entitled to a complete and current statement of duties and responsibilities, which they did not have. In Currie v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FCA 194, the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized the importance for an employee to have a complete and accurate work description, as his or her rights and entitlements as an employee depend on it.

[101] The four grievors who testified gave detailed and complete evidence about the duties they carried out while classified VM-03 with the Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652. Three of them became VM-04s on an acting basis, then indeterminate VM-04s during the time this grievance process has lasted. Dr. Allen testified that when she was a VM-04 on an acting basis, her tasks were essentially the same as when she had been a VM-03 in the same section.

[102] The fact that the grievors carried out the same duties while working at the VM-03 and VM-04 group and levels is compelling and has essentially not been contradicted. It shows that the impugned work description, even as amended in 2016, is not complete and accurate.

[103] In her evidence, Dr. Paré demonstrated that the key activities of the position she occupied as a VM-03 were in fact VM-04 key activities. The grievors argued that the Senior Veterinary Science Specialist generic work description no. 59639, at the VM-04 level, better reflects Dr. Paré’s key activities, as opposed to the amended WD 2016.

[104] Dr. Paré’s responsibilities did not change from the time she started as a VM-03 in epidemiology to her appointment as a VM-04, first on an acting basis then on an indeterminate basis. This can be shown by comparing her performance evaluations as a VM-03 and a VM-04 — the work objectives are essentially the same.

[105] As Dr. Alexander confirmed, veterinarians hired in the epidemiology section now always start at the VM-04 level, which is a recognition of the nature of the work that epidemiologists perform.

[106] As raised in the employer’s objections, one of the issues to be decided, if the Board agrees to modify the work description, is the effective date. The evidence is clear that there is an agreement (see the June 2010 “Memorandum of Understanding”) between the parties under which the employer recognized that the effective date would be May 1, 2001. The Memorandum of Understanding applied to job-content grievances filed in 2001 and 2009. It stated that “… any resulting changes to work descriptions will have an effective date of May 1, 2001, or the date on which the work description came into effect if that date is later than May 1, 2001”. It is clear that the Memorandum of Understanding applies to the all representative grievances filed at each of the VM levels, from 01 through 05.

[107] The grievances, which were heard in 2010, gave rise to the 2011 work descriptions, including the 2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652, at the VM-03 level.

[108] In a further Memorandum of Understanding (dated June 14, 2011), the parties agreed to select one representative classification grievance for each generic work description that was grieved. This agreement does not mention the effective date.

[109] In February 2015, the parties signed yet another Memorandum of Understanding to discuss how to deal with the 2011 grievances. The last clause was as before; that is, the effective date was to be May 1, 2001, except if the work description came into effect after May 2, 2001. When, as a result of the 2011 grievances, the employer adopted the new work description in 2016, the effective date was May 1, 2001.

[110] On November 30, 2016, the parties signed another Memorandum of Understanding to request the Board to join the 36 grievances at adjudication. The individual grievances were included in Annex A of the Memorandum of Understanding (the list appears in Annex A of this decision). This Memorandum of Understanding does not deal with the effective date.

[111] The effective date set initially was never changed or modified. Therefore, the effective date should still be May 1, 2001.

[112] The other issue raised in the employer’s objections is the remedy requested. The grievors request that the Board order a new work description to replace WD 2016, bearing no. 59652, and suggest language to that effect. They also request that two work descriptions replace WD 2016, one for Programs, and one for Science. The employer has objected that the grievances cannot be changed once referred to adjudication.

[113] The grievors responded that in the course of labour relations, things evolve. Dr. Coupal gave compelling evidence on the ever-evolving stances of the parties on the work descriptions, and the evidence showed that the Agency has restructured since 2011. A current and complete work description must take these realities into account. It often occurs that by the time a grievance is referred to adjudication, a new remedy must be envisaged because of a change of circumstances. The same reasoning should apply in this case.

B. For the employer

1. Objection

[114] The employer reiterated its objections stated at the beginning of this decision: the grievances cannot be modified for the purpose of the adjudication, the 2011 grievances are moot since the 2011 work description was amended by WD 2016, and the effective date for the remedy cannot go further back than the time allowed by the collective agreement to make a grievance.

2. The grievance

[115] As for the substance of the grievance, the employer argued that the grievors did not meet their burden of proving that the work description as amended in 2016 was not complete and current.

[116] Federal public sector jurisprudence is clear. It is not up to the Board to polish work descriptions or include every single detail of a position’s duties. (see Suric v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development), 2013 PSLRB 44; and Raabe v. Treasury Board (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2019 FPSLREB 111). Moreover, by their nature, generic work descriptions are set in general terms so that they may be applied nationally. It is simply not realistic to expect that every task will be set down in them. Rather, the work description must include the duties but need not be detailed and specific. For additions to be made to one, a grievor must show that truly, something is missing in the statement of duties (see Wilcox v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development), 2013 PSLRB 145).

[117] It is not necessary to consider each task in isolation; rather, it must be considered whether the whole of a work description reflects the nature of the work.

[118] The employer argued that Dr. Paré’s work when she was a VM-03 was very collaborative. Her VM-04 work was not relevant to the work she did as a VM-03. With the amendments added in 2016, her responsibilities were properly outlined.

[119] Some tasks were of Dr. Paré’s choosing, such as writing scientific articles. Dr. Silva testified that there was no obligation on or expectation for a VM-03 to write them. The same applied to her work with the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, which was essentially a side activity. Her supervision of students’ theses had started long before she grieved the 2011 work description.

[120] The employer also stressed the collaborative nature of Dr. Nérette’s work. She was not independently responsible for the aquatic epidemiological surveys. In her work objectives, according to her performance agreements when she was a VM-03, the words used reflected the content of WD 2016: participate, contribute, assist in plan development, analyze, etc.

[121] According to her cross-examination, Dr. Aklil’s work was not as independent as she had portrayed it. Her supervisor was not a veterinary doctor, but that did not change the roles within the team since she was not a decision maker but an advisor. Most of the documents she introduced as evidence of her work were in fact drafts that would have been reviewed before a final version was approved. No direct advice was provided to senior management; rather, her supervisor transmitted upwards any advice she provided.

[122] The amendments included in the WD 2016 significantly corrected Dr. Aklil’s work description; she did not demonstrate that more is needed.

[123] Similarly, Dr. Allen did not demonstrate independent work. A number of the activities she spoke about were related to when she was in a VM-04 position on an acting basis and therefore are not relevant to the issue at hand. Her role in drafting documents was generally collaborative, as opposed to independent. This was evident in her contribution to Chapter 12 of the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures.

[124] The employer’s witnesses were able to give a higher-level view of the grievors’ work. They certainly noted the grievors’ contribution, but it was part of a whole and was not at the level of responsibility and decision making that the grievors seemed to claim.

IV. Analysis

A. The preliminary objections

[125] I will first deal with the employer’s objection to the issues referred to adjudication, then address the issue of the effective date of any remedy.

1. The issues referred to adjudication

[126] The employer objected that the grievors could not refer to adjudication a grievance different than that decided at the final-level of the grievance process, and I agree. While is it true that the grievors are not entitled to refer to adjudication issues that have not been discussed between the parties within the grievance process (see Burchill), it is not what they have done in this case. I find that the employer’s pretention that the grievors have essentially referred its final-level decision (i.e. the new, 2016 version of generic work-description no. 59652) to adjudication, instead of their original 2011 grievances (i.e. the 2011 version of generic work-description no. 59652), is somewhat disingenuous.

[127] The issues now before the Board are well known to the parties and have been discussed between them for almost 10 years now: they relate to whether the employer had provided the grievors with a complete statement of the duties and responsibilities of their positions. The matter that I have to determine is whether, in light of the parties’ discussions during the grievance process, the generic work-description no. 59652 meets the requirements of the collective agreement and, if not, what remedy is appropriate. That the new, 2016 version of the work description formed the basis of the grievors’ case at adjudication does not change in any way the nature of the issues that have always been at play between the parties, that is, the completeness of the generic work description no 59652.

[128] The grievors are entitled to refer to adjudication a grievance “that has not been dealt with to the employee’s satisfaction” (s. 209(1) of the Act). This is what they have done here. The grievance referred to adjudication is the 2011 grievance, despite the amendments of 2016 which the grievors found insufficient.

[129] With that in mind, my decision is based on the grievance as it was heard at the final level of the grievance process. Since I have been provided with no evidence that the parties have discussed during the grievance process the possibility of two distinct work descriptions applying to the grievors, I will not consider that possibility.

[130] Also, in 2016, the grievors presented specific suggestions to the employer to amend the 2011 version of Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652. The employer allowed the grievances in part and issued the WD 2016 as a result. The issues that are referred to adjudication still relate to the employer’s obligation under the collective agreement to provide the grievors with a complete statement of the duties and responsibilities of their positions, because the grievors feel that the changes that the employer made, as a way to remedy the issues raised in their grievances, to the generic work-description no. 59652 are insufficient. I have considered, for the purpose of this decision, the suggestions made at the time that the grievance was heard in 2016, in light of the evidence that was presented to me at the hearing.

2. The mootness of the grievance

[131] The employer argued that the 2011 grievances were moot, having been resolved by the WD 2016. According to the employer, a new grievance should have been filed concerning WD 2016.

[132] As is made clear in the preceding section, I do not agree with the employer’s position, as I find that the 2011 grievance is validly before me.

3. The effective date

[133] I must address a third point, which is the date of retroactivity of the remedy, if granted. The grievances were all filed in September 2011. At the hearing, the employer argued that any remedy should not be retroactive beyond the time provided to file a grievance in the collective agreement, which is 35 days, according to the principle stated in Coallier.

[134] However, as stated earlier, in granting a partial remedy to the grievances at the final level of the grievance process, the employer itself set a retroactivity date for WD 2016 of May 1, 2001, in conformity with the agreement that it concluded with the grievors on February 27, 2015 as part of their discussions on the grievances.

[135] It is true that the grievances referred to adjudication were filed in 2011. However, they were referred to adjudication following the employer’s final-level decision because the employer had not dealt with them to the grievors’ satisfaction. The employer now argues that the retroactivity date that it assigned for WD 2016 should not apply to the grievors. It is worth stressing again that the evidence before me establishes clearly that the employer allowed the grievances, in part, at the final level of the grievance process and issued the WD 2016 as a result, with an effective date of May 1, 2001.

[136] I was offered no jurisprudence that would support the Board granting less at adjudication than the employer had already granted at the final level of the grievance process. In any event, in the circumstances of this case, I do not consider it appropriate to award a retroactivity date less generous than that assigned by the employer as a result of the grievance process, especially when that date reflects the agreement that the parties reached as part of the discussions that they had within that same grievance process.

B. The grievance

[137] Clause E1.01 of the applicable collective agreement states as follows:

Upon written request, an employee shall be entitled to an official, complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of his position, including the position’s classification level and the point rating allotted by factor and organization chart depicting the position’s place in the organization.

 

[138] The grievors argued that there should be two work descriptions, one for Programs, one for Sciences. It seems that a work description for Sciences did exist, as indicated in Dr. Nérette’s testimony. However, the work description that has been grieved is Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652, at the VM-03 level, and the issues before me are those that have been discussed between the parties during the grievance process. As mentioned earlier, the task before me is to determine whether the WD 2016 is a complete statement of the duties and responsibilities of the grievors’ positions.

[139] As Dr. Coupal stated in her testimony, the grievors’ situation has not remained static. Many have been promoted as VM-04, and two have been promoted as VM-05. Of those who remain VM-03s, only 3 are still subject to the WD 2016.

[140] I have to remind myself, after the mass of evidence and arguments received, what is at issue. I believe it can be stated as follows: Is the WD 2016, at the VM-03 level, a complete statement of the duties and responsibilities of the grievor’s positions at the time when they filed their grievances? If so, the grievance fails.

[141] However, if I find that WD 2016 omitted tasks that the grievors carried out as part of their duties or responsibilities that were assigned to their positions when they filed their grievances in 2011, then I must allow the grievance.

[142] The parties presented several cases to support their respective positions, the grievors to show that the Board should amend deficient work descriptions, and the employer to show that a generic work description is acceptable and that it need not cover every single detail of a position’s duties. The main conclusion to be drawn is that work-description grievances are highly fact specific. The underlying rule is simple: the collective agreement entitles the employee to a “… complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities …” of his or her position. To determine whether the work description is in fact “complete and current”, I need to consider what the grievors allege is missing from the WD 2016.

[143] In deciding these grievances, I am guided by federal public sector jurisprudence on work descriptions, and notably, these oft-quoted paragraphs from Jennings v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 20:

…

51 An employee’s job description is the cornerstone of the employment relationship. In Breckenridge et al. v. The Library of Parliament, PSSRB File Nos. 466-LP-225 to 233 and 241 to 245 (19960912), the adjudicator stated the following: “It is a fundamental, multipurpose document which is referred to with regard to classification, staffing, remuneration, discipline, performance evaluation, identification of language requirements, and career planning.” In Currie v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FCA 194, at para 26, the Federal Court of Appeal wrote that a work description “…must reflect the realities of the employee’s work situation since so many aspects of the employee’s rights and obligations in the workplace are bound to his or her Work Description.” Its importance is such that, under the collective agreement, any employee is entitled to request a complete and current work description.

52 What is a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of an employee? The parties and the arbitral authorities on which they rely agree that a work description must contain enough information to accurately reflect what the employee does. It must not omit a “… reference to a particular duty or responsibility which the employee is otherwise required to perform”; see Taylor v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada — Customs & Excise), PSSRB File No. 166-02-20396 (19901221). A job description that contains broad and generic descriptions is acceptable as long as it satisfies that fundamental requirement. In Hughes v. Treasury Board of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69, at para 26, the adjudicator wrote the following: “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.” See also Currie et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2008 PSLRB 69, at para 164; Jaremy et al. v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Customs, Excise & Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59, at para 24; and Barnes et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2003 PSSRB 13. The employer is not required to use any particular form of wording to describe the duties and responsibilities of an employee and “…it is not the adjudicator’s role to correct the wording or the expressions that are used,” so long as they broadly describe the responsibilities and the duties being performed (see Jarvis et al. v. Treasury Board (Industry Canada), 2001 PSSRB 84, at para 95; and see Barnes, at para 24.

53 The question for me to decide is whether the 2007 job description provided a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of the grievors and, if not, what such a complete and current statement would include.

…

 

[144] I draw from the jurisprudence (largely cited in the passage just quoted) that generic work descriptions are acceptable and that by definition, they need not descend to the granular level of every task accomplished by the incumbent of a position. At the same time, I must be mindful of the right enshrined in the collective agreement to a “… complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities …”.

[145] After hearing all the evidence, I find that some changes should be made to the work description no 59652.

[146] I will list the additions to Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 that were requested initially and decide from the evidence I heard whether they should be added. The requested additions are underlined; the deletions sought are in strikethrough. Bold type comes from the original.

[147] The grievors proposed the following with regards to the paragraph under Client Service Results:

Client Service Results

Prevents or controls the introduction and spread of FAD and zoonotic diseases and controls diseases present in Canada; and facilitates through the following activities for the files for which they are assigned:

Provides scientific and technical information and support for the developsment of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certificates/import conditions; presents recommendations, clarifications and advice related to policies and programs to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) senior management and staff, industry, other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies.

Provision of veterinary leadership to personnel dealing with the implementation of and also develops and designs national policies, directives, manuals, design initiatives, systems and processes related to complex program areas; and comments on international standards; conducts strategic analysis and provides recommendations to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) senior management; development and implementation of project plans; and consultation with other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies and trading partners on program issues and trade; and provides specific veterinary expertise, advice, policy interpretation and recommendations to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) senior management and to other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies, international committees and stakeholders.

 

[148] I am not satisfied that including “Prevents or controls the introduction and spread of FAD and zoonotic diseases …” is justified. It appears that that is the Agency’s very mission, to ensure food safety in Canada and prosperous trade relationships. The evidence I heard was of a participation in that effort, not a general responsibility for it. The first requested paragraph will not be added to generic work-description no. 59652.

[149] What I heard and read in evidence was not exactly at the level that seems to be claimed by the grievors. From Dr. Paré’s evidence, there is more independence in the VM-03 position than seems to be indicated by the current Client Service Results section of generic work-description no. 59652. However, there is no clear indication that a VM-03 was a leadership position as was the VM-05 position, the incumbent of which would be in contact with senior management. Obviously, the work of all levels informs what will be communicated to senior management; there is no evidence that the communication was so direct. Also, although the VM-03s’ work has international consequences, I do not understand them as directly involved in trade matters but rather as supplying the veterinary perspective to trade exchanges. However, the VM-03s’ responsibility probably entails more than what appears now, notably, conducting independent major programs, such as the bovine serology survey, or designing new systems, such as the permanent zoonotic surveys. The other important missing component of the work description is acting as a subject-matter expert. Consequently, the paragraph of the work description is modified as follows:

Client Service Results

Provides scientific and technical information and support for the developsment of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certificates/import conditions; presents recommendations, clarifications and advice related to policies and programs to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) staff, industry, other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies. Develops and designs national policies, directives, manuals, design initiatives, systems and processes related to complex program areas. Provides specific veterinary expertise, advice, policy interpretation and recommendations to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and to other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies, international committees and stakeholders.

 

[150] I will now consider the key activities in generic work-description no. 59652 and the grievors’ proposed changes to them. I will take into account the WD 2016 that resulted from the decision that the employer rendered at the final-level of the grievance process, which added some key activities, and determine whether the proposed additions are sufficient, given the evidence.

[151] The grievors proposed the following with regards to the first paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

 

[152] It is unusual that the grievors would suggest removing something from the work description. I agree that VM-03s might also develop and draft reports, but that does not preclude analyzing reports provided by specialists. The second part of the sentence will not be stricken out.

[153] The grievors proposed modifying the second paragraph under “Key Activities” as follows:

Contributes to the development of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certification/import conditions in collaboration with other specialists; maintains clarity of vision in the establishment of specific program design objectives., develops and maintains CFIA policies and programs and reviews national and international standards and associated procedural documents & operational standards and training materials and evaluation of veterinary services; regionalization and zoning and negotiations related to trade, in collaboration with the National Program Manager and Area Program Network Chiefs and Specialists, and in consultation with provincial officials, technical experts, and national industry associations.

 

[154] From the evidence I heard, the activities related to export certification and import conditions were more in line with what is already in the work description. Dr. Aklil did not develop regulations or standards, whether national or international. She insured that the pet food and gelatin programs were compliant with standards. She did contribute to negotiations, but not in general trade terms. The collaboration aspect is missing from the work description. The second paragraph under “Key Activities” is amended to read as follows:

Contributes to the development of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certification/import conditions in collaboration with other specialists; maintains clarity of vision in the establishment of specific program design objectives, in collaboration with the National Program Manager and Area Program Network Chiefs and Specialists, and in consultation with provincial officials, technical experts, and national industry associations.

 

[155] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph after the seventh paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Negotiates import and export certification and program requirements for pet food and gelatine for human consumption. Establishes, interprets and advises on zoosanitary import/export conditions

 

[156] The 2016 amendment added: “Participates in negotiations, both nationally and internationally.” The granular level of pet food and gelatin for human consumption does not belong in a generic work description. However, as a subject-matter expert, the VM-03 does provide advice on zoosanitary conditions. The eighth paragraph under “Key Activities” in the work-description is amended as follows:

Participates in negotiations, both nationally and internationally, and advises on zoosanitary import/export conditions.

 

[157] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph after the seventh paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Gathers, monitors and analyzes changes in zoosanitary situations. Responds to an animal disease outbreak or zoonotic public health emergency, either in Canada or in foreign countries. Analyzes the situation, provides scientific and policy advice, revises Agency policies. Informs/distributes information on implementation of policy or procedural changes to CFIA staff and affected parties.

 

[158] From the evidence, VM-03s may be tasked with major epidemiological projects, which are not reflected in the WD 2016. However, they are not in charge of responding to emergency situations, but they would provide advice on their subjects of expertise, and they do ensure the proper communication of changes to policies and procedures to the staff and other stakeholders. The following paragraph will be added after the eighth paragraph under “Key Activities” in the work description:

Gathers, monitors and analyzes changes in zoosanitary situations. Provides scientific and policy advice in his or her area of expertise. Informs/distributes information on implementation of policy or procedural changes to CFIA staff and affected parties.

 

[159] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraphs under “Key Activities”:

Interprets legislation, policies, and national and international zoosanitary program standards; and provides guidance and clarification concerning these and associated procedures to CFIA senior management, CFIA staff across Canada, officials in other government departments/agencies and nongovernmental organizations, national industry associations, individuals involved in animal health and pet food production in Canada and internationally (i.e. veterinarians, scientists, industry), and members of the public

Provides expert scientific and technical advice, Interpretations and recommendations on zoosanitary program issues to the CFIA senior managers, CFIA staff across Canada, officials in other government departments/agencies and non-governmental organizations …, national industry associations, individuals involved in animal health and food production in Canada and internationally (veterinarians, scientists, Industry), and members of the public

 

[160] From the evidence I heard, this was also part of the VM-03s’ work, including being aware of and interpreting legislation, policies, and standards and providing expert scientific guidance. The two paragraphs can be combined, to avoid repetition, since they essentially concern expert advice. However, I do not understand that advice was provided directly to Agency senior management, and I will remove that phrase. The following new paragraph will be added after the ninth paragraph under “Key Activities” of the work description:

Provides expert scientific and technical advice, interpretations and recommendations on zoosanitary program issues, including by interpreting legislation, policies, and national and international zoosanitary program standards, to CFIA staff across Canada, officials in other government departments/agencies and nongovernmental organizations, national industry associations, individuals involved in animal health and food production in Canada and internationally (i.e. veterinarians, scientists, industry) and members of the public.

 

[161] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Responds to questions through written and verbal communication, acts as national and international spokesperson, relating to zoosanitary policies and programs as raised by CF IA staff, representatives of national and international government and industry, academia, the general public and the media, either directly or through the Access to Information procedure and non governmental organizations, national industry associations, the media, individuals involved in animal health and industry in Canada and internationally (veterinarians, scientists, industry) and members of the public; prepares reports required under multi-lateral & bilateral national and international agreements; acts as a national and international spokesperson; provides information requested under the Access to Information Act

 

[162] From Dr. Allen’s evidence, the subject-matter expert may be called upon to help respond to media inquiries. This is not reflected in the work description. At the same time, I did not hear evidence that VM-03s would act as official Agency spokespersons but rather that they would be consulted on how to respond. Moreover, I find that the addition in the WD 2016 concerning representing the Agency by participating in national and international working groups reflects adequately the role as an Agency representative. There does not need to be such detail and repetition in a generic work description. A new paragraph will be added after the tenth paragraph under “Key Activities” in the work description as follows:

Responds to questions relating to zoosanitary policies and programs as raised by CFIA staff, representatives of national and international governments and industry, academia, the general public and the media, either directly or through the Access to Information procedure.

 

[163] The grievors proposed the following amendment to the twelfth paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Participates in, directs and conducts national/international environmental scanning activities that provide information on new technology developments; political entities and public opinions which can/will impact on the necessity and acceptability of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and trade.

 

[164] I consider that the present wording reflects appropriately the degree of the VM-03s’ responsibility. Not only do they participate in scanning activities, but also, they may be called on to conduct them. However, adding the word “directs” adds a managerial role, which is not part of the VM-03s’ duties. The twelfth paragraph under “Key Activities” will therefore remain unchanged.

[165] The grievors proposed the following amendment to the thirteenth paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment. Represents the CFIA and leads and participates in national and international committees and working groups involved in bilateral and multilateral consultations and negotiations in relation to Canadian zoosanitary policies and programs and when participating in national and international meetings and conferences.

 

[166] I find that those concerns were addressed appropriately in the WD 2016 by the addition of the text referring to participating in negotiations and to representing the Agency nationally and internationally. The one dimension missing in the work description is a reference to national and international conferences. The employer’s argument was that participating in them was voluntary and not part of a VM-03’s requirements. However, the link to academia was established sufficiently to show that Dr. Paré’s and Dr. Nérette’s academic work was part of what they did for the Agency. Therefore, the ninth paragraph under “Key Activities” in the work description will not be amended but the fourteenth paragraph under “Key Activities” will change as follows:

Occasionally represents the Agency by participating in working groups with national and international partners and by participating in national and international academic activities, meetings and conferences.

 

[167] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Updates CFIA internal systems in relation to program policy and procedures development, in coordination with the Program Network and the senior veterinary officers.

 

[168] Given the work and responsibilities of VM-03s, I do not see this as a separate task. By writing reports, developing policies and programs, and advising staff and stakeholders, internal systems are necessarily updated. I did not hear evidence that the VM-03s were specifically tasked with the updates. That paragraph will therefore not be added.

[169] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Assesses and identifies national and regional training needs for effective program delivery. Develops, in conjunction with the national training section, materials and documents for national distribution and use and delivers national training sessions in collaboration with the National Training Section and Area Program Networks.

 

[170] This subject gave rise to considerable oral evidence at the hearing. The employer sought to demonstrate that the VM-03s were not responsible for training, as it has a training team charged with developing and providing training. The grievors’ position was that they provided the content for some of the training and worked with the training unit to develop presentations, which they sometimes presented themselves. That said, I am not satisfied that they assess training needs; rather, they provide the content for training material on subjects for which they are experts. In Dr. Allen’s case, for example, changes to animal handling to ensure welfare at slaughter brought a need to inform staff and industry on what needed to be changed. I agree that something needs to be included about training, but in terms of content contribution. A new paragraph will be added as follows after the fourteenth paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Contributes subject matter in order to develop, in collaboration with the National Training Section, materials and documents for national distribution and use. Delivers national training sessions in collaboration with the National Training Section and Area Program Networks.

 

[171] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraphs under “Key Activities”. They will not be added to the work description, as I consider that they are already covered by previous paragraphs:

Provides subject matter expertise and interpretation on CFIA programs/policies/procedures to industry, national and international stakeholders and governments.

Negotiates import and export certification requirements with international counterparts. Consults CFIA staff and Canadian regulated parties to ensure requirements are practical and will provide adequate safeguards to widely differing opinions and interests and who may oppose the development or implementation of new zoosanitary requirements

Organizes and presents a range of scientific, policy and regulatory information to diverse audiences comprised of national and international government, industry and consumer groups.

 

[172] The grievors proposed adding the following paragraph under “Key Activities”:

Prepares and delivers lectures or presentations to veterinarians and veterinary students on subjects related to regulatory veterinary medicine. Lectures increase the profile of the Agency as an employer of choice for qualified potential candidates and foster greater awareness of Agency roles and activities.

 

[173] This proposal relates to teaching and to the VM-03s’ representational role. I find that those issues have already been addressed in the WD 2016, as amended by this decision.

[174] The grievors also suggested additions under “Responsibility –Decisions”. Most of the suggested additions are more properly caught by “Key Activities”. However, two proposed additions speak to the responsibility for nationwide projects, such as the bovine serological survey and its continuing follow-up, which are not currently captured in the work description and should be added after the fourth paragraph under “Responsibility-Decisions”, as follows:

Ensures that new and modified policies programs and procedures comply with relevant legislation and regulations in order to provide an appropriate level of protection of human and animal health.

Latitude is required to lead, plan, organize and carry out complex cross-jurisdictional Unit/Branch [sic]; and to develop evidence and positions; to design programs and their delivery. Organizes and manages studies under the auspices of national programs, policies or directives issued by CFIA Managers or national working groups and develops approaches, concepts and modeling tools to collect and analyze information (e.g. disease surveillance; program derivation; epidemiology and evaluation of veterinary services; regionalization and zoning; disease control methods, and animal welfare and trade etc).

 

[175] Under “Responsibility – Leadership”, the grievors suggested some additions. As under “Responsibility – Decisions”, several suggestions are already covered under “Key Activities”. However, from the evidence I heard from Dr. Paré, Dr. Nérette and Dr. Allen as to their responsibility for developing and leading projects for which they provided expertise, I find that the following two points should be added after the first paragraph under “Responsibility –Leadership” as follows:

Develops work plans from terms of reference. Provides methodological and subject matter guidance. Provides functional guidance to Unit and Operations staff and industry.

Functions as a national subject-matter expert.

 

[176] The grievors suggested adding “May provide expert testimony as required for the Agency in a court of law” under “Responsibility – Decisions”. There was little evidence supporting adding that statement.

[177] Under “Skill”, which includes “Knowledge”, “Communication”, and “Analysis and Problem Solving”, the grievors suggested a number of additions. From the evidence I heard, the present work description is sufficient. The additions that the grievors are seeking are more in the nature of duties than skills as such.

[178] Nothing will be added under “Effort” in the work description.

[179] However, under “Working Conditions”, the suggested addition concerning travel will be added, as it appears that travel for research and inspections was part of the VM-03s’ work. Therefore, the paragraph under “Working Conditions” in the work description is modified and split in two as follows:

The work is mainly performed in government office facilities which meet accepted standards for occupational health, safety and security. Exposure to office noise; competing demands; lack of control over the pace of work and exposure to glare from a computer screen can be expected.

Some travel is required and work must be performed in facilities which may not meet accepted standards. Domestic and international business travel is required, sometimes in inclement weather and inspection of farms, laboratories, abattoirs, rendering plants or other third party premises is required (foreign inspections both within or outside Canada) with their physical efforts & OSH/PPE requirements.

 

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

(The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order

[181] The grievance is allowed in part.

[182] The Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 is amended, effective May 1, 2001, as reported in Annex B to this decision.

July 29, 2021.

Marie-Claire Perrault,

a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

 

ANNEX A

 

This decision applies to the following grievors (each name is followed by a grievance number and a position number):

 

 

Faïza Aklil (26545, 9306)

Anne Allen (26515 & 26916, 40130)

Amanda Amaratunga (26732, 24216)

Rajiv Arora (26324, 39084)

Carolyn Cooper (26701, 25320)

Nicole Cormier (26718, 41762)

Tara Da Costa (26713, 7892)

Indervesh Dahlya (26694, 39222)

Bernita Giffin (26213, 46042)

El Mehdi Haddou (26317, 35285)

 

Abdelouahad Harchaoui (26738, 40128)

Navjot Kaur (26552, 29232)

Kim Knight-Picketts (26889, 31213)

Aimé Kombé (26547, 31285)

Samia Lounis (25910, 10421)

Rita Jane MacDonald (26722, 43055)

Paul MacIsaac (26698, 39220)

Ellen Rae Melvin-Walsh (26589, 40131)

Ashok Mengi (26555, 38021)

Pascale Nérette (26730, 39265)

 

Andrea Osborn (26194, 39262)

Julie Paré (26740, 42491)

Victoria Pedersen Justason (26203, 39264)

Connie Rajzman (26685, 37625)

Mary Rathiou (26540, 25092)

Ian Michael Ruddell (26422, 42633)

Surinder Saini (26503 & 26511, 39232 & 41475)

Nicky Schaefer (26588, 39008)

Barbara Scherzinger (26077, 10267)

Daniel Schwartz (26786, 41096)

 

Parul Sharma (26514, 8808)

Tom Smyle (26735, 40129)

Ashwani Tiwari (26720, 39222)

Lorne Waldner (26076, 11121)

ANNEX B

 

New Veterinary Program Officer/Evaluator/Analyst generic work-description no. 59652 – effective May 1, 2001.

 

Client Service Results

 

Provides scientific and technical information and develops policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certificates/import conditions; presents recommendations, clarifications and advice related to policies and programs to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) staff, industry, other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies. Develops and designs national policies, directives, manuals, design initiatives, systems and processes related to complex program areas. Provides specific veterinary expertise, advice, policy interpretation and recommendations to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and to other Government Departments (OGD) and Agencies, international committees and stakeholders.

Key Activities

 

Reviews and analyzes the principles and practices of veterinary medicine in order to provide advice and guidance regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists.

 

Contributes to the development of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and export certification/import conditions in collaboration with other specialists; maintains clarity of vision in the establishment of specific program design objectives, in collaboration with the National Program Manager and Area program Network Chiefs and Specialists, and in consultation with provincial officials, technical experts, and national industry associations.

 

Participates in the evaluation of accreditation and inspection program policies (i.e. export/import inspection program); regulations; directions; manuals; their subsequent implementation and through the analysis of specific situations and performance indicator data while identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation.

 

Conducts and reports audits on export programs, both nationally and internationally.

 

Recommends regulatory amendments and improvement to policies and contributes to the implementation and monitoring of inspection priorities and work plans.

 

Provides guidance, recommendations and advice to planning and research activities, including additional studies undertaken by CFIA or contractors.

 

Prepares written reports; responds to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance and develops recommendations and decisions for use by programs to enable uniformity and consistency.

 

Participates in negotiations, both nationally and internationally, and advises on zoosanitary import/export conditions.

Gathers, monitors and analyzes changes in zoosanitary situations. Provides scientific and policy advice in his or her area of expertise. Informs/distributes information on implementation of policy or procedural changes to CFIA staff and affected parties.

 

Provides expert scientific and technical advice, interpretations and recommendations on zoosanitary program issues , including by interpreting legislation, policies, and national and international zoosanitary program standards, to CFIA staff across Canada, officials in other government departments/agencies and nongovernmental organizations, national industry associations, individuals involved in animal health and food production in Canada and internationally (i.e. veterinarians, scientists, industry) and members of the public.

 

Responds to questions relating to zoosanitary policies and programs as raised by CFIA staff, representatives of national and international government and industry, academia, the general public and the media, either directly or through the Access to Information procedure.

 

Participates in and conducts national/international environmental scanning activities that provide information, on new technology developments; political entities and public opinions which can/will impact on the necessity and acceptability of policies, regulations, directives, manuals and trade.

 

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

 

Occasionally represents the Agency by participating in working groups with national and international partners and by participating in national and international academic activities, meetings and conferences.

Contributes subject matter in order to develop, in collaboration with the national training section, materials and documents for national distribution and use. Delivers national training sessions in collaboration with the National Training Section and Area program Networks.

 

Responsibility

Decisions

 

The subject position (SP) is responsible for monitoring and reviewing program activities that contribute to the development, interpretation and evaluation of policies, regulations and legislation related to program inspection and enforcement issues. Decisions are made in collaboration with Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National Veterinary Program Managers.

 

Subject to committees and working groups’ terms of reference or directives from Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National/Network Program Managers, defines and applies techniques and approaches for studies and develops project reports. Latitude is necessary to identify new technology developments, monitoring and reviewing needs, field and operational trends as well as operational issues revealed through scientific and technical research and analysis as well as evaluation activities that may have an impact on the Unit’s business lines, frameworks and policies. Based on evidence produced by research and analyses, develops assumptions and scenarios that assist with the provision of guidance on priority-setting and planning; including recommendations and advice for additional studies undertaken by CFIA or contractors.

 

Prepares and develops background information and advice (through detailed written reports and responses to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance or existing policies and developing recommendations) based on the results of research, investigation and analytical processes that are used by PPB/Agency officials, internal and external stakeholders in order to coordinate activities and ensure the efficient exchange of information.

 

As a member of a national team or working group, responsibility will include the evaluation and development of inspection program policies; regulations; directives; import/export conditions and manuals; preparation of scientific, technical and others reports; and the organization and presentation of technical information to varied audience groups such as Division, Directorate Officers and Operations Staff.

 

Ensures that new and modified policies, programs and procedures comply with relevant legislation and regulations in order to provide an appropriate level of protection of human and animal health.

 

Latitude is required to lead, plan, organize and carry out complex cross-jurisdictional Unit/Branch and to develop evidence and positions; to design programs and their delivery. Organizes and manages studies under the auspices of national programs, policies or directives issued by CFIA Managers or national working groups and develops approaches, concepts and modeling tools to collect and analyze information (e.g. disease surveillance; program derivation; epidemiology and evaluation of veterinary services; regionalization and zoning; disease control methods, and animal welfare and trade etc.

 

Leadership

 

Participates in meetings/committees with participants from CFIA staff, industry and other federal and provincial (F/P) departments and agencies and shares the responsibility of providing functional direction to Program Network specialists outside of the physical work environment.

 

Develops work plans from terms of reference. Provides methodological and subject matter guidance. Provides functional guidance to Unit and Operations staff and industry.

 

Functions as a national subject-matter expert.

 

Skill

 

Knowledge

 

The work requires in depth knowledge of relevant Agency programs, networks, policies, Acts, regulations, the Agency’s mandate, organization and clients, together with general knowledge of the principles and practices of veterinary medicine. This knowledge is applied to review, analyze and provide guidance, recommendations and advice regarding the health status of animals and animal products and to evaluate reports provided by relevant veterinary and scientific specialists; contribute to the development and improvement of policies, regulations, import/export conditions, directives and manuals; participate in the evaluation of inspection program policies; and to fully participate as a member on committees and working groups within CFIA that identify issues that can have an impact on the Agency.

 

Knowledge of the methods, techniques and practices of project management; policy/program development to plan/conduct research (background information, environmental scans, preparation of corporate documents, etc); and program evaluation and planning are required to brief and advise Unit/Branch management on issues and trends that can affect inspection and enforcement standards, policies/programs and to establish and maintain linkages with internal and/or external stakeholders that can contribute to the resolution of complex issues.

 

In-depth knowledge of the responsibilities and objectives of the Unit, its role within PPB, the context of the Unit’s work and its relationship to other CFIA food programs and to the Agency’s inspection and enforcement programs, the overall mandate of the Agency, and the role of OGDs and Agencies and different stakeholders. This knowledge is needed to plan and conduct research and analysis; priority-setting; planning; policy development; program evaluation; environmental scanning activities; and to provide scientific and technical information to the correct CFIA officials for identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation.

 

Knowledge is also required, of national Government of Canada (GoC) initiatives affecting programs, inspection and enforcement legislation/regulations and OIE guidelines in order to measure their impact on PPB activities, program policies and approaches as well as plans.

 

Communication

 

Explains and clarifies complex research data related to the health status of animals and animal products, evaluation results, operational and policy issues involving a range of program policies and approaches through detailed written reports, briefings, ministerial correspondence, policy documents, Agency memoranda, responses to inquiries while addressing problems with compliance and developing recommendations and decisions and other documents. The SP briefs PPB officials on inconsistent program delivery, inspection and enforcement trends, emerging issues and the impact of these findings and issues on CFIA operations, programs, frameworks and policies.

 

Provides scientific and technical information and advice on research and evaluation of inspection program policies programs managed by other officers of the Unit; presents and explains technical and factual information involving findings from investigations, evaluations of programs/activities and impact/cost/risk analyses; and discusses options that can lead to the solution of emerging issues with policy experts within PPB, OGDs and stakeholder organizations to facilitate the exchange and sharing of information. Presents proposals and perspectives in committees and working groups and expresses complex ideas (orally and in writing) where audiences are generally knowledgeable.

 

Well-developed writing skills are necessary to consult and provide advice; compose and develop sensitive products (e.g. detailed written reports, briefings, ministerial correspondence, policy documents, Agency memoranda) varying in style, complexity/detail and conveys strategic information and findings based on the synthesis and analysis of available evidence. These products can be required to influence or persuade others and to reach resolution on specific situations.

 

Analysis and Problem Solving

Research and analysis skills are required to identify and assess the utility of potential data sources and gather, synthesize, interpret and analyse data and information from disparate sources (multi-factorial, cross-jurisdictional, etc), including directly from data collection sites, relevant veterinary and scientific specialists both nationally and internationally.

 

These skills are required to plan and conduct research autonomously or as part of project teams; participate in the evaluation of inspection program policies, regulations, directions, import/export conditions, manuals, their subsequent implementation and through the analysis of specific situations and performance indicator data while identifying opportunities for improvement in policy implementation; develop advice for Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National/Network Program Managers; and to prepare and support the development of presentations to Unit colleagues, other CFIA staff and to provide professional input to prepare or assist in the preparation of documents.

 

Analysis and problem solving is required to carry out various types of enquiries and analyses; environmental scans; quantitative and qualitative investigations; data analysis; validation; identification of gaps or unanticipated trends; conceptualization of solutions to analytical problems; and to identify requirements for new or revised methodologies, inspection systems or approaches.

 

Development of new mechanisms and tools to carry out monitoring, reviews and evaluation of inspection program policies are generally conducted within generally accepted and established conceptual/program/policy/legislative frameworks. These activities are particularly challenging during peak periods and during emergency investigations when demand for services exceeds capacity. Options to resolve this situation must be developed and recommendations presented to Veterinary Program Specialist/Advisor/Coordinator and National Veterinary Program Managers.

 

Effort

 

Psychological Effort

 

Effort is required to cope with numerous time and emotional pressures and fatigue caused by multiple work demands, when dealing with a variety of research and analysis projects at the same time and when dealing with sensitive issues; tight time frames, extended periods of concentration and complex analyses can cause pressure when conducting research and analysis; and concern over the significance of cases under review can cause anxiety and stress particularly during emergency investigations.

 

There is eye strain and repetitive stress associated with the prolonged use of computer keyboards.

 

Physical Effort

 

Sits at a desk for long periods to read, write and/or analyze data. Uses a computer and peripherals to create documents and graphics, send and receive e-mail, etc. Stands for prolonged periods (up to 1 hour at a time) while making presentations or attending meetings and conferences.

Sensory effort is required to concentrate on complex material or issues for prolonged periods of time on a daily basis

 

Working Conditions

 

The work is mainly performed in government office facilities which meet accepted standards for occupational health, safety and security. Exposure to office noise; competing demands; lack of control over the pace of work and exposure to glare from a computer screen can be expected.

 

Some travel is required and work must be performed in facilities which may not meet accepted standards. Domestic and international business travel is required, sometimes in inclement weather and inspection of farms, laboratories, abattoirs, rendering plants or other third party premises is required (foreign inspections both within or outside Canada) with their physical efforts & OSH/PPE requirements.