technical inspectors

Chronology of TI-06 Classification Grievances

A number of members filed grievances regarding job content July 19, 1999. This grievance was denied at the 3rd level and file closed.

A new grievance was launched on May 15, 2000 again related to job content. This grievance was moved to the final level and linked to the original grievance filed in 1999. In May of 2002 it was referred to PSAC G&A for mediation.

On December 17, 2001 another grievance was presented on job content further to the 200-J-410 grievance filed on May 15.

The employer’s grievance response dated May 9, 2002 indicated that the functions of the position were not accurately reflected in the job description and that it would be amended. The grievors responded to the final level with further elaboration on the issues missed by the employer in their assessment of the job functions. An updated UCS job description was presented on May 13, 2004 by the employer. The grievors responded to the employer with a revised description on February 24, 2004.

An Adjudication hearing was scheduled for May 25-27, 2005 in Vancouver and actually took place on September 27, 2005. The final result of this process was a new job description and classification decision.

On August 15 the classification decision indicated no change to the group and level of the TI-06 positions.

On September 12, 2006 PSAC requested a third extension, this time to October 13, 2006, to reply to the Public Service Labour Relations Board regarding resolution of the grievances because the employer and the griever are close to finalizing a settlement.

On September 27, 2006 the grievor’s were informed by PSAC that the employer has refused to change the effective date of the work description.

September 19, 2006 - PSAC to advise employer that security level shown on new work description is incorrectly described as Reliability when it should be Secret.

On September 20, 2006 five additional grievances were presented:

1/ Classification grievance regarding classification decision;
2/ Staff relations grievance regarding effective date of new work description;
3/ Staff relations grievance regarding retroactive salary, terminable allowance and acting pay;
4/ Staff relations grievance regarding out-of-date benchmark position in TI classification standard;
5/ Staff relations grievance regarding CAI/TI pay difference for comparable and equivalent work.

The five grievances stem from the classification decision received for the new work description and all five are currently being held at Transport Canada's regional level.

The Union (UCTE) granted a further abeyance to all grievances pending the review of the current job description by all grievers that we have on file.

The employer has committed to ensuring that all members affected by the decision are informed and given copies of the rated job description. There will also be further consultation with UCTE at the national level regarding process and outcome. Members have received their job descriptions and are in the process of filing new grievances.

The Union has attempted to engage both Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board to resolve the current impasse through a mediation process to be conducted by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Strategy sessions are planned with UCTE, PSAC Classification Officers, PSAC Grievance and Adjudications branch as well as the negotiator for Table 3 in order to generate an action plan to deal with recent developments and future political activity.

January 16, 2007 – Letter to Honorable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

January 15, 2007 – New grievance campaign started.

January 5, 2007 – Letter from Gerard McDonald, Transportation Safety Board to Casper Bloom, Chair, Public Service Labour Relations Board.

December 29, 2006 – Letter from François Marion, Director HR Programs and Strategies to members.

November 21, 2006 – Human Resources Management Modernization Branch and The Leadership Network – Preliminary Classification Monitoring Report, Transportation Safety Board. Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.

May 25, 2005 – Interest-based discussion – Multi-group staffing and classification (AO and TI). Draft.
Multi-group (AO-TI) Staffing and Classification Action Plan – Prairie and Northern Region.

December 6, 2004 – Security meeting. Effectiveness review. Participation by Wayne Elliott. Discussion on AO and TI’s. Revision of AO was on-going. Work description was generic across programs. T1-8 – Managers (senior, report to EXs). TI-7 Step. TI-6 Working level.
TI5 – Dangerous goods, Cabin Safety, OSH. 1996-1997 grievances. Problem justifying 5-6. Concerned it might affect the TI6.

May 5, 2004 – Business Case proposal to change the AO classification standard. Issue: Modify the existing AO group classification standard, in particular the creation of the new Civil Aviation Management (CAM) sub-group so as to allow the classification of AO positions that are non-operational and managerial that is currently not possible with the existing standard.

December 11, 2003 - Co-development meeting. Focus on changes to the standard. What are we going to propose. Define “predominately managerial”. Only managerial excluded position.
Risk assessment completed and report received at end of November 2003. Analysis of classification options and implications is on-going. However, it is clear at this point that any changes will not affect any bargaining units’ positions. Business plan being developed for management approval and subsequent presentation to TBS early in 2004. Subject to TBS approval and implementation to follow. More information to follow on timeframe after presentation to TBS. Bargaining agents to speak with members to inform them of actions. Modify changes to classification .

December 9, 2003 – Co-development project: AO-CAI non-ops in Civil Aviation. Background: In support of the Union-management co-development project that is examining the possibility of creating a new “non-operational” distinction within the existing AO-CAI sub-group. In this context, certain AO-CAI non-operational positions are primarily managers of Civil Aviation programs that require an extensive knowledge of Civil Aviation regulatory and safety programs but without the prerequisite of a pilot’s license as is currently required by other “operational” AO-CAI positions.
The AO group and CAI sub-group definitions and inclusions serve well to classify the majority of both working level and supervisory/managerial positions within Civil Aviation. On the other hand, Civil Aviation organizations such as Systems Safety, Enforcement and Aerodrome Safety have program mandates that are delivered by a mix of occupational groups such as TI, GT, PM, AI and EN. Yet, these program areas have historically and continue to be managed almost uniquely ay AO-CAI positions.
The result of this existing classification decision has created a situation where subordinate working level and supervisory positions in other occupational groups, which report to these AO-CAI management positions, cannot compete or aspire to these managerial positions.

As well, over time, the existing AO allocation has increasingly come under scrutiny by managers and employees from other groups (and Unions) that see some of these AO jobs as both technical and strongly managerial in nature and such, the existing AO allocation has been questioned.
Steps required to change and implement the AO-CAI sub-group:
1) Develop proposed changes to the existing Classification Standard.
2) Develop proposed changes to the existing Staffing Selection Standard.
3) With the approval of senior TC Management, develop a business case for the proposed changes to the AO-CAI sub-group.
4) Present the Business case to the TBS for their approval.
5) If approved by the TBS, proposed changes to Classification Standard and Staffing Selection Standard are formalized by TBS.
6) TBS and CFPA Union negotiate a collective agreement for the new “non-ops” AO-CAI sub-group.
7) Transport Canada then proceeds to implement the non-ops AO-CAI sub-group.

November 26-27, 2003 - Co-development meeting. On the agenda were the following items: Risk Assessment Analysis and Aircraft Operations Group (AO).

November 20, 2003 – Co-development risk assessment. Draft version. Risk scenarios based outside of original working assumptions. Additional info includes the definition and guidelines for determining acceptable combination of education, training and experience as a mitigation method. W orking group was convened by the Co-Development Committee to assess the risks associated with appointing a non-pilot to an AO-CAI-5 management position. Three positions were evaluated. The team reviewed the current UCS job descriptions for the three positions and their associated delegation of Authority. Key activities, skills and knowledge were reviewed and the majority were determined to be general managerial and not specific to one classification.

November 11, 2003 - Standards for Selection and Assessment – Section 2: Group Specific Standards.

October 27, 2003 – Co-development meeting. Discussion of standards (AO classification), pay equity. Issues are as follows: Safety – professional qualifications, Training and delegation of authority, Qualifications, Delegation, Classification, Technical or erosion of current knowledge.
Admin – who is it open to, pay equity, Classification and work description, other BA interests, Acting pay, career progression, staffing relations issues. Treasury Board – PSC, work description, classification, acting pay. PSC – selection standards.

October 19, 2003 – Classification of Regional Management Positions. Transport Canada Civil Aviation, CFPA, UCTE co-development initiative. Issues include: Is there a way to broaden the pool of management candidates available to staff regional management positions? What can be done to assure all employees of differing classifications have access to Civil Aviation regional management positions? Can employee career opportunity be equally encouraging for all classifications? Is there a way that employees of differing classifications could be paid equally for performing essentially the same duties? Can employees of differing classifications serve in management positions without eroding technical competencies for the branch or division?

October 14, 2003 – Discussion paper: Classification analysis of civil aviation AO-CAI positions. Objective is to review the current AO-CAI classification group and sub-group allocation used to classify the large majority of positions within the Civil Aviation program and examine various issues that impact this existing classification and to evaluate various possible options. The final recommendation is to accept Option 4. This option provides the for the following: a new group applicable to all TC regulatory inspector positions that will resolve the current issue and be applicable to all occupational groups within Safety and Security. Furthermore it will not require the development of a new classification standard that is complex, long and drawn-out process. Any change to the classification standard and the selection standard are primarily contained within TC and TSB. Greatly reduces the pay gap between AO and other groups within TC. Obtaining TBS approval is more probable.

October 8, 2003 – Discussion paper: Process outline for Amending Standards for selection and assessment. A request has been received to provide information regarding the steps and timeframes involved in changing the Pubic Service Commission (PSC) Standards for Selection and Assessment (SSA) of the Aircraft Operations (AO) group.
This is related to a change in the TBS Classification standard. The resulting required change to the group specific SSA for the AO group, and especially the AO-CAI sub-group, would result in a change to the occupational certification requirement so that the requirement would become related to requirements of the position.

October 7, 2003 – Follow-up from Vancouver meeting. Main messages include:
CA Management and leaders of the national CFPA and UCTE unions have agreed to enter into a co-development process to explore options for the classification and staffing of selected excluded regional management positions in the Pacific region, namely the position of Regional Manager, Aviation Enforcement: Regional Manager, Systems Safety and Regional Manager, Aerodrome Safety & ANS and Airspace.

The co-development process can be defined as a labour-management relations process, based on voluntary participation, designed to allow the equal participation of the parties to produce a desired product. For this initiative, the desired product is the classification and staffing processes.

October 2, 2003 - Rates of pay for CA RD positions in Pacific Region and the pay rates associated with those positions along with the FTE’s under the Org chart. The RD M&M has the greatest number of FTEs indicating that position manages the most complex organization in CIV AV Pacific while being compensated the least amount in salary and allowances. Pay for work of equal or greater value and the gross pay disparity reflected in this chart only supports the need for TC to reintroduce the Senior Manager classification, or something similar within the Public Service. Doing so would afford the writing of a job description specific only to the role of all RM within Civil Aviation and allow the employer the opportunity to remove any occupational specific references to pilots, AMEs, Engineers, etc from the current position descriptions and focus on the managerial responsibilities. (David Lee email)

September 22, 2003 – Transport Canada document/presentation - Classification of Civil Aviation’s regional management positions .. a co-development initiative. Civil Aviation: Pacific Region.

September 22, 2003 – All operational staff meeting conducted in Vancouver to announce to Pacific Region staff, the agreement to enter into a co-development process with Civil Aviation, CFPA and UCTE.
The Pacific Region was chosen to lead this initiative due to current vacancies. It was also recognized that the outcome of the process would no doubt have national implications. These would be addressed as part of the co-development process.
The RDCA agreed not to put differing classifications into acting position for the duration of the process. Only CAIs would perform acting CAI responsibilities.

September 22, 2003 – Terms of reference for the Co-development initiative.

July 2003 – Co-development in the Public Service of Canada. Public Service Commission Advisory Council Working Group on Co-development.

March 2003 – Study and reference guide – Instrument Rating: Aeroplane and Helicopter. Transport Canada Safety and Security, Civil Aviation. TP-691-E.

Unknown author/presentation/meeting. No date:
What is or has been discussed as the definition of a “professional civil aviation qualifications?
What is the purpose of limiting the initiative to the Civil Av community?
What are the unions/managements thoughts to date on pay equity and classification?
Why was the initiative not extended to the other unions?
This initiative appears to have come about to address 3 specific issues/positions, yet the argument that all branches are now made up of different groups. Why then is this not extended to all branches? It appears to fix an immediate employer problem, but not necessarily a long-term equity problem.
Delegation can be restricted for all persons now. Why then is it a concern?
Is the direction to apply the initiative to the other positions?
What does the union have planned to ensure that this equity issue is resolved for all groups and branches, and reduce this silo effect?
What are the employer’s real needs that are driving this, and why is the union not being more proactive in inclusion of all members other than just TIs?
Work descriptions are an issue; will we have input into redrafting them?
What is the impact of the Pearce decision?
What role will Treasury Board have in any decision?
Why the emphasis on civil aviation qualification? This is not inclusion, rather contrived exclusion.
Qualifications and job descriptions should be written for the job. Then anyone who meets those, regardless of position, can apply for the position. This would also remove the restriction to certain unions and exclusivity.

2003-2006 – Diversity Action Plan. Transport Canada. TC is committed to providing a stimulating and attractive work environment for its current and future employees. The Department also wishes to be more responsive to the expectations of an increasingly diverse Canadian society. To this end, TC adopted a diversity strategy that will enable the department to achieve its goal of becoming an employer of choice within the next few years.

June 2003 - 2002 Public Service Survey –Update on Regional Priority Issues. TC Pacific region.

October 2002 – Study and Reference guide – Airline Transport Pilot license. Transport Canada Safety and Security, Civil Aviation. TP-690-E.

2001-2002 - Employment Equity Workforce Analysis. On December 5, 2001, TC conducted a Representation Census to rebuild its database of self-identified members of the designated groups. TC achieved a 97% return rate of the questionnaires, and all of the data was inputted into the TIPS data system by January 7, 2002. However, as an update to the data elements of the ESR is required to reflect the new data, it seemed logical to use the fiscal year to standardize the reports. Thus this workforce analysis was based on data from March 31, 2002.

2001-2002 – Employment Systems Review Update. In July 2000, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) undertook an Employment Equity audit of TC. The CHRC is required to audit all Federal departments under the Employment Equity Act. One of the elements under audit is the department’s Employment Systems Review (ESR), which departments are expected to undertake every five years. TC had an extensive ESR done by a firm in 1999-2000. Normally, this report would be accepted by the CHRC as a completed element under the audit. However, the date used for the ESR was based upon the 1997 Self-identification Survey which yielded a 49% return rate. TC undertook a new Representation Census in December 2001, resulting in a 97% return rate which substantially updated the TC Employment Equity database. In light of this significant change, the CFRC auditor has agreed that TC does not need to undertake a new ESR. Instead, they only need to update the data elements of the ESR and use them to update the ESR report of 1999-2000. They also updated recommendations made in the original report that have been acted upon.

March 27, 1999 - Canada Gazette Volume 133 No.13 provides notice that pursuant to section 101 of the Public Service Reform Act, a definition for the newly created Technical Services group has become effective March 18, 1999. A table of concordance indicates that those employees currently in the Technical Inspection occupational group will now be in the Technical Services occupational group. The Gazette goes on to publish the new definition for the Aircraft Operations Group. (CWS)

December 1996 – Study and Reference guide – Private and Commercial Pilot License including Aeroplane to Helicopter Pilot Licences. Transport Canada Safety and Security, Civil Aviation. TP-2476-E.