Author Archives: Pierre St-Jacques

Bill C-20: CBSA personnel must be able to report problematic conduct from managers

Addressing the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on Monday, October 7, CIU National President Mark Weber flagged outstanding issues with Bill C-20, which would create a new Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC) for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

This is the second time the CIU National President addresses a parliamentary committee regarding the bill. Mark Weber previously appeared as a witness in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in June 2023 on the same subject. Thanks to CIU’s testimony and to recommendations from that Committee, the final version of the bill adopted by the House of Commons featured notable improvements, including around union involvement.

Reporting problematic behaviour from managers

Still, as the CIU National President pointed out to the Senate Standing Committee tasked with reviewing the bill, important questions remain. “The Agency is well-known amongst its employees for letting gross abuse by management run unchecked, and it is difficult for CBSA employees to see complaints about managers go addressed through existing channels” explained Mark Weber, highlighting that “CBSA managers often promote the very atmosphere that allows bad behaviour to flourish.” To help address this, it is important for Bill C-20 to include clear language around an employee’s right to report problematic conduct from managers, ensuring that CIU members can avail themselves of the recourses offered by the PCRC.

Concerns around time limits

The National President also brought forth pressing concerns around time limits, as complaints to the PCRC could be made up to two years after an incident allegedly occurred. “Some [of our members] are dealing with hundreds of travellers a day. Imagine a complaint coming in about a five-second interaction that happened 18 months ago. The odds of having an ability to recollect or know what happened are close to zero. That is not fair for the accuser or the accused,” said Weber to the Committee.

Further expanding on the issue around time limits, Mark Weber also added that “you need specific timelines in terms of when an investigation comes to a resolution. For every step, timelines need to be included. Right now, it looks like these investigations could go on for years with no real, clear deadlines as to when a decision has to be made.”

CIU submitted a brief to the Committee detailing the union’s concerns and recommendations. Read it here.

Pension legislation also needs to be updated

During his opening statement, the CIU National President also restated the need to overhaul legislation around early pension eligibility for CBSA personnel before C-20 is enacted, so that the benefits our members have access to are consistent with the additional oversight proposed by C-20. “CBSA law enforcement personnel are at a disadvantage compared to their peers working for other similar agencies,” explained Mark Weber. “They must work longer before retirement, often becoming sick or injured on the job, or unable to meet the physical demands of their work.”

The inconsistency between C-20 and existing pension eligibility is something that the National President had flagged to the House of Commons Public Safety Committee in June 2023. CIU was encouraged in June of 2024 when the government announced that legislation enabling such changes would be tabled this fall.

“We’re looking forward to these changes in the very near future” said Weber on Monday, emphasizing “how important it is that these occur before C-20 is enacted.”

See selected clips below. A full recording of the Committee proceedings can be viewed here (with interpretation language options).

 

 

 

 

 

This Labour Day, don’t be fooled by fair-weather friends of labour

As we mark another Labour Day, let’s reflect on a time-honoured tradition: politicians suddenly discovering their deep, abiding love for the working class – just in time for election season. It’s a dance as old as democracy itself, but in 2024, the moves are looking particularly desperate.

On one side, we have Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. He’s attempting a blue collar rebrand that’s about as convincing as a CEO in a hard hat – hoping his new look will make us forget that he is a career politician, has never been a worker himself, and has spent decades casting votes against workers’ rights.

On the other side, we have Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He wants to be seen as a friend to labour, while also fighting federal employees trying to build a workplace that prioritizes accessibility, environmental responsibility, and a more diverse and inclusive public service.

This battle is currently playing out in the fight for telework, an issue as crucial to our generation as the weekend was to our great-grandparents. And just like the weekend, it’s under threat from those who’d rather see us commuting two hours a day than being productive and thriving at home. Telework is a powerful equalizer. It opens doors for disabled workers, parents, and rural Canadians. It breathes life into small towns and cuts our carbon footprint faster than you can say “Zoom meeting.”

Surveys show the average person commutes 8.5 hours per week to work – that’s 408 hours or 17 full days of wasted time in transit per year. That’s 17 days not spent with our families. Seventeen days not contributing to our communities or being productive at work. For workers who CAN work remotely, it’s a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

But some politicians can’t see past their corner office windows. They spout nonsense about “water cooler moments” and “office culture,” ignoring that returning to the office actually looks like workers taking most of their meetings by video call – in federal buildings plagued by poor ventilation, rats, bats, bed bugs and, shockingly, asbestos. Any politician who claims to support workers while pushing for a return to these conditions deserves our skepticism, not our votes.

Because at the end of the day, true support for labour isn’t about wearing the right jacket or using the right slogans. It’s about consistently fighting for policies that improve workers’ lives. And in 2024, that fight includes embracing telework to create more inclusive, efficient, and people-friendly workplaces. Remember, it’s easy to don a hard hat for a day – it’s much harder to fight for workers year after year.

So let’s honour our predecessors by continuing their fight for better working conditions. Let’s make telework the new standard for anyone who can do it effectively. If we don’t, we’ll be explaining to our grandkids why we gave up the chance to revolutionize the way we work – all because some politicians couldn’t imagine a world beyond their outdated office parks.

This Labour Day, as we fire up our BBQs and enjoy a well-earned day off, let’s remember the fights that got us here. The great activists of our time didn’t face down police batons and corporate greed so we could waste our lives in traffic. They fought for a better future – and in 2024, that future is remote work.

This article was first posted on the PSAC website.

Fighting for telework: Important resources

Every worker’s job and situation are unique, and a cookie cutter approach to telework can’t be applied to Canada’s diverse public service. Overwhelming evidence proves that telework improves work-life balance and increases productivity for workers.

The government’s misguided decision to mandate federal public service workers into the office at least three days per week blatantly disregards their well-being and violates their collective bargaining rights.

This decision was made without any consultation with unions or workers, and flies in the face of the telework agreement PSAC negotiated in the last round of bargaining.

It’s time to fight back

PSAC has prepared a number of resources to help workers fight for telework. We’ve collected some of these resources below: Grievance wording, virtual backgrounds, useful information, etc. Take a look!

On this page:

When to file a grievance
Proposed grievance wording
Telework petition
Fight for telework questionnaire
Telework visual assets

Also see the PSAC telework FAQ

When to file a grievance

As part of our coordinated legal response, we are encouraging all affected members to put in grievances against the unilateral amendment of the Direction. Grievances should be filed for the following issues:

  • Where the amended Direction results in a member being arbitrarily required to work more days in the office;
  • Where a member has had an existing telework agreement disregarded or altered because of the Direction;
  • Where a member experiences additional adverse impacts because of their membership in a human rights-protected group;
  • Or, where a member has experienced losses or out-of-pocket costs because of the Direction.

However, you should always go through your union when submitting a grievance. Contact your Branch President for assistance. Branch Presidents should contact the CIU Labour Relations Officer assigned to their Branch for further guidance.

Proposed grievance wording

While grievances should be individualized to reflect the specific circumstances and concerns of individual members, the following template grievance language can be customized to address most cases:

This is an individual grievance hereby filed pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

Details of the grievance:

I grieve the Employer’s conduct in amending the Direction on Prescribed Presence in the Workplace (the “Direction”) in violation of the collective agreement by:

  • Amending and implementing the Direction in a manner which is unreasonable, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the principles for flexible working arrangements, in violation of the provisions of the applicable Collective Agreement, including but not limited to Article 6 of Collective Agreement, the Letter of Agreement on Telework, the Directive on Telework, as well as any other applicable provisions of the Collective Agreement, employer policies, or legislation;
  • Amending and implementing the Direction in a discriminatory manner that has breached the employer’s duty to accommodate and has reduced accessibility, inclusiveness and equity in violation of my rights  protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”) and [Article 19 of the Program and Administrative Services (PA), Operational Services (SV), Technical Services (TC), and Border Services (FB) agreements or Article 16 of the Education and Library Science (EB) agreement]; and
  • Amending and implementing the Direction in a manner which unreasonably and inappropriately departs from my existing telework/remote work arrangements and has caused me prejudice and hardship.

Corrective action requested: Make sure the grievance includes an appropriate request for corrective action, tailored to individual circumstances. Request for corrective action should include what remedies are sought based on specific circumstances, along with a demand to be made whole and a request for any other redress deemed appropriate. For example:

  • That the Employer allow for telework agreements consistent with the principles of flexible working arrangements and the provisions of the applicable Collective Agreement;
  • That I be compensated for all losses, including lost wages and benefits, that resulted from the Employer’s conduct in amending the Direction;
  • That the filing of this grievance not prejudice me in any future dealings with the Employer;
  • That I be made whole;
  • Any other redress deemed appropriate.

You should always go through your union when submitting a grievance. Contact your Branch President for assistance. Branch Presidents should contact the CIU Labour Relations Officer assigned to their Branch for further guidance.

Click here for more information on grievances

Petition to repeal the three-day in-office mandate 

Sign the petition to demand the government repeal the three-day in-office mandate and move to the promised case-by-case framework for telework, rather than the one-size-fits-none model they have committed to. We also want them to enshrine this policy into our collective agreements during the next round of bargaining.

Click here to sign the petition

Fight for telework questionnaire

As we move beyond September 9, how likely are you to stay involved in our fight for telework? Complete the brief questionnaire below to let us know.

Click here to complete the questionnaire

Telework visual assets

Blank Placard

Blank placard

Set of 4 placards

Social Media

Virtual Background

The original version of this content was first published on the PSAC website:

PSAC scores legal victory in fight to reverse federal telework mandate

The Federal Court will hold a full hearing to review PSAC’s application to quash the federal government’s decision to force federal public service workers back into ill-equipped offices three days a week beginning September 9.

This is an important victory for workers and unions who have been pushing back against the government’s unilateral decision announced in May that has had sweeping impacts on federal workers and led to mass protests, legal challenges and a wave of individual grievances.

“The Federal Court’s decision to hear our case is an important win for federal workers fighting for a fair and transparent approach to telework,” said PSAC National President Sharon DeSousa. “Remote work is the future of work, and we won’t let the government off the hook for breaking their commitments and ignoring the voices of federal public service workers.” 

The government attempted to have the case thrown out or delayed by the Court until existing legal challenges – including several policy grievances and unfair labour practice complaints disputing the mandate – are heard by a federal board.

But the Federal Court judge ruled that Treasury Board failed to deliver the “knock-out punch” to the grounds for PSAC’s application to warrant dismissal.

The hearing will be a major step for unions and workers looking for transparency around its decision to bring workers back into the office three days a week, as the government will now need to make their case and present their reasoning for making the decision to bring workers back to the office.

Although this does not mean that the Federal Court endorses PSAC’s position, it will allow us to fully argue our case in court. This is part of PSAC’s broader effort to demonstrate that telework is the way of the future and hold the government accountable for its misguided mandate.

What members can do

This is just one of several ways PSAC is continuing the fight for fair telework. Members can take action by:

  • Getting involved with your local.

This fall, PSAC will be launching a national joint telework campaign alongside other unions. But to win this fight, we will need the support of members from coast to coast to coast organizing and making noise in their workplaces. Together, we will show the government, decision-makers and the public that #RemoteWorks.

This article was first posted on the PSAC website.

Federal interference in rail labour dispute: A dangerous precedent indeed

CIU-SDI-logo

The Customs and Immigration Union wishes to echo in the strongest of terms the concerns voiced by Paul Boucher, President of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference: The August 24 decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to allow the federal government to force an end to job action for striking rail sector workers and to impose binding arbitration between the parties sets a dangerous precedent for the Canadian labour movement and the rights of workers.

By preferring to protect the economic interests of large employers, the federal government has taken a clear stance against those who Canadians rely on everyday to drive the economy safely and securely: The workers themselves.  Worse, by failing to support rail workers, the government also sends a clear signal to the industry sector as a whole that safety plays second fiddle to corporate economic concerns.

This is a dangerous precedent indeed, and Canadians should take note.

Time and again, unions have demonstrated how essential the rights to organize, mobilize, and strike are as part of a fair and just society. It is through these actions that workers can push back against employers who wish to erode working conditions and safety rules alike. CIU members themselves are well-acquainted with the importance of union mobilization as part of the negotiation process, and the recent decision to strip rail sector workers of those rights is simply shameful.

We applaud the Teamsters for remaining uncowed and for seeking to appeal the ruling, and we are proud to stand with them.

In solidarity,

Mark Weber
CIU National President