Treasury Board Cx Collective Agreement

Some collective agreements provide for lump sum payments to workers instead of retroactive wage increases or compensatory bonuses. Unless otherwise provided by the Treasury Board, these lump sum payments must also be paid to workers excluded from the collective agreement as managerial or confidential exclusions, although they are classified in a category or occupational level covered by the collective agreement. Employees classified in the MD-MSP-03 group and level are subject to the working conditions of certain unpresented employees and not to the requirements of the health services collective agreement. As such, these people may be granted management leave for excessive working hours. These people are not entitled to overtime, a watch or a reminder. In one case, a worker was compensated for overtime claimed in 2003-04 and 2004-05, which led to the need for recovery measures. Negotiator: UNIFOR Date of expiry of the collective agreement: 30. June 2022 Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Arbitration Negotiators: Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (Esquimalt) (West) (FGDTLC (W)) Collective Agreement Expiry Date: January 30, 2023 Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Arbitration The Prison Services (CX) Collective Agreement provides that the transfer of leave may not exceed 25 days. Most other collective agreements, such as the program and collective agreement administration services, provide that the transfer cannot exceed 35 days and that excess leave credits must be paid annually in cash.

With the exception of the NHQ and the Prairie Region, we found no evidence that other regions are taking steps to reduce the number of additional leaves, in accordance with the various collective agreements. As a result, as of April 1, 2004, 613 employees had leave of more than 25 days (CX) and 374 employees had more than 35 days (non-CX). Of these, 59 employees (32 CX and 27 non-CX) had opening balances of more than 100 days, including 46 in the Ontario region. In addition, the results of our tests revealed a case in the Prairie region where an employee and an executive were circumventing the requirements of the collective agreement. In March 2003 and March 2004, the worker with a leave credit of more than 35 days filed leave requests to reduce his excess leave balance. In April 2003 and April 2004, a request for leave was subsequently submitted in order to abolish the leave initially requested. In both cases, management authorization was granted. In the Quebec City area, we found two cases where employees who were about to retire could benefit from excessive sick leave and vacation leave without formal authorization.

We have also seen in the Atlantic region a number of cases where leave has been recommended by the supervisor, but not approved by the manager or approved after the leave has been accepted. . . .



Comments are closed.