PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting
October 1-2, 2004 – Delta Hotel, Ottawa
Record of Proceedings
In Attendance:
Belley, Louis [QC]; Buday, Stan M [ON]; Butler, Debbie [ON]; Carberry, Geoff N [NL];
Carrière, Luc [NC]; Châteauneuf, Céline D [NC]; Chychul, Grace P [AB-NT-NU];
Czwarno, Michael R [MB]; Daviau, Debi [NC]; Davidson, Robert W [NB]; Dixon, Mike
[NB]; Evans, Bill [NC]; Farrah, Gary W [NB]; Hall, Helen [NB]; Hardie, Bond [AB-NT-
NU]; Hugh, Ron [NC]; Manz, Bonny [SK]; McGregor, Grant C. [BC-YT]; Proulx,
Claudette [NC]; Rogers, Wayne J [NS]; Schick, Paul [NC]; Temmerman, Ray J [MB];
Tisher, Thom [SK]; Umar-Khitab, Sohail A. [ON]
Guests:
Michele Demers, Vice-President, PIPSC
Ron Ramsay, DG of Strategic Organizational Readiness, Systems
Ron Meighan, A/Chief Client Solutions Officer, Systems
Bill Merklinger, DG of FAS Business Services Delivery
Tentative Agenda:
Day 1:
13:00–13:05 hrs: Opening comments from Robert Davidson, Chair
13:05–13:10 hrs: Introduction of Team and Guests
13:10–13:15 hrs: Opening Comments from Michele Demers, Vice-President
13:15–13:30 hrs: Approval of Minutes (meeting held June 14th, 2003)
13:30–14:30 hrs: FAS Update - Guest Speaker: Bill Merklinger
14:30–14:45 hrs: Health Break
15:00–16:00 hrs: Systems Update – Guest Speaker: Ron Ramsey
Day 2:
07:30–08:30 hrs: Team Breakfast
08:30–09:30 hrs: Team Members’ Roles
09:30–10:00 hrs: Update on Consultation Issues
• Call Centre Harmonization
• Union/Management Cooperation Working Group
• Electronic Bulletin Board / Access to Email Working Group
• Employment Equity Union/Management Consultation Committee
• Health and Safety Policy Committee Update
• CS, PG, EN Updates
• Regional Updates
10:00–10:15 hrs: Health Break
10:15–11:00 hrs: Update on Consultation Issues cont.
11:00–12:00 hrs: Brainstorming Session
12:00–13:00 hrs: Lunch
13:00–15:00 hrs: Consultation model development
15:00–15:15 hrs: Health Break
15:15–16:00 hrs: Wrap-Up and Action Items
16:00 hrs: Adjournment
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 1 of 28
Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.docRECORD of PROCEEDINGS – DAY 1 Call to Order: 13:10 Administrative Comments............................................................Lorraine Lachance Explained claim forms at the end of the binder. You are allowed to claim parking, mileage (.45 – Ont. and .46/km – Quebec). Meals covered, for event. Dinner is at 7:00 – Buffet. Breakfast is in the Victoria Room…please don’t buy breakfast. If you stay Saturday night, you are entitled to claim your dinner. Incidental expenses $17.50 per day (only 1 day for those from NCR). Envelope in binder will go directly to the Finance Section. DON’T call Lorraine if you don’t get your Money. Robert Davidson added that the salary was covered by the PIPSC FTE for National Consultation business, granted by Systems ADM. Exception report your time using on RC 9708 and Activity Code 436. Robert Davidson will send e-mail re salary compensation from the department to the team. Robert Davidson thanked Lorraine for her last-minute assistance for this meeting. He presented Lorraine with some flowers on behalf of the team to welcome her back as the administrator for our group. Robert also announced that Kathleen Foley passed away suddenly. Kathleen was our CEIU counterpart at the Systems National UMCC. He sent condolences to the CEIU VP on behalf of PIPSC. Introduction of Team and Guests ........................................................................... All Robert asked the group to introduce themselves to the rest of the team; each member gave their name and regional information which can be found in the attendance list above. Opening comments...............................................................Robert Davidson, Chair Robert started by indicating that he can’t do this alone. As such, Robert deeply appreciates the commitment from the group. We have a fairly versatile team that is going to meet the challenges that face us over the next couple of years. Robert will challenge us again at this meeting. There are a lot of things going on in the department that must be addressed together. Robert thanked Michèle Demers for her support. It is gratifying to know that Michèle has the confidence in our team to conduct business, and is there to support us when we need it. We look forward to continuing working with her. Robert is in his 2nd year as chair. He indicated that he is prepared to continue in this position for another term. We have gained a lot through consultation at the Systems UMCC. It has been a positive experience to sit at this table and get things done in a very short period of time. It has been a very rewarding experience in general. He stated that credit must be given to Ron Hugh and Mark Kohli for getting the consultation PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 2 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
process up and running, which has allowed Robert to continue to build on this base of respect and real consultation. Some of our successes we have enjoyed in Systems are the opening of competitions to branch staff across Canada, 2 FTE’s for consultation (one to be used by the chair, the other for the remainder of the team dealing with National issues).…we’ve gained many other things. Systems Orientation Sessions will go out to the Regions…PIPSC will be involved in these. Communications between the National Consultation Chairs at the Advisory Council are improving. A working group was formed and they have put forth a proposal to PIPSC to add ½ day to the AC meetings to allow the national chairs time to collaborate and communicate on consultation issues. Use the time this weekend to get to know each other and network with the team. It is important to remember that we represent all PIPSC members, not just CSs in the department. We will address the consultation model later in the meeting, and come up with a team plan for this in the coming days. Robert will offer up some portfolios to some of our members of the team to get engaged. There are a lot more things coming at us (i.e.: PSMA, Working Groups, Committees, Modernization, Systems Branch changes). Ron Ramsey and Robert have agreed to form a working group of project managers and some of our team members to review the proposed changes that are being developed that will affect our members in systems. It is going to be a very interesting year to say the least. Lorraine has done a super job putting the binder together… The minutes from last years meeting are not translated because they were not submitted early enough. These will be forwarded electronically once completed, and we will be more mindful of the deadlines the next time we meet. Opening Comments ....................................Michele Demers, PIPSC Vice-President Michele is happy to take part in parts of the meeting…she has some conflicts, but she will be here for as much as possible of our meeting. She is interested to hear how PIPSC can participate and support in consultation. Michele is happy to see that there are many more faces here and engaged in consultation and becoming part of the process. Robert Davidson has been a fantastic chair of this team. He has taken the portfolio, opened communications between himself and the department, stewards, and PIPSC. Thanks to Robert for the great job he is doing. There is a lot going on in Government. There has been a flavour of shared services. There will be a great impact on our members. Consultation is the perfect forum for receiving information and providing input and feedback to members. Consultation means a variety of things to a variety of people. The employer believed that giving presentations and information was consultation. PIPSC believes that this should be a communicative and open environment that fosters discussion, input, exchange of ideas, compromise, etc… SDC/HRSDC is one department that seems to be doing better at Consultation (more inclusive). PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 3 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Consultation can be very complex…it is not just meeting a couple of times a year and
throwing the current issues on the table. One of the challenges for PIPSC
representatives at consultation tables is the wide variety of knowledge that they are
expected to have. They must become subject-matter experts, review reams of written
documentation, view a multitude of decks, comprehend various issues, ask intelligent
questions, elaborate positions, figure out the employer’s angle, protect the members’
interests, find the what’s in it for me, document our interests and concerns,
communicate back to the employer in a cohesive and comprehensive manner,
communicate with the members to obtain feedback, all of this recognizing that our
representatives are volunteers with full time jobs. We represent intelligent people. 22
National consultation teams, and 55 Regional teams…and we want to continue to grow.
This is a challenge that the institute faces. Consultation is an opportunity to improve
relationships, motivation, productivity, systems, and workplace well being.
Michèle read the Steward’s Plea, that all of us can relate to. I have attached the plea in
one of the supporting documents.
I hope we have a fruitful and productive meeting.
Approval of Minutes (meeting held June 14th, 2003 ............................................. All
Motion made by Grace Chychul, seconded by Claudette Proulx to approve the minutes
from the previous team meeting held June 14th, 2003.
Motion Carried
FAS Update ................................................................Guest Speaker: Bill Merklinger
Bill introduced himself as a member of the FAS Branch – SDC, NCR
Thanks for inviting me. I cover 10 regions providing shared services to SDC and
HRSDC serving 20,000 clients. There are about 2,500 members of FAS…1500 at
NHQ. He has been doing the job for about 9 months and his here to learn from us.
The main goal of FAS is to provide service to Canadians. We are an enabling function.
There are Five Priorities in FAS as follows:
1. Client Services:
• We exist to provide services to ministers, DMs and programs that serve
Canadians.
• In regions, without Corporate Service workers, the rest of the staff cannot serve
properly.
2. Legal and Appropriate activity
• Maintain trust of government and citizens)
3. Economy
• Rumours about FAS layoffs are NOT true, but we are under enormous pressure
to reduce our budgets.
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 4 of 28
Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc• We plan to work cheaper and faster (Business Process Reengineering) to offer
the same service for less.
• Standard equipment to save money (Paperless office – 40,000 paper forms were
filled out prior to it’s implementation)
4. Business Process Reengineering
• How can we do things differently?
• Bill used the example of E-bay to describe ESC (Electronic Supply Chain) in
PWGSC, which is a streamlined procurement of goods and services.
5. Outreach – to clients and staff.
• What are the needs of clients and staff?
• This means talking, having lunch, and receiving constructive ideas.
• It is very important that we work with the Unions and staff to figure out what
people want.
Relationships are vital to the smooth functioning in the workplace. Thanks to Robert
Davidson for talking to him and inviting him to talk to us today, it is important to promote
functional links.
Changes to generic positions are for future competitions. Moving towards an openness
transparency in procurement and competitions and staffing. It will take a while before
they work up a working draft proposal. They will consult with the unions once a draft is
in place.
Question 1:
Newfoundland – Will PGs be converted to AS category?
Response 1:
Bill will follow up on this and get back to Robert with the answer.
Question 2:
In NCR, will FAS be converting those in the CS group to PGs?
Response 2:
No, they are different, specialized roles…he knows this because he lives with a CS.
Comment:
Ensure that you are informed of the difference between common and generic job
descriptions.
Question 3:
In elaborating work descriptions for future use, is this in conjunction with the CIOs or
simply internally?
Response 3:
Bill advised that this was an internal exercise only.
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 5 of 28
Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.docMichèle Demers suggested that he taps into PIPSC when looking externally on work descriptions. Question 4: You mentioned the Government-wide procurement review, and plans for departmental committees on this. Will you seek regional and hands-on involvement on these committees to ensure that employees who are doing the job are heard? Response 4: It is exciting to look at national common approach, but it is being led by PWGSC. SDC has asked to explore this option with them, but we are only evaluating right now. Such an approach would only be implemented in Dec 2005 at the earliest. Bill will share the deck with the team as there is nothing secret in there. Question 5: There is a concept paper on the Internet that states that PGs will report to PWGSC. Is this the plan? Response 5: That is not our plan. FAS Contract management team will only look at cheaper ways of doing business. There have still been no discussions with PWGSC regarding changes in reporting relationships etc… Most cuts occur in non-salary items; therefore we must cut down operating costs so that we still have budgets for non-salary items like training. Question 6: Professional Development must be improved to bring in new and qualified people. How will you implement this initiative during the FAS changes? Response 6: I can’t speak regarding labour relations, but we respect labour relations and are looking for win-win scenarios. We will conduct the changes in a civilized manner. We do not have direct control over Professional Development and those items negotiated during Collective Bargaining. Bill will forward any unanswered questions to Robert Davidson to be shared with the team. Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today. Systems Update ...........................................................Guest Speaker: Ron Ramsey Thank you for the invitation. I was not your first choice, or even your second choice, but I’m it! On behalf of Serge Rainville and Andy Netzel, apologies for not being able to attend, however they hold this meeting in high-importance. Ron has the knowledge necessary to speak to us about the structure and transition of the Systems Branch. This has been a journey that started many years ago, but was accelerated due to split of the department. Prior to split, we had made changes to CS community in the PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 6 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
regions. All CSs were now reporting into Regional Headquarters in order to get some consistency across the departments. In the regions they would report to the director in charge of corporate services. NCR and Quebec are different due to the fact that there are CS5s already in these regions. With the 11 generic job descriptions, we’ve laid the foundation for 95 percent of CS Employees have “generic descriptions”. Once we had a sense of Enterprise level management, Ron Ramsey and Andy Netzel, along with directors in FAS and HR, met to come up with an idea of a model. The model looked at what the important Service Offerings to our clients in the regions were. We identified Desktop support, infrastructure, project planning, Web, and Information Management. Ron Ramsey introduced Ron Meighan. Ron Meighan has just been appointed the acting Chief Client Services Officer replacing Andy Netzel. Ron will be the new management co-chair of the Systems UMCC in place of Andy. Looking at CS-04 and down to see what kind of organizational structure can we put in place to offer to our clients? Three main services were identified: Client Services, Technical Services, Integration and Planning Services or softer services (learning, project planning, etc..). If we came up with service offerings that didn’t fit, we examined at how they might fit into this model. Some of these anomalies are Telecommunications, Applications Services, Web workers and IT Security. Systems obtained the Telecom people in the realignment. Classifications are majority AS. Learning Services and Web-workers also did not fit into those three main offerings. Security was not as well understood as some of the other activities and was being done differently in each region and office. They are moving forward anyway, and put working groups together to address these anomalies. Questions 1: Has there been any reach out to union representatives on this realignment of services? Response 1: Ron Ramsey admitted that they have not done a very good job at this so far, but indicated that he would work with the unions in the future. It was not part of the culture of the organization at that time. Question 2: How will the movement of telecom into Systems affect the job of the MSS. Will we take over support for phones? Response 2: Ron advised that there were a lot of differences in the way telecom was being done. Systems Branch is trying to set in policies, procedures, classifications and duties that they would expect in the service delivery of telecom. He does not know how it is going right now in each region, so we must continue to work as before until we are ready to realign this area. National plan is not yet implemented. The Enterprise way has been worked on for some time. Voice over IP shows the convergence of data and voice, so it makes sense to realign these technologies together (i.e.: telecomm work is more technical than ever before). It would not be to our advantage to water down the CS PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 7 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
position. We will not take that track. Telephones have become a Systems function, but we are not quite there. Question 3: If we are moving the Telecomm duties into systems, when do we consider classifications? Response 3: CS1 job description will be opened up and reviewed for Telecomm duties. This is in progress now. Question 4: What about AS and others that worked in Telephony years ago…will they be considered for reclassification? Response 4: It would depend on the work they will be doing. Question 5: If a CS wants to take a telecom course, will they be now able to? Response 5: Systems Branch training has been one of our major initiatives. Systems staff gets a whole variety of training. If we ask staff to perform the duties, than YES we will approve training. Question 6: Will AS be automatically converted to CS if they are doing Telecomm work? What if they don’t have the necessary skills of CS Professionals? Response 6: I am not prepared to say that AS will become CS. We will describe the job that we want done, and classify accordingly. The differences in the regions do not allow for a blanket decision on this. There could be a mixture of CS and AS according to function, but technology may change the mixture as we go. Many Telecomm people are doing more than just Telecomm, so we could have some AS for billing and other administrative type duties. Question 7: Copiers and Fax machines – will they become part of this? Response 7: I am not aware of the answer to this. It may be that if it were a Network device it would be included (at least on connectivity). PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 8 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Question 8: Generic Descriptions are problematic, and should be converted to common descriptions. Telecomm used to include the Meridian switches and software. MSS used to support and get trained on this. Response 8: Data Systems network does belong to Systems but Ron doesn’t know the answer to this specific question. Voice over IP will mean a radical change in the way we do business. Comment: Training should be mandatory. What will we do in areas where there is no money for career development training? This will get nasty at one point. Comment: We used to say …If it whirs, blinks, buzzes, or doesn’t when it’s supposed to, it’s your job. Question 9: I am concerned with opening up the work description and adding more to an already overflowing description. With growing generic descriptions, how will we get trained for all of the items in the description…in case I am asked to perform these tasks? Response 9: The description should recognize the work that we do…therefore adding to the descriptions is an advantage to employees. Comment: We are expected to perform ALL the duties of the job in order to collect the pay. This is problematic in classification grievances. Question 10: Will the formal training or experience requirements be lowered due to inclusion of telcomm group in the CS category? Response 10: CS will only do the technical portion of the job. They will be cognisant of the fact that we don’t want to water-down the skill requirements of the job. Ron Ramsey continues the presentation… Telecomm was already addressed in question period. Application Development: There are about 50 CS engaged in application development for business units located in the region as per business requirements unique to the region. The Enterprise view believes that we should not have uniquely programmed applications. We asked why all regions wouldn’t benefit from the solutions to business problems. We want to eliminate the uniqueness of regional applications, and take a more national approach to solving business problems. There are no new regional applications, but we continue to support PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 9 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
the old ones. There were 5 locations in which we had regional application development happening. These are BC, Ontario, Quebec, NB, and Newfoundland NF. We took an in depth look at the unique applications and where we wanted to go with these. Existing regional applications groups were in 5 provinces. We wanted to associate the existing employee expertise and supplement them so that we could have a critical mass of employees in these teams. We will form 5 new National applications groups. These will be in Vancouver, Montreal, Belleville (TO), Moncton (Bathurst), and St. Johns Newfoundland. The plan is to make teams of 15-20 each, and these groups would report nationally up to a CS-05 at NHQ. It will take a number of months to put these into full production. We must first get them aligned with a unique business area, separate systems for different areas so that we can allow groups to focus on one application. Question 11: Will applications follow release processes? Will they follow same standards and recovery plans? Response 11: YES. They follow standard ANPR, and CIR Processes. Application Development is not the Operation of a system. The system is hosted elsewhere and is continuing as usual. Standards and Procedures for these should stay the same…or get better. Question 12: Congratulate management for doing this, moving official applications groups in the regions. Worried that programmers in NCR will not be the higher levels and wants ensure that everyone is on par and equal in these groups. Response 12: We will classify the positions according to the work you do, not by where you are located. If you are expected to do something, than you will be compensated for it. Opportunities in each group for all levels because various functions will fall into these groups (i.e.: development, testing, QA, etc…) Ron indicated that he is committed to this, and the proof is that he is here with us today. Question 13: Not entirely happy with the establishments of the application groups in their current locations. Alberta and other provinces that followed the rules years ago stopped doing regional development. There is a sense in those regions by members that they have been punished. Had we not stopped years ago it is possible we would have had more programmers in the region which would have put those regions in the running. A point to note is that in the last year in Alberta we have had 2 programmers in WFA or red circle situations as a result of following those rules. Response 13: Structure of department allowed for regional decisions to be made by the regional head…this has now changed. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 10 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Question 14: What will happen to the people that we have put aside because they didn’t fit into the model (i.e.: training specialists, web peoples, etc…)? Response 14: We will get to these people in the next presentations? Question 15: Will there be competitions to staff applications groups? Response 15: There will be no net gain within the systems branch. We are not creating new opportunities, but shifting resources into these groups. There are people who are doing these jobs; our plan would be to seek interest on who would be interested in taking on one of these applications jobs. It would be done openly and transparently with HR assistance. Ron Meighan and his staff are looking into an open and transparent process, but not competition. This may be done with one-offs…one initiative to communicate with all to gain interest to fill those positions. Question 16: Will there also be no net loss? Response 16: We expect there will be no net loss…we are just shifting people around. Question 17: Will there be any virtual opportunities in Application Groups (i.e.: people that work in a non-designated application area but report to one of these teams)? Response 17: We will look at this possibility. We’re not designed to exclude this work arrangement. Manager could decide if it was appropriate and effective. These are not different positions or teams than the virtual teams we have in place in NCR now. Ron Ramsey continues the presentation… IT Learning Services: There were 4 People who are uniquely identified as IT Learning Specialists. They are in BC, Ontario, and there are 2 in New Brunswick. Their job and development is better suited if they are collectively part of the national ITLS group headed by Rosa Gavalucci. They would stay in their current location reporting to the National Team. That’s about as far as I have gone with this. I expect that these individuals have been spoken with to some degree. Ron will meet with Rosa on this…this item is a little behind the others. Robert Davidson suggested that since it is only 4 people, the branch bring them to Ottawa for a face-to-face. Ron Ramsey believes that Duc-Chi Tran did have a conference call with the individuals, but Ron agrees that you need this personal connection. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 11 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Web-Workers: These are not the people who write applications, and not people who run web file servers. It is more those who use the web tools etc…but not web content. (i.e.: extract content and display for internal and external clients. I am the least studied on this particular topic. There are 16 CS in that community. During transition to shared services, there may be others that were not transitioned, but were likely the content folks. Ron, Susan Donovan-Brown, and Roger Charron will meet soon to talk about what to do with this group. What is the best fit for these people? We need to totally understand the job (what they do) in order to best organize the function (regional/national, etc…). We are not too far along on this file. Question 18: We have IS in organization, are they going to stay were they are or come into Systems? Response 18: We have no specific plans for this and have not had discussions on this. Question 19: With the technology that is at our disposal, and the approach of the virtual way of working, I can’t help but think that we could potentially come full-circle to where we were 10 years ago. We used to have CS in every office but could not afford this. We could now put a CS1 in every office, doing on-site support part-time, and working on the virtual service desk for the rest of the time Response 19: We are moving the way of virtual working arrangements, and I agree that it could potentially go this way. Thanks for indulging me, and a little bit of my humour. Thanks to the team for this and your dedication to the union. You should be applauded for your commitment. Good luck with your meeting. Wrap-up Day #1 ...............................................................................Robert Davidson: Breakfast 7:30-8:30 – Meeting does not start until 8:30am Tonight – Dinner in Confederation room from 7-9pm. Networking event from 9-11:30pm Homework: As you are talking, talk about current consultation with REHs (is it practical, should we continue doing it? Will we have a standardized model or exceptions by region? Talk about RUMCC, Employment Equity committees and ask can we continue? What is the best way to go forth? Discuss Regional Health and Safety) Remember we must use resources effectively, not to burn out Stewards. With regards to both Departments, Nationally, the employer is keeping one committee. We will do what works best for us. We are not certain about possible splits in PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 12 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
committees yet. Wayne Rogers indicated that the National Health and Safety Policy committee will continue as one until at least Mar.05 at which time they will revisit the possibility of splitting. Legal advice says that there is no real problems having a committee represent both departments. Question: Can we use PSAC – Employer agreements? (Ie: 1 day per week) Specifically tied to office that the rep holds? Response: Robert cautions us when referring to these types of arrangements. We don’t want to inadvertently sabotage with what they have. Due to our workload, we should we be mentoring and training new people to take up the slack. RECORD of PROCEEDINGS – DAY 2 Call to Order: 08:45 Team Members’ Roles ..........................................................led by Robert Davidson Good morning. This morning I want to challenge you as follows: Table by table – stand-up and answer 2 questions: • What is your PIPSC involvement? • Why is consultation important (i.e.: Why do you want to be involved?)? Each member talked and Helen Hall recorded on flip-charts: • The numbers for PIPSC involvement in committees etc…, • Reasons why consultation is important. These documents are attached to the proceedings package Robert Davidson: As you can see, we have a very busy group. We are involved in many areas of PIPSC. How are we going to get involved in other initiatives? We need to do some serious recruitment for our team! We cannot put the responsibility on PIPSC, or the Groups, to do this for us. We must do this ourselves. We also need to make a real effort to get outside the CS group and recruit other members from the department. We must represent all of our groups at the table. If we can recruit members of other groups, it will only make us stronger. We do have some other members here today, so let’s build on that. We must remember to represent both departments (SDC / HRSDC) until such a time that they split the departments from the top. Our national team will deal with it at that time. In your recruitment efforts, it does not matter which of the two departments they are from. Consultation model development........................................led by Robert Davidson This item was bumped up from the afternoon session due to its importance and priority. We are going to talk about the new model. Because of the major changes in reporting in Systems, we had to sit down and decide what the best fit for our Systems members are. This should be a model to coexist with what we have now…not to replace it. EE PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 13 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
and Health and Safety Committees we are putting aside from this model. We will now concentrate on RUMCC structure. Give your opinion and reasoning regarding consultation at this level, and then we will move on. The best solution may be not to paint all regions with the same brush. Each representative at a regional table should make that decision for themselves. Robert asks that you send him an e-mail indicating whether you will stay at the RUMCC table or not, including the justification for staying at a table. Grace Chychul suggested we have a show of hands of those who want to stay at the table. Michael Czwarno commented that he pulled away from the Regional table. Michael set up a “provincial” UMCC with the RSM…and thinks they will accomplish their CS goals with that provincial consultation. Robert Davidson added that we must also remember HRSDC who still reports up to the REH. If we have members in this department, they must also be represented. It has not been decided that RSMs will sit at the RUMCC table. We cannot tell them to do so. Louis Belley commented that in the Quebec region, the ADM asked that we continue to be present at the regional table to address the members’ needs. Helen Hall commented that we could we start out by getting a list of members who are with HRSDC so that we can focus recruitment on this. Robert Davidson indicated that he could share the electronic list, which is a breakdown of the two departments. They gave us numbers only. HRSDC has approximately 42 PIPSC members (35 eng, 6 CS) that we know about. Robert indicated that if you want to stay at a table, just give us a reason so that we can be accountable to PIPSC for it. Make sure you have a legitimate reason to go either way. At the end of the day, this team will decide. Robert will not decide for us. Whatever your decision, Robert will back you up 100%. Grace Chychul asked the group to minimize acronyms for the purpose of effective simultaneous translation. Helen Hall asked if it would be possible for the employer to provide a numerical breakdown by region. Robert indicated that the statistics that he has are by department, by region. The list is not totally accurate during the transition. Michael Czwarno indicated that in his region, all PGs went to SDC, with the exception of one vacant position. Geoff Carberry asked if there was there a rational for the 6 CSs in HRSDC. Robert Davidson responded that they requested to stay. They felt that their current place in HRSDC was the best fit for them in the new organization. Michael Czwarno asked what was happening with Labour. They used to sit at RUMCC, but they have unofficially disappeared from this table. He presumed it is because they are setting up a new consultation structure. Robert Davidson indicated that there has PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 14 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
been no official word on that yet. Labour has a DM and if at some time in the future there are future splits they may very well have their own consultation. Until we get the word that this is a new reality, we will continue down the same path. Michael then asked if Robert had heard that they were setting up a mirrored consultation. Robert replied that they had not been given this information at the national level. Wayne Rogers commented that there is a Labour RUMCC in Ottawa because the national tables are there. We must determine what is most effective for our members. Shared services and indirect reporting relationships make things more complex. We should stay at the table to continue our initiatives. Bonnie Manz commented that in Saskatchewan, both departments are still at the same table. Sohail Umar-Khitab added that we can’t do anything if we are not there. At a minimum, we get information sharing. Geoff Carberry commented that RUMCC gives us access to other directors, which is important because 90% of RUMCC issues are staffing issues. This is the only table that he sits at with regional Staffing Director. At the table, he does not get brushed off. The REH may even demand that things happen. Grace Chychul feels torn on this issue. In her region there is only 2 stewards. All of the people they represent (except 2 PGs) report to the same person. One valuable thing at the RUMCC table is to get an understanding of the things that affect the staff and thus our members. Also, the connection with other unions is very valuable. I do not want to see us in a silo, with only PIPSC at meetings. We don’t always agree with other unions, but their input can be very valuable to the process. Other unions would be upset if we left the table. If we remove ourselves, we need to find other ways to keep this connection. Bill Evans asked to have the regional HR director to sit at the RUMCC table. They will be there and not at the new Systems (RSM) table. Also Regional Safety and Health Policy and others report to RUMCC therefore we would miss out on that report. Michael Czwarno commented that he sits on both the EE and regional policy health and Safety committee for Manitoba. In many respects, the only difference is not being at the RUMCC table. Robert Davidson thanked everyone for the input and food for thought to take back. Robert would like regional table reps to send their decision and justification within 2 weeks from today. Check the Bio’s and org chart, and let Debi know if there are changes to the information so that we can post these on the web with correct information. One point, which Wayne Rogers and others have made; if you are going to this table with other union reps, it is important to do a labour caucus before the meeting. Sohail PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 15 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Umar-Khitab suggests calling other reps a couple of weeks before hand, to discuss issues. A pre-meeting caucus could be going over final details and changes. Bonnie Manz added that after starting a labour caucus, she now has solid relationships with other bargaining agent representatives in her area. Bill Evans commented that we should have guidelines, or terms of reference, to determine what will be dealt with at each table. Robert Davidson commented that issues could be raised at both tables if there is something you can do about an item there. We must keep the communications flow going to ensure that we are doing the right things. Departments talk to each other, and unite on decisions; we need to do the same. The AC is composed of a Director, Chair, Group Chairs and National Consultation Team Chairs. We had a working group from among the consultation chairs that developed a business case to have ½ day meeting before advisory council meeting. This report was presented to the BOD in September and we are waiting for the decision. If this request is approved it will enable us to have cross-department conversations about consultation so we can all bring the common issues to all tables and plan a common strategy. Michael Czwarno commented that he thinks its worthwhile sitting at the RUMCC as an observer. He does not represent anyone there, but at least he can get the information. Geoff Carberry suggested that we use PIPSC mail a lot more than we do. Grace and Debi will look into checking the PIPSC mail consultation team list to ensure it is up to date. Grace Chychul suggested that issues that are regionally sensitive could be raised at other regional tables to ensure that a member is protected when they share information. With the talk about the AC, Grace wanted to remind the group that the CS Group has a Labour Relations officer, Helen Hall. It is imperative that we communicate with Helen Hall on this. Regarding recruitment, bring members as observers to meetings and you can get them involved in that way. You can do this with several people and might get a few more people involved. Systems Branch New UMCC Framework ....................................... Robert Davidson Because the Systems branch has changed dramatically, our consultation team must also change dramatically. The 5-region hub-and-spoke model that has been discussed by Corporate Services branches has not yet been accepted. Names of people who may be occupying the new positions have not been provided to us yet. But, we know it’s coming. We have had issues with communications with the Systems Branch at Regional levels. Robert is getting information at the National Level, and 3-4 weeks later the message would come at the regional level, and is not what was said at the National table (i.e.: applications groups). It is clear that Consultation is working at the upper level, but not as effectively at the lower levels. We are now going out to the regions to set up some new consultation tables (with RSM) to clarify the hierarchy for consultation. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 16 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
To show their commitment to consultation, Andy Netzel suggested sending Ron Ramsey to go with Robert to the regions to assist in the process. Ron is there to demonstrate the support of this initiative by National systems. They will be going to each province to set up a Provincial UMCC with RSMs. If there are members of other bargaining agents in the region that report to Systems, they will be invited to send a rep to these tables. Eastern Canada is done, and now they are moving westward. Manitoba is next, and then to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC. Ontario and Quebec may not be the same model due to the structures of the regions. We are not yet sure we need both tables. ITCs and Application Dev. Managers have been invited to be at the table. We see no requirement of having three separate tables. These new UMCC tables will be supported fully by the National level. The National SDC/HRSDC UMCC Framework applies to all new consultation committees. This includes the Guiding Principles for UMCC. This is the framework adopted by former HRDC at National level. Every committee should be structured on this framework. Sohail Umar-Khitab mentioned that issues that don’t get resolved in a timely manner should be escalated. Robert replied that this is true, and you should inform the committee at the current level that you are escalating an item. Don’t be afraid to contact the employer between formal meetings to address urgent issues (matters that must be dealt with quickly). This does not apply to every issue as we do not want to over extend this, but the urgent ones are OK. Don’t allow issues to drag on at one level, try and resolve it in one or two meetings. If it can’t be resolved then move the issue up to the next level. Grace Chychul asked if Robert had recommendations on how often to do consultation. Robert responded that for the new Systems branch structure, you should meet frequently at first. At national level, we meet monthly because there are too many things happening. Start off monthly, and then when things settle down, you can ease off a little bit. Terms of Reference should still specify how often, but also include “or as required” to ensure that the frequency is not set in stone. Geoff Carberry commented that the topics that are going to be covered at this table are much more granular. Much more “in the office” matters will be covered here than at the REH meetings. Monthly meetings sound good. Debi Daviau commented that you can decide not to hold meetings as well if there is no need, or to take a break if required. Helen Hall would like to invite anybody who would like to comment on the portfolio of CS Labour Relations to send an e-mail to her directly. Helen also indicated that she would like to sit on Systems UMCC at least once as a good Labour Relations exercise. Robert thinks that this would be a good idea. He has no issues with bringing others to any consultation meeting. If you are going to be in Ottawa when here is a scheduled National meeting, give him a call to let him know you would like to attend. He just requires some advance notice so he can advise the co-chairs. Michael Czwarno suggested that perhaps the CS site and PIPSC site should list all meetings in advance. The page may need some restructuring to accommodate this. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 17 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Louis Belley inquired about private consultation issues? How will we address these with guests at the table? Robert responded that we could notify the co-chairs that a guest will attend. If there are closed issues, they can be addressed as closed session, and the guest asked to leave for that period. Robert informed the team that October 26th, 2004 is the next HRUMCC. PSAC may not be there but the employer has not cancelled the meeting yet. PIPSC has 2 representatives at HRUMCC. This committee is doing almost all of departmental-level work for the department. Robert told the co-chairs of the HRUMCC that we are volunteers and did not have the time to do this alone. Thus, Sohail and Robert both sit on that committee because there is a tremendous amount of work generated from this committee. The Guiding Principles of consultation document included in the binder refers to time for consultation, prep time, and follow-up time. These were developed by the employer and the unions and were approved by the DM of HRDC. Every region across Canada was sent these with the recommendation that these should be used as the principles for consultation. If your committee is not using these principles, suggest that they be revisited. Geoff Carberry indicated that regionally, they had done a statement of cooperation; Geoff will provide this to Debi Daviau to get sent out to the team. Robert Davidson updated us on the access to email issue. The department has received advice from TB that they not allow access to email for union business. The request that we had made for using email seems to have been misunderstood. The impression was unions wanted free access to use email with no vetting of messages, bulk email delivery and translation would have to be done by the department. This was not nor never has been the intention. We want access to email to contact members when required to discuss union/management consultation issues. The contacts would not be mass mailings nor would they be discussing issues outside the umbrella of consultation. The employer has offered to establish an Electronic Bulletin Board for the unions so that messages relating to union business can be posted on this site. The employer would include a link to the message in the weekly all staff email. This is a step in the right direction as it allows us to communicate to all our members without having to rely on mass emails, mail outs, etc. Include on this Bulletin Board will be links to the union web sites. All messages that are to be posted must be sent to an authorized author who will have software installed on their pc to format the document properly for posting as well as automatically sending the message to the employer for posting. All messages will be vetted by the employer as per our collective agreements. This still does not preclude our desire to have email access for consultation issues. There are times that I need to discuss issues with team members in a timely fashion and email is the most practical method I have at my disposal. I will be drafting a new proposal in the near future to submit to the department and I will ensure that it is clearly defined exactly what it is we are requesting. This proposal will be directed to the Deputy Minister(s) of both departments. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 18 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Grace Chychul indicated that she still did not completely understand how it’s all going to fit in, and how the reporting lines will work with the new Systems Model for consultation. Robert responded by explaining that we now report up through NHQ, therefore we want the information to flow in the same manner (straight up and down). Because your RSM is who you report to, that is the first table that we set up. If the Systems Branch model is approved, then the next level up would be consultation with the Regional Director (CS5). Ontario and Quebec already has CS5, and NCR will be dealt with at a later date. There will be many issues, and thus we really need to start the process with the RSM. We will deal with the next pieces once we know where Systems is going. For now, unresolved issues at the Provincial level can now go straight to national because the regional table is not in place yet. Debi Daviau commented that we need a proper naming schematic to ensure that we are not miscommunicating with regards to work on these committees. Many of us are calling current committees by different names in each region. Robert Davidson thought it would be a good idea to come up with a name for the structure, being mindful of the existing names, to minimize confusion. We can do this by e-mail. Grace Chychul asked who will sit at the tables at various levels. How will we define how the decision for representation selection at tables will be made? Robert indicated that we can’t define it while things are still changing. Provincial representatives can appoint a spokesperson to go up to the national levels where necessary. For about the next hour we will be discussing the portfolios the working groups for PSMA and other initiatives. I will explain each of these portfolios, and describe what I expect and what I am looking for on each of them. Please notify Robert within 2 weeks from today (before Oct 16) with your desire to participate in any of these. The PSMA project is straightforward, but needs a “pet” name that we all can use. Systems branch has set up a working group because of all of the lack of information with LAN/Desktop strategy. The only thing we have is the skeleton of the LAN/Desktop strategy, but we have people going to Regions and making statements that were not clear. We determined that people are jumping the gun, and thus set up a working group of to meet with systems. You will be reviewing the details of the interlaced projects, and it will be a consultation group. We are to take the information and discuss with it with the team, and then provide our responses back to systems. We are going to have determine how these interlaced projects will impact on our members. Once this has been determined then the working group and systems need to sit and develop a clear picture for our members of what their job will be when these projects are all implemented. Question 1: In terms of writing a story or picture if you will, the CS group has taken a stand against generic descriptions, please remember this. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 19 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
Response 1: Point well taken Question 2: Are they doing it as a cost cutting and wont people be part of that cost ? Response 2: As of last Friday Andy said that it would not be a layoff exercise. As Bill Merklinger indicated yesterday, it is economic exercise and won’t be effecting human resources Michael Czwarno recommended that a democratic process can be used to decide who will be chair and move up to next level. Robert added that what we come up with will be the best fit for all of us. He reminded us that this does not address FAS people. Bonnie Manz and Robert are working on this. Michael Czwarno asked what the timeline is. When does it start? Robert indicated that if he can get agreement on names, we will send them to the department right away. The timeline is ASAP, but PSAC strikes may slow things down. We would like to get names today of people who have the time to get involved in the LAN/Desktop Strategy committee. Michael Czwarno informed the team that he knows a lot about classification and can be used as a resource to this committee. Geoff Carberry added that he expects this to be big! It could be full-time for 6 months or so. Robert indicated that we don’t know the details yet, as management doesn’t know either. We may not have the power to change things, but we can make recommendations. At the end of the day, we must work to ensure that nobody loses his or her job. Robert Davidson asked for a show of hands for volunteers for the LAN/Desktop Strategy working group. Geoff, Louis, Debi, Ray, Debbie, and Grace showed their interest in this committee. Robert will get back to us early next week and let us know how we will work it out. It may be a monster, but it is important that we get on board and get our players in order. Grace Chychul added that we should have some procedures for reporting back to the committee. Robert expects the working group to report to the team as a whole. Share the information with everybody on the team. Details of what the communications will be, and how it will be done, can be dealt with by the working group. Wayne Rogers reminded us that the Working groups are a sub-committee of this group and thus should report back to the team on a regular basis. Robert reminded us that Grace and Debi would check into the PIPSC distribution list for the team ASAP and advise the team. Let’s start to use it and ensure that it is functional in case we NEED it to communicate with each other someday. PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 20 of 28 Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.doc
There are other committees that require our participation as well. We want to
participate and the employer wants us to participate. Robert has listed the committees
and working groups on the flip charts, and would like us to think about whether we have
experience or desire to work on particular files. In the next couple of weeks, send your
preferences to Robert. If there are still vacancies, Robert will advise the team.
Michele Demers reminded the group not to do anything in isolation of the bigger picture.
She added that we must have cohesion in our approach to classification reform and
generic descriptions.
Departmental Committees:
1. Career Development:
In conjunction with what PIPSC and SDC/HRSDC are doing. We need some
details on this file. If you take it over, contact PIPSC and find out where we are
going on this. Grace added that the CS Group Executive has discussed career
development several times. They have also discussed, but not completed, a list
of things that we would like to have addressed by Stewards in consultation and
the workplace. The CS Group will communicate with the Stewards once this list
is completed.
2. Grievances
To keep an eye on this and keep tabs. Make sure that grievances don’t get lost
in the shuffle, and that the appropriate management representatives are showing
up for hearings. If you have hard questions, bring them to Robert Davidson for
clarification.
3. Health and Safety (Wayne Rogers)
Robert recommends that Wayne be the lead on this. It is important to have
representation at all of the OSH committees throughout the department. We may
create a Systems Health and Safety committee in the near future.
4. Recruitment
We need more bodies, especially in the regions. We must get on the phone,
invite to members to UMCC etc… Bring them out slowly…don’t scare them. We
would like more than just CS involved.
5. Communications:
Debi Daviau is currently doing the job. Grace has been a good help. If there is
anyone who wants to help, they would surely welcome it. Also, this committee
can start dealing with Electronic Bulletin Board that should be starting very soon.
If anything comes in for PIPSC, it must be vetted through Robert. Robert will
forward all submissions to the employer. The Employer then sends out a link to
the Bulletin Board posting to all staff in the weekly e-mail. This was a
compromise for the e-mail issue, but we are still pressing on use of e-mail.
6. Systems Structure Name:
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 21 of 28
Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.docWe need another naming convention to minimize confusion with existing
structures. This committee could look into the team recommendations about the
naming and provide recommendations.
7. Group Contact Portfolio:
Start contacting the groups in our departments (Chairs). Let them know who we
are and what we are doing. Ask them if there any issues that they want to have
raised. They can inform their members that we exist and what we are here for.
Let’s take the initiative and contact other groups and try to get feedback from
them.
8. PSMA Implementation:
See documents in the meeting binder. Read through this. The Employer wants
us to participate in the working groups and committees on PSMA. We asked to
be involved, and the department is challenging us with this. The groundwork
does not require a trip to Ottawa. Most communications will be by
teleconference or e-mail. There may be a need for a couple of meetings in
Ottawa as this progresses.
Michele Demers added that whoever volunteers for committees, should know that the
institute is participating in the Central committees on this, and they are preparing a tool
kit for representatives of these committees to ensure that the PIPSC position is well
defined for reps.
Michael Czwarno asked if we will we be seconded to these groups like management
reps. Robert indicated that we would not, but that we have been assured that we will
have time to prepare and work on these files without resistance from our management.
Robert asked that we send our interest in these committees to him by the middle of next
week. Geoff Carberry suggested posting sheets on the walls for sign-up. The results of
the sign-up sheets can be found in one of the Proceedings package documents.
Helen Hall asked if Robert wanted us to volunteer for the PSMA Committee or Working
Group or both. Robert said that we should not overextend ourselves. Submit your
name if you can do it. One per person is probably enough.
Grace Chychul commented that we should agree on the subject line standards to assist
in filtering the e-mail to the team regarding Committees and Working Groups status.
Michael Czwarno suggested more than one PIPSC address to organize Institute mail
Robert Davidson suggested that Communications will formulate a plan for the
management of large amount of communications on various topics.
PIPSC SDC/HRSDC National Consultation Team Meeting Page 22 of 28
Minutes of Team meeting - Oct1-2 2004.docYou can also read
