Asked and Answered

Changes to Article 24.08 General Leave were intended to restore the flexibility and discretion originally intended by the Parties under this Agreement. With the recent changes to Article 24.08, there is no longer a requirement for the leave with pay to be limited to the list of special leave entitlements provided to BCGEU employees. The Employer may grant an employee leave with pay for purposes other than those specified in the PEA Agreement to a maximum total of 35 hours per calendar year, as opposed to the potential maximum of 70 hours per calendar year for BCGEU members. In addition, PEA members continue to have the ability to use OSS as needed whereas BCGEU members are not entitled to OSS.

Employees were meant to have flexible and easy access to this leave. While the leave depends on the individual manager/supervisor for approval, the leave can be taken at any time unless there are operational needs that would prevent it. The request to approve continues to be based on not unreasonably withholding the leave while taking pressing operational requirements into account. The intention of the leave is that it was not supposed to be pre-scheduled, as is vacation, but used as needed. However, if an employee wishes to use the leave to make every three day holiday weekend into a four day holiday weekend, there is nothing to stop it, if operational needs are satisfied.

No, other leaves don't have to be used up first. This leave can be taken when the employee needs it and can be used at any time it is operationally feasible, regardless of what other leaves are still available.

The intent of the new language does not typically require the employee to provide a reason for the leave, however a manager can request one. If a manager requests a reason, the need for a reason should be based on operational requirements. A good reason such as a pressing illness could get approval even in a difficult time operationally, i.e. the busy season with lots of staff on vacation. Whereas, a reason such as simply attending to personal business, a mental health day, or no reason at all, which would be an adequate reason most of the time, could cause the leave to be denied in tight operational times. At all times, leave approval must not be unreasonably withheld.

Yes, the leave can be taken in hours. An employee doesn't have to request leave in days only. Leave for medical and dental care under 2 hours will not be charged against the maximum 35 hour paid leave entitlement per calendar year. Although a decision was made to continue with the under 2 hour forgiver rule, employees are still expected to code appropriately in TOL (medical dental under 2 hours code).

Leave entitlement under 24.08 under the previous collective agreement was pro-rated for part-time employees. There was agreement from the Union that the pro-rating practice would continue with the new language. Thus, the 35 hours of paid leave will be pro-rated for regular part-time employees. A part-time regular employee's total paid leave entitlement is prorated by applying the part-time employee's percentage of full-time hours worked to the 35 hour entitlement per calendar year. In effect, what is prorated is the total amount of paid leave entitlement, not the length of the leave benefit applicable for each circumstance.

No, the leave is not intended for STIIP top-up use.

Under 24.08 (b) the PEA collective agreement says: The Employer will allow an employee reasonable leave of absence with pay for bereavement. This means that while reasonable leave is not defined, the Employer has indicated that guidelines for bereavement leave will continue to follow the BCGEU collective agreement Article 20.1 requirements. Bereavement leave does not impact the maximum entitlement of 35 hours paid leave per calendar year.

BCGEU Collective Agreement 20.1 Bereavement Leave

(a) In the case of death in the immediate family an employee not on leave of absence without pay shall be entitled to special leave, at their regular rate of pay. The leave will include the date of the funeral or the date of death with, if necessary, an allowance for immediate return travelling time. Such leave shall normally not exceed five work days. (b) Immediate family is defined as an employee's parent, spouse, child, grandchild, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and any other relative permanently residing in the employee's household or with whom the employee permanently resides. (c) In the event of the death of the employee's grandparents, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, the employee shall be entitled to special leave for one day for the purpose of attending the funeral. (d) If an employee is on vacation leave at the time of bereavement, the employee shall be granted bereavement leave and be credited the appropriate number of days to vacation leave credits. (e) Where established ethno cultural or religious practices provide for ceremonial occasions other than the bereavement period in (a) above, the balance of the bereavement leave as provided in (a) above, if any, may be taken at the time of the ceremonial occasion.

As an auxiliary employee what access do I have to the health and welfare benefits — basic medical, extended health and dental, group insurance — that applies to regulars?

Under Article 35.10 of the master agreement, auxiliary employees who work 1,827 hours within a 15-month period are designated “Group A”, and thereby gain access to a range of regular employee benefits, including basic medical insurance, extended health and dental benefits, and group life insurance. Auxiliaries who have not yet crossed the magical 1,827 hrs-in-15-months line are not covered by these basic health benefits. In lieu of coverage, the agreement pays them a wage supplement, currently $0.61 per hour to a maximum of $42.70 (increasing to $0.62 on April 1, 2007; $0.63 on March 30, 2008; and $0.64 on March 29, 2009).

Article 35.09 (d) states an auxiliary employee loses seniority when s/he becomes a regular employee. Article 11.01 defines seniority as covering the length of continuous service as a regular employee.

No, with a caveat. Article 11.01 of the master agreement defines seniority as the length of continuous service as a regular employee. Article 11.01 does cover pre-1974 service as a “continuous temporary” employee. The “continuous temporary” designation no longer exists, and does not include service as an auxiliary employee. Though auxiliary time is not credited for purposes of calculating seniority, another contract provision, Article 35.10 (c), allows GLPs to include auxiliary time in the calculation of their annual vacation entitlement. On a limited basis, continuous time worked as a “Group A” auxiliary (one who has worked 1,827 hours in a 15-month period) immediately preceding a period of continuous work as a regular employee can be counted in vacation calculation. Normally, the “first vacation year” used to calculate vacation entitlement is the year following a member's appointment as a regular employee. However, for someone who had Group A auxiliary status, then became a regular employee without a break in service, the “first vacation year” is the year following the year in which Group A status was acquired. Example: normally the first vacation year for someone appointed as a regular in 1990 would be 1991. But if you were hired as an auxiliary in 1988, acquired Group A status in 1989, and worked continuously until becoming regular in 1990, your “first vacation year” is 1990. There's a catch in all this: members whose Group A time pre-dates 1980 don't benefit from the provision. “In no case,” Article 35.10 (c) provides, “will the first vacation year be prior to 1980.”

Yes. And under the terms of the master agreement, auxiliaries who have successfully completed 30 days (210 hours) will have in-service status when applying for regular positions, as outlined in Clause 35.03. The closing date of the competition is used to determine eligibility.

Yes, the master agreement includes a clause which addresses conversion of auxiliary employees to regular status. Clause 35.12 provides for PEA and PSERC representatives to conduct an annual review of auxiliary employees in April of each year. Those whose work is of a continuous nature are to be converted to regular status effective May 1. The adjustment is for future application only, and is not retroactive.

The 13th Master Agreement entitles full-time regular employees and part-time regular employees who have completed their probationary period to full reimbursement of annual licensing fees, (to an amount not to exceed the licensing body's 2005 fee schedule), upon application and presentation of a receipt. The Public Service Agency has posted a “Reimbursement of Incidental Expenses” form on their website for employees to complete and submit for approval and processing. When it comes time to file your income tax return, employees should claim only the portion of your professional licensing fees that were not reimbursed. That way, no question of taxable benefit arises. Revenue Canada rules stipulate that where employers pay all or a portion of the fees attendant to licensure it requires employees to maintain, no taxable benefit arises. An employee may only deduct the portion of fees not reimbursed by the employer.

The master agreement provides for reimbursement of an employee's annual licensing fee. I am registered with two licensing bodies. Can I claim reimbursement of the fee for each licensing body?

Clause 3.05 of the master agreement entitles GLPs who occupy a regular position and have completed their probation period to reimbursement of fees required to maintain required professional standing. The key word is required. A few GLPs are registered with two licensing bodies, but we are not aware of a single position in the whole GLP bargaining unit requiring that an incumbent have two licenses. Someone may be licensed as a forester and an engineer too, but unless the employer requires the employee to be maintain both licenses, Clause 3.05 doesn't entitle a member to reimbursement of both fees.

I'm a full-time regular employee at the moment, but I have an opportunity to switch to regular part-time work.If I do so, do I jeopardize my employee benefits?

Switching from regular full-time to regular part-time work doesn't jeopardize entitlement to basic medical, dental or extended health benefits, but it does negatively impact OSS, reimbursement of professional fees, group insurance and, potentially, long-term disability provisions. Part-time employees are not entitled to OSS compensation; instead, part-timers are paid directly for any overtime the employer requires them to work. Part-time employees are eligible for reimbursement of their annual licensing fees to a maximum of $200, rather than the full fee amount (based on the 2005 fee schedule). Part-timers' group insurance benefit is the minimum $80,000 provided under the plan. To qualify for LTD coverage, a part-timer must work at least half-time. If you work less than half-time, you don't qualify for long-term disability protection.

Under the master agreement, the employer has agreed to indemnify employees against legal action resulting from performance of their duties, except where there has been “flagrant or willful negligence” on the part of an employee. With that caveat, Article 36.02 means that the employer will not seek damages from an employee whose job performance results in a judgment against the employer. The provision requires the employer to pay any judgment against an employee, retired employee or former employee arising out of the performance of official duties. The collective agreement also requires the employer to provide legal services and/or pay approved legal costs incurred in a civil proceeding arising out of the employee's performance of his/her duties. To make the provisions binding on the employer, employees are required to notify the employer in writing of any incident or event, which might lead to legal action against the employee, or the employer. Members often inquire if they need to purchase liability insurance to protect themselves against legal action. The PEA believes that Article 36.02 provides adequate protection against liability, unless members are also working outside of government service. Members who perform additional work out-side of their employment with government ought to consider purchasing separate liability insurance.

My payroll office says that the medical/dental travel allowance is taxable, and that I have to submit receipts to make a claim — is this true?

Yes. Clause 32.18 of our master agreement provides an allowance for employees and their dependents who must travel to receive medical and/or dental care. Under this provision, employees submit receipts for reimbursement to a maximum of $350 per calendar year (increasing to $450 on April 1, 2007 and $500 on April 1, 2008), for travel and accommodation expenses such as meals, hotels and gas. The PEA's accountant has confirmed that the allowance is treated as income under tax rules and so is subject to deductions for income tax, EI and CPP. The only exception would be for employees residing in prescribed zones for the purposes of the northern residents deductions, for whom the allowance would not be considered a taxable benefit.

It may be. The extended health care plan provided in the master agreement does provide out-of- province and out-of-country coverage whether travelling for business or pleasure. For out-of-province emergencies, you can claim reasonable charges for a physician's services and hospital room charges over and above that covered under basic medical coverage (MSP) and by B.C. Hospital Programs.

However, the extended health plan has a lifetime maximum claim amount of $100,000 for each employee and their dependent(s). Once an employee has claimed the lifetime maximum amount, the plan will not reimburse further costs. Out-of-country expenses can easily exceed the lifetime maximum. As a result, you may wish to consider purchasing additional medical insurance prior to leaving the province.

Before purchasing supplementary insurance, however, members should take pains to check one point. Some supplementary policies provide, in the event of a claim, that coverage under the extended health care plan will be exhausted before supplementary coverage comes into play. Given a substantial claim under such a policy, one could find oneself in a situation of having exhausted all or most of the extended health plan lifetime claim limit, without getting any benefit from the supplementary insurance.

Policies are available which contain no such restriction, but which cover the entire cost of an out-of-province claim without dipping into the extended health care limit. Pacific Blue Cross, the current extended health plan carrier, has such an insurance plan available. Many other insurers carry similar coverage, so you may want to check around for the best rates.

For those travelling on government business, the cost of the additional medical insurance can be claimed on your travel voucher; the government will reimburse the cost of out-of-country medical insurance.

Determining “establishment” —deciding what programs the government operates and what personnel are retained to deliver its programs —is not negotiable under provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The government has a free hand to decide what business it will do and what staff are required to conduct its business. As programs and job requirements change, so do job classifications. The fact that a ministry requires a licensed professional to deliver aspects of a program at one time does not oblige it to continuing doing so for the rest of time. Due to changing requirements, a ministry may decide that it no longer requires a licensed professional for work that formerly required an LP. This works both ways: ministries regularly impose licensure requirements on positions and programs that never had them before.

Most of the time these changes are defensible; occasionally, however, this sort of classification change makes no sense, and the PEA will try to persuade a ministry that it has erred. The various professional licensing statutes typically define what kinds of functions are the exclusive preserve of licensed practitioners. If a ministry asks an unlicensed individual to discharge responsibilities that we believe may lawfully only be carried out by licensed people, we make an issue out of it. When push comes to shove, however, we cannot force a ministry to do our bidding. The statutory authority for ensuring that professional responsibilities are carried out by properly qualified people rests not with the union, but with the various professional licensing bodies.

I know someone occupying an LSO3 position who doesn't have the professional license required for his position. If this person is unlicensed is it right that he's recognized and paid as an LSO3? What can the PEA do about this?

The PEA's duty under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Labour Relations Code is to represent all the employees who have been appointed to LSO classifications and are thereby placed in our bargaining unit. It is not PEA practice to investigate the credentials of PEA members, and “blow the whistle” on those who don't have and maintain required licensure. The union's job is to negotiate and enforce collective agreements on behalf of its dues-paying members. It is the employer, not the PEA, that determines a professional license is required for positions classified in the LSO series. The PEA does not police members' compliance with licensure requirements any more than it does any other legitimate employer-imposed rule or requirement.

Government job classification standards require that everyone classified at LSO2 and higher must have and maintain “full professional registration”. The employer relaxes this requirement for new-hires who are registered in other jurisdictions, by providing a reasonable period to acquire licensed standing in B.C. , but the classification standards do not contemplate unlicensed people maintaining an LSO2 or higher classification indefinitely. If you have a complaint about an unlicensed colleague who is being paid as a fully licensed professional, the party to talk to is your ministry manager.

Yes, it can. “Establishment” — the government's determination of what public service positions will be established to deliver its programs — is not negotiable under provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Under the PSLRA the government must negotiate the salaries and benefits assigned to public service jobs but it doesn't have to negotiate the establishment of the jobs themselves. The government has a free hand in deciding what programs it's going to operate, what positions it requires to deliver those programs, and what duties are assigned to each position. The government reorganizes all the time. It creates and eliminates programs and positions regularly. Job duties are added, deleted and modified — without violating the law or public service collective agreements.

If that's the bad news, the good news is that while it may have the right to alter or reduce job functions, the employer does not have the right to reduce pay levels. If job classifications are downgraded by the employer's action, GLPs are salary-protected or “red-circled”: their pay rate is maintained until such time as the pay rate assigned to the lower classification catches up to the rate the employee was paid at the time the downgrading occurred.

Section 8 (4) of the Public Service Act empowers the head of the BC Public Service Agency to limit a vacancy to employees in a particular organizational unit or geographic area. Though infrequently used, the agency head does occasionally exercise this authority to accommodate reasonable organizational objectives. For example, a past Ministry of Forests LSO2 posting was limited to employees in the Kamloops area. PSA approved a restricted posting because the Kamloops district office had managed to get itself into mess: it had 3.5 more employees than it did FTEs. By appointing someone from within the district the ministry stood to reduce its FTE “overburn”.

To get PSA's approval MoF had to persuade the agency that within the Kamloops area there was a sufficient pool of qualified people to ensure that a suitable candidate would be available to fill the vacant position. Apart from addressing its FTE problem the ministry also stood to save the relocation expenses it might otherwise have had to pay a successful candidate from another area. Restricted competitions aren't much fun for those they leave out in the cold, but in circumstances like the Kamloops case such competitions are legal and do not violate the master agreement.

A recent multi-position job posting in my ministry indicates that the competition would establish “eligibility lists” for future appointments. How does this work — and is it legitimate?

If you look closely, you'll see that public service job postings often stipulate a ministry's intention to use the competition to establish an eligibility list for filling future vacancies similar to the posted one. Occasionally, a single posting can generate multiple eligibility lists. For example, the Ministry of Forests has in the past combined a number of LSO3 vacancies under one posting, and established eligibility lists for several “difficult-to-recruit” locations. The posting listed several specialty areas and geographic locations, and indicated that the competitions “will establish eligibility lists by specialty area for various locations throughout the province.” In postings like this one, the ministry compiles eligibility lists for each specialty area ranking qualified candidates in order of merit as established by the competitive process. As vacancies eligible for appointment from the relevant list arise, they are offered to individuals in merit order.

Each of these competitions must describe the job categories and geographic locations that will be filled from eligibility lists. An eligibility list cannot be expanded to cover a broader scope than that contemplated in the original posting. In the past, eligibility lists typically had a “shelf life” of six months, with the possibility of extension for another six months. Starting in June 2001, eligibility lists will be established for up to one year. Having established an eligibility list for a particular job category, management must use the list to make appointments to eligible vacancies. That is, a manager can't choose to fill the vacancy from another source: if “Jan Doe” is next on the eligibility list, the manager must offer the position to Jan.

If you have a potential interest in any vacancy that might arise in the specialty areas and geographic locations described in a posting, you should apply, even though you may have no immediate interest. Why? Because once they are established, the ministry won't expand eligibility lists to include additional people. You don't have to worry that saying “no thanks” to one offer will get you removed from the list. If your name is first on the list when a position in Dease Lake is offered, and if you reject the offer, you stay on the list and remain eligible for the next vacancy that comes along.

I'm a “red-circled” LSO3 currently occupying an LSO2 position. If I compete for and win a competition for another LSO2 position, do I lose my salary protection?

Yes. “Red-circled” employees are those whose salary is protected under Article 32.12 of the master agreement. Article 32.12 obliges the employer to maintain the salary of an employee when it reduces someone's job classification, or places an employee in a lower-classified position. Red-circling protection lasts only as long as the employee stays in the job s/he occupied when the right of salary protection was established. If a red-circled employee voluntarily moves to another position, salary protection is terminated.

Look for the applicable rules not in the collective agreement, but under s. 9 of the Public Service Act. The legislation states that a person appointed to position in the public service is on probation until s/he has worked the equivalent of six months full-time employment. However, s. 9 also provides — for appointments made from within the public service — that the deputy minister or her/his designate may waive all or part of the probation period.

A deputy typically won't waive probation where a promotion is involved, but a lateral move is another matter. The deputy doesn't have to waive probation in a lateral transfer, but s/he certainly has that option. Particularly where a member is transferring to a position with similar duties, it makes sense that probation should be waived. If you are contemplating a lateral move, make sure you mine the possibilities for persuading management to waive probation.

No. GLPs who quit do not retain in-service status. If you quit, you won't be able to compete on in-service competitions. However, Article 11.05 of the master agreement allows former employees who win out-of-service competition and are re-employed within 90 days to retain accumulated seniority. A break in service of less than 90 days is treated as an unpaid leave of absence and “Jan Doe” retains all provisions and rights in relation to seniority and benefits — as long as s/he has not withdrawn pension contributions.

There are several elements to consider when questions arise regarding the outcome of a competition.

First, members should be aware that government postings often include the phrase: “Contact closing location to obtain list of locations where eligibility list may be established.” This language, as well as a statement that specifies that several vacancies may be filled as a result of the posting, may relieve the Ministry of their obligation to post for each individual position that becomes vacant.

Second, appointments are not grievable but are subject to review under the Public Service Act. However, the right to request a review is limited to unsuccessful applicants.

In other words, you must apply for a position and be unsuccessful in order to be eligible to request a review of a decision of a selection panel. In addition, an appointment must be made or proposed in order for the review to proceed to the Step 2 inquiry by the Deputy Minister. In some cases, the PEA can enquiry of a Ministry how a competition was carried out, however the only way a request for a review of a decision may be submitted under the Act is by an employee who was an unsuccessful applicant.

Third, before making a request for a formal review by the merit commissioner, the employee must first request the reasons for the decision from the panel, then request an inquiry by the deputy-minister. Note that the timelines for requesting a review are extremely tight and a request for an extension is likely to be refused.

Regarding grounds for reviews, the Public Service Act states that “an employee may request a review of the appointment by the merit commissioner on the ground that section 8(1) has not been complied with.” Section 8(1) of the Act requires that appointments to the Public Service must be based on the principle of merit and must be subject to a process ”designed to appraise the knowledge, skills and abilities of eligible applicants”. In part, this means that vacancies must be posted so that employees have the opportunity to put their names forward to be considered for vacant positions.

Members may refer to the BC Public Service Agency website for more information on the Staffing Review Process. Also you can refer to a section on the PEA website for more information on competition appeals. Members who have any interest in a posted position or in other positions of a similar nature should submit an application.

Members then have the option of declining an offered position but are still eligible for other vacancies which may be filled from the same posting. I recently applied for a vacant position but was not short listed.

Job applications or resumes for posted vacancies should be comprehensive and include all relevant training and experience. The application should also correlate the applicant's experience and background to the specific job duties and requirements listed in the position posting or position description.

Members in some ministries have reported that ministry-sponsored seminars have stressed the importance of keeping position applications brief, and merely summarizing the important aspects of the an applicant's background. This is not good advice and may result in the selection panel making uninformed decisions about whether an applicant meets the minimum screening criteria.

In a properly conducted selection process, the selection panel must consider everything included in the submission of the applicant, but may not consider information that has not been explicitly brought to the attention of the panel. The applicant must demonstrate clearly that they meet the minimum qualifications, as the panel may not properly infer information that is not included in the application.

For example, panel members may not properly seek out further information for certain applicants but fail to do so for others, nor take into consideration personal knowledge of the applicant that is not clearly delineated in the application. Nor may the panel contact “desired” applicants to solicit further information to justify their short-listing or selection. To be conducted fairly, a competition must treat all applicants' submissions in the same manner, and use the same criteria to judge both the training and experience on the application, and the responses to any questions in the testing or interview process.

Members should be aware that there is no restriction on the length of the application, and only information provided by the applicant may be used to assess his/her skills and abilities. The applicant should not assume that the inclusion of certain information will automatically allow the panel to extrapolate “obvious” inferences about the training and experience listed. If a skill or qualification is important, put it in writing! Members cannot successfully argue in an appeal that the panel should have understood the implications of the experience listed, or to explain that further information can be provided to “fill in the gaps.”

A well-written application will first state the specifics of the training and qualifications of the applicant, as well as relevant experience, and then go on to break down the elements of the position summary to show how the applicant's training and experience meet the specific requirements of the position.

Yes. Current legislation provides for what is known as successorship rights, meaning that should a group of members be transferred from government to another employer, their union and their collective agreement would follow. As an example, when PEA members working for the Ministry of Health were devolved out to the regional health employers in 1998, they remained PEA members, moving from the GLP bargaining unit into the newly formed Paramedical Professional bargaining unit. Until a new collective agreement was negotiated for that sector, these members continued to enjoy the terms and conditions of the PEA master agreement.

I've been told that if I get laid off so that there is a break between my employment in the public service and the time at which I collect my public service pension, I will not be covered by health and welfare benefits when I retire. Is this true?

When members retire and receive a pension from the Public Service Pension Plan, they may apply for health care coverage under the B.C. Medical Services Plan, the Extended Health Benefits Plan and/or the voluntary Dental Plan, regardless of who their last employer was. The plan will pay all or a portion of the premiums depending on how much pensionable service a member has. Any premiums a member is required to pay will be automatically deducted from the monthly pension payment as long as the pension payment is large enough to cover the premiums.

If the pension payment is not large enough to cover the premiums, a member can arrange to pay the premiums directly to Blue Cross via authorized withdrawal from the member's bank account. Premiums paid on your behalf are a taxable benefit. Any extended health or dental premiums that a member is required to pay may be tax deductible as part of eligible medical expenses.

Is it 50 km or still 32 km? The definition of headquarters or geographic location remains unchanged at 32 km in the 13th Master Agreement. This is the radius, “as the crow flies”, that is used to partially define seniority blocks. For example, all employees in the same ministry, classification and profession within a 32 km radius are considered to be in the same seniority block. The employer also has the right to reassign employees to other positions at the same classification level that are within the same geographic location, i.e. that are within 32 km, without triggering any collective agreement provisions.

If I am laid off from government service, how long do I have to keep confidential information that I learned through my work? Can I use this information if I set up practice as a consultant or as an employee of a private company?

The Standards of Conduct for public service employees requires that employees refrain from divulging confidential information received through their employment. This requirement extends to disclosure made inside and outside of government and continues to apply after the employment relationship ceases. In other words, former government employees are expected to maintain confidentiality in perpetuity. The Standards of Conduct may be viewed in their entirety on the BC Public Service Agency website.

An employee on maternity or parental leave is not automatically immune to layoff by virtue of being on leave. If an employee's leave has commenced prior to the layoff notice being issued, and the employee is eligible for and is receiving the maternity leave or parental leave allowance provided by Article 26, then the employee shall continue to receive that particular allowance upon layoff, until the allowance has been exhausted. For example, an employee on maternity leave and receiving the maternity leave allowance who receives a layoff notice and is severed will continue to receive the maternity leave allowance until it expires (after 15 weeks); however she will not be eligible to receive the parental leave allowance. Employees who receive layoff notice and are severed during a maternity or parental leave, and are therefore unable to satisfy the return to work requirements specified under Article 26, are not required to repay the benefit premiums or allowances they have received.

It seems that common sense is one of the victims of “downsizing” in my ministry. Management has substantially reduced the number of employees working in my program, but it hasn't reduced the workload. Fewer people are expected to deliver the same output we were producing before downsizing. What right do I have to say “no thanks” to unreasonable work demands?

Members have a duty to do an honest day's work, but managers are way out of line if they expect employees to work themselves to death. The master agreement provides that full-time employees shall work 35 hours a week, and the OSS provision implies an expectation that employees will work reasonable amounts of overtime as and when the job requires it. But the OSS provision is not a license to drive employees into an early grave. Members should confront work expectations that would offend any reasonable person. And, whenever a member is unfairly disciplined as a consequence of not accommodating a manager's unreasonable work expectations, the PEA will defend her or him under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the master agreement.

What avenues does the GLP collective agreement provide to employees who are being harassed by a supervisor? Conversely, what comfort does it give to supervisor members who are the subject of unfounded complaints?

The master agreement discerns two varieties of harassment. Clause 1.09 deals with complaints of discrimination or harassment on any of the prohibited grounds specified in the Human Rights Act — race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, and several others — and with sexual harassment.

Clause 36.13 formerly dealt with “personal harassment”, but now establishes procedures for confronting “inappropriate use of managerial/supervisory authority”. This is the contract provision available to members who feel they're being unfairly and improperly persecuted by a manager or supervisor.

Clause 36.13 prescribes a three-step procedure for addressing complaints. Where complaints are not resolved by local management at the first step or the deputy minister at the second, they can be taken before a three-person joint mediation/arbitration panel.

Where the panel finds that inappropriate conduct has occurred, it can recommend that the employer discipline the perpetrator. But Clause 36.13 is two-edged: if a panel finds that a complaint is “frivolous, vindictive or vexatious”, then the complainant is vulnerable to discipline.

What crosses the line, according to Clause 36.13, is conduct “which serves no legitimate work purpose and which ought reasonably be known to be inappropriate."

While the collective agreement doesn't define what “inappropriate use of supervisory authority” means, members needn't feel entirely at sea when trying to sort out what constitutes fair supervisory behaviour, and what does not.

In trying to assess whether particular actions fit these criteria, ask yourself these questions: Does the conduct serve a legitimate business purpose? Is the individual singled out for negative treatment unrelated to legitimate business reasons? Are supervisory/managerial rights exercised in good faith?

If your answers to these questions are No, Yes and No, respectively, ask yourself one more question: Would the conduct be clearly seen as inappropriate by an impartial third-party panel?

Allegations of misconduct far out-number the instances in which the panel finds that misconduct actually occurred. The mere fact that an employee doesn't like a supervisor's conduct towards him or her doesn't mean that the employee has been harassed, or victimized by inappropriate supervisory behaviour. Supervisors are entitled to supervise; managers are entitled to manage. Conduct that is consistent with legitimate business purposes, and executed in good faith, does not offend against Clause 36.13 and will not be found culpable by the panel.

Under Article 24.08 of the master agreement, the employer “may grant leave of absence...for purposes other than those specified in the Agreement.” The employer's established practice is to give PEA members the same general leave rights as are set out under various clauses of BCGEU Article 20. The GEU contract provides time off for attending to sick dependent children and, in limited circumstances to elderly parents, but not spouses.

Generally speaking, the same rules apply to PEA members too. You can have up to two days off at any one time to look after an ill child, but not a spouse. You can have one day off per calendar year to attend to a serious illness or hospitalization of an elderly parent. PEA Article 24.08 gives the employer the discretion to grant time off for the purpose of caring for an ill spouse, but more often than not management is likely to reject such a request because it exceeds what's available to other government employees.

My unused vacation time exceeds the carryover limit specified in the master agreement. My work unit manager says I've got to use the excess this year, and if I won't schedule it, he'll do it for me! Can my manager get away with that?

The manager is entitled to require that you use any vacation time exceeding the carryover limit. Clause 21.01 of the master agreement provides that vacation entitlement beyond the permitted carryover limit must be taken in the year it is earned. Clause 21.04 entitles you to carry over five days vacation, provided that your carryover bank balance doesn't exceed ten days. So, you're entitled to carry over five vacation days, or whatever lesser number takes you to the ten-day limit. Management is entitled to demand that you use the remainder this year. Nothing in the master agreement bars a manager from scheduling an employee's vacation if the employee refuses to do as required under Article 21.01.

One thing management cannot do is tell you that your excess unused vacation is forfeited if you don't use it. Unused vacation exceeding the approved carryover limit goes into “cold storage” — at its present dollar value — and cannot be accessed until an employee terminates. If, for example, you're an LSO3 at the maximum pay step — about $229/day — and have ten days excess vacation this year, what would go into the vacation freezer is not ten days, but $2,290. Say you're 35, and have another 20 to 30 years left in the public service, what you'll get at the end of the road is $2,290 for the excess time. You won't get ten days and your $2,290 won't gather any interest. Your $2,290 will be worth a lot less in 20 years than it is now. It doesn't make sense to put vacation credits in a bank that pays no interest and doesn't permit withdrawals until you retire or resign.

One more thing. From time to time vacation has been an issue in master agreement bargaining. By failing to use the vacation time the agreement entitles them to, members unwittingly support the employer's oft-made contention that GLPs don't need the vacation rights they have now — let alone the improvements some GLPs would like to see.

I've just learned that my annual vacation entitlement has been reduced for an extended period this year when I was absent due to illness and receiving STIIP benefits. The ministry can't do that, can it?

Clause 21.01 of the master agreement provides that members accrue vacation for any month in which they receive “at least 10 days' pay at straight-time rates”. This language has been in place for many years. During the term of the 10th master agreement, the government notified the public service unions — PEA, BCGEU and the two nurses unions — of its intention to change a long-standing practice, and bring calculation of vacation entitlement into line with the strict wording of Clause 21.01. For years, notwithstanding that STIIP benefits are not salary, but a separate allowance, the government calculated vacation entitlement as if STIIP benefits were pay. Although the contract language obliged the government to calculate vacation entitlement only on actual pay, its calculations included STIIP benefits too.

Before we went into the bargaining round for the 11th master agreement, the government notified the unions that this practice would cease with the expiry of the 10th master agreement; thereafter, vacation entitlement would be calculated exactly as agreed in Clause 21.01. In response to this notice, the PEA bargaining team proposed that Clause 21.01 be amended to include both salary and STIIP benefits. Alas, the bargaining team was not able to persuade the employer to agree to this proposal; it became a casualty, like so many others, of collective bargaining give-and-take. As a result of all this we are left with the long-standing contract language: in order to earn vacation entitlement for a given calendar month, one needs to have received at least 10 days' pay at straight time rates. STIIP benefits are not included in pay.

Changes to Article 24.08 General Leave was intended to restore the flexibility and discretion originally intended by the Parties under this Agreement. With the recent changes to Article 24.08, there is no longer a requirement for the leave with pay to be limited to the list of special leave entitlements provided to BCGEU employees. The Employer may grant an employee leave with pay for purposes other than those specified in the PEA Agreement to a maximum total of 35 hours per calendar year, as opposed to the potential maximum of 70 hours per calendar year for BCGEU members. In addition, PEA members continue to have the ability to use OSS as needed whereas BCGEU members are not entitled to OSS.

Employees in the public service are entitled to up to three days of leave with pay upon the occasion of their marriage. For the purposes of leave entitlement, “marriage” is defined as a “wedding”; a public or semi-public ceremonial event marking the union between two individuals. Specifically, a wedding is a civil marriage or religious marriage under the Marriage Act.

Under the provisions of Article 26.09 in the Master Agreement, an employee accrues vacation while on maternity leave and the benefit waiting period only, provided that the employee returns to work for a period of six months, has not received parental allowance, and was employed prior to March 28, 2001.

Under the provisions of the Short Term Illness and Injury Plan (STIIP), regular employees who have completed six months of service and who are unable to work because of illness or injury are entitled to a benefit of 75 per cent of pay. This benefit will continue for a period of up to seven months from the date of the absence.

In the past, whether or not your pay was affected by a partial day of illness depended on how many hours you worked that day. Under what was sometimes referred to as the “two hour forgiver” policy, absences of less than two hours were not reported and did not affect your pay.

Prior to the commencement of collective bargaining in early 2006, the government put the PEA and other public service unions on notice that it intended to eliminate the “two hour forgiver” policy. Employees are now required to record the actual period of absence due to illness and will receive STIIP benefits of 75 per cent of pay for the recorded period of absence.

The 75 per cent STIIP benefit may be topped up. While the supplement previously was restricted to quarter day increments (in line with the “two hour forgiver policy”), the Short Term Illness & Injury Plan has been amended to allow employees to elect to supplement STIIP benefits at the rate of 25 per cent of actual duration of benefits, by use of the following in descending order:

• accumulated sick leave credit under the old sick leave plan
• compensatory time off (CTO) earned by part-time and auxiliary employees.
• banked earned time off (ETO), excepting where scheduled in a shift schedule.
• unused pre-retirement leave arising from the former Optional Selection of Benefits (OSB) Plan; or unused time off where an employee has elected to take a portion of their OSS entitlement as time off and such time off has not been paid out
• vacation entitlement.

The master agreement provides that the seven per cent OSS entitlement is the sole compensation full-time, regular employees get for any and all overtime they may have to work. The agreement provides no other overtime compensation to full-time regulars. Members are not entitled to compensatory time off on top of their OSS compensation.

However, Article 13.01 (b) stipulates that employees' work schedules shall be determined by mutual agreement within each work unit. Where evening or weekend work is a regular feature of the job, it is reasonable for employees to argue that those regular requirements should be built right into the work schedule. E.g., if a weekly evening meeting is a regular part of the job, it's reasonable to include that time as part of the employee's 35-hour weekly work schedule.

The collective agreement also recognizes that flexible working hours may be appropriate in some cases. Employees who persuade local management that “flextime” works well for them have the ability to adjust their start/finish times to accommodate variable work demands.

Note that work schedules are a matter for mutual agreement: GLPs have no unilateral right to determine their own work schedules or to work under a “flextime” arrangement. But what if managers deny you a fair opportunity to determine a work schedule jointly, or unreasonably reject your sensible proposals? Article 13.02 provides that disputes can be referred to a joint union-employer committee for resolution.

No, not if you're a full-time regular employee. OSS is the sole compensation regular full-time members are entitled to receive for overtime. Members are not entitled to additional compensatory time off, or “CTO”, for any overtime they may have to work.

However, the master agreement does provide, at Clause 13.01, that work schedules are determined by mutual agreement between employees and management. The employer does not have the unilateral right to fix work schedules. An occasional, incidental requirement to work an evening or weekend day is just part of the deal that comes with OSS: members are assured of seven per cent of annual pay as overtime compensation; the employer is assured that employees will deliver whatever incidental overtime may be needed to get the job done.

However, where a member is faced with a regular, ongoing, predictable requirement to work outside the normal work schedule, the PEA's advice to members is that they exercise their rights under Clause 13.01: seek an agreement with local management to modify the work schedule to include the requirement in the regular work schedule.

Article 13 of the master agreement provides that if the employees and local management are not able to agree on a schedule, the matter can be referred to a joint committee for resolution. The committee is chaired by a third-party neutral who has authority to settle unresolved issues and impose a work schedule when the parties are not able to agree among themselves.

Members who occasionally have to work a weekend day to get their job done won't get far asking the joint committee to order a change in their work schedule. However, prospects are better if a professional is required, say, to attend an all-day meeting with a client group on the third Saturday of every month.

The master agreement contains no language entitling the employer to schedule overtime. Where the employer is in a position to predict that given work will be regularly required on a workday evening or a Saturday or a Sunday, and where those times fall outside the employee's regular work schedule, our collective agreement does not entitle the employer to add the required hours to the employee's work schedule, thereby raising the average to more than 35 hours a week. Clause 13.01 is not subject to any proviso that the employer may increase scheduled hours of work in consideration of the 7 per cent OSS compensation.

When faced with regular and predictable work requirements which fall outside normal hours, members can and should argue that such requirements ought to be built into regular work schedules.

Can a manager refuse to allow me to take my OSS credits in time? Some positions in my work unit have been left unfilled for a long time, with the result that our workload is greater than ever. The manager says there's just too much work to do, and won't allow me to take any OSS time. What can I do about this?

Don't put up with it! Employees are not to blame for the chronic understaffing in government, nor are they responsible for cleaning up the consequences of it. Regular, full-time professionals have an absolute right to take as much of their OSS credits in time as they like. Managers have no right to deny access to OSS time. Under Clause 15.03 (d) of the master agreement, the scheduling of OSS is a matter for mutual agreement between a member and his/her supervisor. You and your boss have an obligation to be reasonable when it comes to scheduling OSS time. Bona fide operational requirements are a legitimate factor in determining when OSS time can be taken, but it is patently unreasonable for a manager to take the position that there is never any time when OSS can be taken as time.

Your manager has a duty to mutually determine, with you, when you can take your OSS time. It is a violation of your collective agreement for the boss to take the position that OSS time is not available, period. If your supervisor or manager says you may not take OSS as time, don't put up with it: tell the boss that refusing to agree on a mutually acceptable time is a violation of your collective agreement. And rest assured the PEA will back you up; if necessary your Union will pursue a formal grievance against a supervisor who persists in this conduct.

For personal reasons I want to work regular part-time instead of regular full-time for my ministry. What factors should I consider to ensure my pitch to management is successful? On what grounds might management deny my request? Finally, what potential implications do I need to consider before switching to part-time?

Ministries are not obliged to accommodate your request, but requests get more sympathetic treatment where your aim is to parent a young child, tend to a sick or elderly person in your household, or some similar purpose. Expect less sympathy if your motive is simply to have more time to indulge your personal interests. In any event, the employer's operational needs are always a concern, and you will need to work with management to find acceptable ways of accommodating them. If your skills are vital and hard to replace, management may be unable and unwilling to accommodate your wish. On the other hand, you may point out that it is better for them to have a part-time employee than to have a vacancy that may be very difficult to fill.

Moving to regular part-time employment from regular full-time employment does not jeopardize entitlement to basic medical, dental or extended health benefits. This is another reason why the employer is reluctant to have part-time employees. It is required to fund full-time health and welfare premiums but receive only part-time work.

Working part-time does negatively impact OSS, pension and, potentially, long-term disability provisions. Part-time employees are not entitled to OSS compensation; instead they are paid directly for any extra time the employer requires them to work. This work is paid at straight-time rate until the employee works more hours than a full-time employee would work during the same period. Part-time employees are eligible for reimbursement of their annual licensing fee to a maximum of $200, not the full fee amount. A part-time employee must work at least half-time to qualify for LTD coverage. If you work less than half-time, you do not qualify for long-term disability protection. Part-time employees accrue pensionable service and make contributions to the Public Service Pension Plan on a part-time basis. This can have considerable impact on retirement income.

Part-time status can also have serious implications in the event of layoffs. Part-time employees accrue seniority based on hours worked. So an employee who has worked half-time for 20 years has less seniority than an employee who has worked full-time for 11 years. At least one arbitrator has ruled that, under collective agreement language very similar to that in Article 37, a part-time employee who is displaced has no right to claim a vacancy or to bump into a position if the position has more weekly hours than the part-time employee currently works.

GLPs in another work unit have negotiated a modified work week arrangement with their manager. How do the PEA members in my unit go about getting one too?

Article 13.01 (b) of the master agreement provides that employees' work schedules “shall be determined by mutual agreement within each work unit.” Where the GLPs in a work unit desire to implement a new work schedule, Article 13.02 (c) obliges the unit manager(s) to work with employees at determining a mutually acceptable schedule.

More GLPs than ever are working under modified work schedules, largely because members are getting better at listening to managers' concerns and finding acceptable ways of accommodating them. Managers frequently worry that GLPs are specialists whose work can't be adequately backed up on a scheduled day off. Another concern is that modified schedules aggravate clients and reduce efficiency.

Members have succeeded in establishing modified schedules to the extent they've been able to remedy these concerns, by demonstrating that adequate backup is available, that a modified schedule can provide adequate coverage, that real efficiencies can be created, and that reasonable client or customer concerns can be accommodated.

What if a manager refuses to make an honest joint effort at determining a satisfactory schedule with his or her GLPs? Article 13.02 (c) provides that disputes may be referred for resolution to a joint committee chaired by a third-party neutral. If you'd like more information on this subject, PEA staff have produced a more detailed treatment of this question, “Modified Work Schedules: How to Go about Establishing One”, which is available on the PEA website.

I'm working on a modified schedule: 7.5 hour days with a scheduled day off every three weeks. I'm supposedly entitled to 25 days annual vacation, but the ministry converts my vacation entitlement to hours, and charges me 7.5 hours for each vacation day. As I see it, my 25 days shrink to 23.3. But when it comes to statutory holidays, I'm only credited with 7 hours, and have to include the remaining half hour in my schedule. This doesn't feel right; am I being ripped off?

No, you're not. Article 13.04 (a) of GLPs' master agreement requires that vacation entitlement will be converted to hours and deducted according to the hours of the scheduled shift. As for statutory holidays, 13.04 (b) stipulates that time is granted at seven hours per stat; where the scheduled day is greater than seven hours, the difference must be included in the schedule.

The purpose of 13.04 is to equalize everybody's time. Let's say that Member A is on a normal 7-hour schedule, while Member B works a modified 7.5 hour schedule. They each take three weeks vacation (105 hours). When A goes on vacation s/he gets 15 days. So does B. A burns up 105 hours in 14 seven-and-a-half hour days, but the scheduled day off (SDO) occurring while s/he's on vacation makes up the difference. If it were otherwise, B would get 16 days — 15 days vacation plus the SDO arising during the vacation period.

The same logic applies to statutory holidays. Article 13.04 (b) provides that B gets 7-hour stats, just as A does. There are 11 stat holidays, so A gets 77 hours off. And that's all B is entitled to — 77 hours. If B got 11 seven-and-a-half hour days s/he'd have 82.5 hours off. That wouldn't be equitable, and that's why we have Article 13.04 (b).

If you sit down and total the working hours in B's schedule over the course of a year, you will find that B's total is the same as A's.

No, not if you're a regular, full-time employee. Our surveys indicate that most PEA members like the OSS overtime compensation, but OSS has warts, and this is one of them. Article 15 of the master agreement establishes that OSS is the sole compensation for any overtime, shift work or standby required of a regular, full-time employee. There is no provision in the agreement for payment of overtime meal allowances for regular full-timers. That's one of the quid-pro-quos that's part of the OSS deal. The rules are different though for part-time employees and auxiliaries. Part-timers and auxiliaries don't get OSS, but they are entitled to direct compensation for any overtime required by management. And clause 16.06 provides that part-timers and auxiliaries are entitled to meal allowances after working stipulated amounts of overtime.

No, not without special dispensation from the provincial cabinet. Section 23 of the Public Service Act provides that retirement is compulsory at age 65, unless otherwise provided by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Unless you have the ability to persuade the government that your continued presence in the public service is vital to the public interest, the legislation requires that you retire at the end of the month in which you turn 65.

For employees who have been relocated by the employer to an isolated location, or who relocated through competition to an isolated location, clause 32.13 of our master agreement provides for the employer to pay the cost of moving the employee's household goods and effects, in accordance with the relevant section of Information Appendix B (Part II), providing that a number of conditions are met. The clause does not apply to those employees who were first hired into the B.C. public service in an isolated location, even if they moved to take on the position.

In order to be eligible for the benefit, an employee must give no less than six months' notice prior to retirement, must have served at least three years in the isolated location, must actually move to another location in B.C. within three months of ceasing active employment, and must be scheduled to retire and to receive a pension. Isolated locations are defined as those locations included in Information Appendix C of the master agreement.

My ministry financial people claim that I'm not allowed to use my personal credit card to cover expenses while traveling on government business. They say some credit cards provide points and other rewards for every dollar charged to the credit card. Accruing personal rewards allegedly violates government conflict-of-interest standards, and is therefore verboten. What's the PEA's position?

The master agreement doesn't speak to this subject. However, government policy on “Standards of Conduct” requires employees to avoid conflict of interest and specifically prohibits employees from accepting “complimentary items” arising out of their dealings on behalf of the government. To eliminate any risk that employees might make unnecessary trips to earn frequent flier points, government policy expressly forbids employees from gathering points or other personal rewards for travel on employer business.

Employees who run afoul of these rules run the risk of being disciplined. A risk could arise from charging travel expenses to a personal credit card that pays rewards of this sort. But if there's no personal payoff from charging government travel costs to your personal credit card, no conflict of interest arises, and we say that a ministry has no basis for barring its use.

If conflict-of-interest is not an issue, and the employer refuses to reimburse travel expenses charged to a personal card, call the PEA and we'll go to bat for you. If you do accrue air mile points or other rewards for items charged to your personal card, you're best advised to stop using it for employer travel.

Many — perhaps most — GLPs who travel on employer business do so using a government “corporate card” issued in their name. Your best option for staying out of harm's way is to get a corporate card and use it to cover your government travel expenses.

My ministry finance person says I must apply for an American Express “corporate card” and use it to cover travel expenses. She says I'm not allowed to use my personal credit card to cover travel costs. What does the PEA have to say?

What the finance person says is rubbish. The employer has no right to demand that you take out a corporate card, and no right to deny reimbursement of your legitimate travel expenses. If the employer refuses to reimburse legitimate, eligible travel expenses, call your PEA labour relations officer — we'll fix the problem.

While members don't have to get and use a corporate card, they do have to beware of the government's Standards of Conduct policy. That policy obliges employees to avoid conflict of interest and specifically prohibits members from accepting “complimentary items” arising out of their dealings on behalf of the government.

Many personal credit cards provide rewards for every charge made to the card. Members who collect personal rewards for charges arising out of travel on government business expose themselves to the risk of being disciplined under the standards of conduct policy. To avoid that risk, our advice is that members not cover their government travel expenses by a personal credit card that pays rewards of this sort.

Can my supervisor compel me to attend a meeting to respond to vague “concerns” regarding my performance? If I know I haven't done anything wrong, can't I just waive the meeting and file a grievance over any disciplinary action the employer decides to take?

The employer has the right to ask employees to justify their behaviour and decisions, and to respond to any concerns or allegations regarding the proper performance of their duties. Employees in turn have an obligation to answer and respond, and are advised to arrange for a PEA local rep to be present for any investigative or disciplinary meetings.

In refusing or declining a supervisor's request to attend such a meeting, employees risk insubordination on top of losing their opportunity to put forward their version of events in response to an allegation of improper behaviour.

It's generally much easier to head off discipline “at the pass” than to try to overturn it after the fact through the grievance process. In addition, an arbitrator may interpret an employee's failure to respond to an allegation, when given the opportunity, as evidence of indifference or lack of forthrightness, and look less favourably upon reversal of the discipline.

Article 6.03 of our master agreement speaks to political activity; in particular, clause (b) specifies that “[t]here are no restrictions other than the oath of office on employees engaging in political activities on their own time as campaign workers.”

Professionals who actively participate in political activities are advised to review the employment oath and the standards of conduct applicable to all public service employees. Public service employees have a duty of loyalty to the government as their employer and are required to be impartial in the conduct of their duties. Confidential information received through the employment relationship must not be used or communicated outside of government. Public commentary is permitted, but with caution, especially when commenting on the policies of an employee's own ministry. Public service employees must not use their employment to lend weight to their personal opinions in the public realm.

Members who wish to participate in a political campaign are advised to keep these activities outside of the work environment and to refrain from sharing what might be perceived as “confidential” or “insider” information gained through the course of their employment. The consequences of violating either the employment oath or the standards of conduct may include discipline, up to and including dismissal.

Further protections are afforded to members engaging in political activities by the language on freedom of association in Clause 1.06 (a) and Clause 1.09 (a), which prohibits harassment and discrimination relating to any of the prohibited grounds contained in the Human Rights Code, including political beliefs.