Tag Archives: 6990

PSAC celebrates 699 leave victory

In a major victory for federal public service workers hardest hit by the pandemic, an arbitration board ruled that Treasury Board cannot force employees to exhaust all their other leave before accessing 699 leave for COVID-19-related reasons.

This decision means that PSAC members who filed individual grievances related to 699 leave — where members were forced to use other available leave like sick leave, vacation leave or family leave before accessing 699 leave — can now request the leave be reimbursed to their leave banks.

Treasury Board’s heavy hand during the pandemic

The 699 leave provision is for “other leave with pay” and members can request it through their manager when they are unable to report to work for reasons beyond their control. This is different from sick leave and vacation time.

PSAC members relied on 699 leave to grapple with radical work-life changes during the pandemic. Parents were often left with no choice but to apply for 699 leave when schools and daycares were closed or went remote, but the government heavily restricted its use.

The restrictions disproportionately impact marginalized groups who have been the hardest hit by the pandemic, including women, Black, Indigenous and racialized employees, workers with disabilities, high-risk workers and workers with family obligations.

PSAC filed several policy grievances with Treasury Board, CFIA and other agencies for restricting the use of 699 leave. Two of these grievances were then brought before the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The Board found the 699 leave policy breached PSAC’s collective agreement by requiring employees to exhaust other leave before 699 leave could be granted. The Board ruled this posed an undue burden on employees and violated members’ collective agreements.

On parental leave specifically, the Board ruled that denial of 699 leave to parents who “chose” not to send their children to school or daycare is not discriminatory or a violation of the collective agreement. Although parents may have a right to choose to keep their children at home” this was a choice and not a right that is protected by human rights legislation, the Board ruled. PSAC is reviewing this aspect of the decision for potential grounds for judicial review given the evidence that parents had little to no choice regarding childcare during the pandemic as well as the state of human rights jurisprudence on the issue of sex and family status discrimination.

Requesting 699 leave

If you need leave related to COVID-19, you should continue to request 699 leave. If your request is denied or you are forced to take other types of leave, reach out immediately to your PSAC regional office or your component labour relations officer to discuss whether you should file an individual or group grievance, including a grievance citing discrimination on the grounds of sex, family status or disability.

Stay up to date about 699 leave and other important issues by updating your contact information and signing up for our latest updates.

This article was first posted on the PSAC website.

COVID-19 Update — Follow-up to question on use of 699 leave

Image of border crossing with the words "COVID-19"

The following message was sent by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 

We are following up on the question which was raised during our COVID-19 Update call on Tuesday.  With regards to requests from employees to take the child/person for whom they have a duty of care to get the COVID vaccine, our guidance to Departments is the following:

  • The employee should first try to schedule the vaccination appointment outside of work hours or work flexible hours to make up the time taken.
  • The employee can schedule family related leave to bring a child / person for whom they have a duty of care to the vaccination appointment.
  • If that is not possible and all Family related leave has been used, the employer could grant 699 leave for a reasonable time period to get the vaccine as this is related to COVID.

Legal battle begins to protect use of 699 leave during the pandemic

Photo of CIU flag

PSAC’s legal challenge against Treasury Board’s regressive and discriminatory changes to 699 leave for federal public service workers is set to begin October 19.

In June, PSAC filed a policy grievance after the government tightened its guidelines around when public service workers can use “Other Leave with Pay” (699 leave) to fulfill child care needs during the pandemic.

The new policy fails to recognize that some parents may have to keep their children at home for legitimate reasons despite the availability of schools or child care. For example, some parents may choose to keep their children at home to protect members of their household who suffer from underlying health conditions that make them vulnerable to COVID-19 symptoms.

PSAC will meet with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board in order to determine the scope of the policy grievance and set dates for the hearing.

PSAC made it clear that the new policy adversely impacts women who continue to bear a disproportionate burden of domestic responsibilities including child care, eldercare and household operations. It could also result in discriminatory outcomes for people with disabilities and people with family obligations, violating both members’ collective agreements and the Canadian Human Rights Act based on family status, sex and disability. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has also notified the Board that it intends on making submissions on this issue.

The proposed policy amendments would result in a patchwork of unfair outcomes for public service workers and give managers too much discretion in applying the policy.

PSAC pushes back against the use of sick leave for COVID-19

PSAC will also be contesting language in the policy that says employees who are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or who self-isolate would be required to use available sick leave instead of 699 leave if they are unable to work.

This egregious change to the policy is discriminatory to public service workers and flies in the face of sound public health advice. Without the availability of a vaccine, and with many parts of Canada entering a second wave of the pandemic, Treasury Board’s proposed changes are premature and inconsistent with the current public health crisis.

There is also no evidence that employees have abused 699 leave during the pandemic. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that 699 leave in the federal public service has been used modestly and cost very little. And as departments adapted to working from home, the number of employees forced to use 699 leave dropped by 84 per cent from April to June.

PSAC is committed to ensuring that our members, and in particular, women, caregivers and those with disabilities, continue to have the necessary support and leave with pay they need during the pandemic.

The original version of this article was first posted on the PSAC website.

6990 Leave and Family-Related Responsibilities

Photo of CIU flag

CBSA is using the 6990 leave code to cover employees who are unable to work for various COVID-related reasons including the closure of schools and daycares (Note: “Other Leave with Pay” is coded as 699 within the core Treasury Board units).

Where telework is available, parents with young children at home have not been expected to put in the same number of working hours as members who do not have childcare responsibilities. Some parents have been putting in a few hours a day and some haven’t been working at all. Generally speaking, the availability of 6990 to cover non-working hours has been assessed on a case-by-case basis and, for the most part, our members haven’t had too many problems accessing this leave with pay.

In May, some provinces and territories began to talk about re-opening schools and daycares. The decision on what, when and how to reopen has varied widely across the country. Some provinces have chosen to not to reopen until the Fall, while others have limited childcare spaces to parents who work in essential services. Even where schools have reopened, many parents have chosen not to send their children back because of safety concerns.

On May 10, 2020 Treasury Board sent an email to all of its Heads of Human Resources regarding 699 leave and childcare. It contained the following:

As schools and daycares are re-opened, we expect that employees who could not work due to childcare obligations will be able to return to work. We recognize, however, that there will be some instances where employees may be unable to work their full hours if their children are unable to return to school or daycare due to health reasons, limited availability of spaces or other restrictions put in place by provincial or territorial authorities. In these cases, employees may use ‘Other Leave With Pay (699)’ for hours not worked, if they are unable to make alternate childcare arrangements.

The email goes on to encourage managers to “have a conversation” with employees on 699 about the possibility of taking on flexible working arrangements as an alternative to staying on leave.

Policy Grievance

On 13 May 2020, the PSAC filed a policy grievance regarding the employer’s email. The union is concerned that parents who choose not to return their children to school or daycare will be involuntarily taken off the 699 leave with pay. Some children live in households with vulnerable family members, and many parents do not feel comfortable sending their children back to school or daycare with inadequate social distancing measures in place. Whatever the reason, we need to ensure that members with childcare obligations are not forced to choose between a pay cheque and the wellbeing of their families.

We expect to receive the employer’s final level reply on this policy grievance within the next few weeks.

Individual Grievances

In the event that we are unsuccessful in resolving the problem with a policy grievance, we need to be prepared to file individual grievances for any members who are forced off 6990 but still have childcare responsibilities. These are members who:

  • Currently care for children at home
  • Are currently on 6990 Leave with Pay
  • Live in a province/territory where childcare facilities have not reopened OR cannot get a childcare space due to limited reopening OR have safety concerns for their children or other vulnerable family members
  • Have been advised by the employer that they are no longer eligible for 6990 Leave with Pay

The grievance language is as follows:


I grieve the Employer’s refusal to grant me “6990 leave” with pay, requested on [insert request date] and denied on [insert refusal date], when I was unable to work regular hours due to childcare responsibilities related to COVID-19.

(If you are under the Program and Administrative Services (PA) collective agreement, insert:)

This is a violation of Article 53.01 – leave with or without pay for other reasons and Article 19 – no discrimination of the collective agreement; section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and all other relevant articles.

(If you are under the Border Services (FB) collective agreement, insert:)

This is a violation of Article 52.01 – leave with or without pay for other reasons and Article 19 – no discrimination of the collective agreement; section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and all other relevant articles.

(If you are under the Operational Services (SV) collective agreement, insert:)

This is a violation of Article 56.01 – leave with or without pay for other reasons and Article 19 – no discrimination of the collective agreement; section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and all other relevant articles.

(If you are under the Technical Services (TC) collective agreement, insert:)

This is a violation of Article 55.01 – leave with or without pay for other reasons and Article 19 – no discrimination of the collective agreement; section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and all other relevant articles.

Corrective Action Requested:

A declaration that the Employer has breached the collective agreement;

That I be granted leave with pay when I am unable to work regular hours due to childcare responsibilities related to COVID-19;

That I be compensated for all losses, including lost wages and benefits, that resulted from the Employer’s refusal to grant me paid leave;

That the Employer ceases this discriminatory refusal and take measures to redress the practice and/or to prevent the same or similar refusal from occurring in the future;

That the Employer makes available to me the rights, opportunities, and privileges that are being or were denied as a result of the refusal;

That I be compensated $20,000 for pain and suffering experienced as a result of the discrimination;

That I be compensated $20,000 for the Employer’s willful and reckless engagement in the discriminatory practice;

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.

Union representatives who receive a concern from a member with childcare responsibilities who has been refused 6990 leave are asked to assist the grievor in completing their grievance form as outlined above. Do not submit the grievance to the employer until after the employer’s final level reply to the policy grievance has been issued unless you need to protect the 25-day timeline.

We will advise the NBoD of the decision as soon as it is available and (if necessary) give the green light for the submission of any grievances you have received to date.

General 6990 Issues

We expect that the employer will wait until a decision on the policy grievance is issued prior to attempting to remove some employees from 6990 leave. Members may be approached in the meantime, however, to “have a conversation” about their childcare needs. In particular, the employer may inquire as to whether these members are able to complete a certain number of hours a week rather than remain full-time on leave with pay (6990).

Our members have an obligation to answer the employer’s questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. The bottom line, however, is that if a member can’t work due to their childcare responsibilities they should be allowed to remain on leave with pay.

The transition back to work will not be an easy one, and it is still too early to know exactly what “normal” will look like. It will be easier to implement social distancing requirements for front-line workers, even though we don’t anticipate that the borders will reopen for at least another month. There is still no clear indication of how social distancing will be accomplished for office workers. When Treasury Board refers to “returning to work”, therefore, we believe that in most instances they are referring to employees formerly on 6990 starting to work from home, not returning to a physical work location.

To date, we do not have any indication that the employer intends to cut 6990 leave for members whose vulnerability makes them unable to work. The Treasury Board email deals solely with 6990 leave and childcare.

Update (July 13, 2020)

As some of you are undoubtedly aware, the employer is taking steps towards bringing members off 6990 as things slowly begin to return to “normal”. Part of this initiative has included drafting a new document entitled “Attestation for High Risk for Severe Illness from Covid-19 Pandemic Form”.

This is a form our members are being asked to sign if they can’t resume their normal duties for Covid-related reasons. Unfortunately, it only covers two different circumstances: members who are high risk and members living under the same roof as people who are at high risk.

These are not the only reasons a member might need to remain on other leave with pay. For instance, securing childcare continues to be a challenge and the PSAC has filed a policy grievance on this issue. CIU is ready to respond with grievance language if the employer tries to force a member back to work who doesn’t have adequate child care, but we are continuing to ask that these grievances not be filed until after a decision is rendered on the policy grievance.

The employer’s new form needs to allow not only for child care issues, but for members who may not be able to work because they are caring for family members who don’t necessarily live with them. Changes also need to be made to other clauses, including one that asks members to accept that the employer may be assigning them work – even though this is supposed to be a leave form. Finally, we can’t support our members signing a form that basically acknowledges the employer can ask them for additional medical information at a later date – with no limits on what that may involve.

Brother Fortin sent a message to Julie Burke outlining our concerns and the fact that the form needs to be amended.  He also also stated our expectation that members will remain on 6990 leave in the meantime and should not be made to exhaust their personal leave banks if they refuse to sign.

An update on the situation will be provided as soon as we have a response from the employer.

Update (July 23, 2020)

In response to the CIU’s concerns regarding the CBSA Attestation form, we were provided the following responses:

CIU concern (1):  The form only contemplates two reasons for which employees may be prevented from returning to the workplace. Either they are at high risk or are living with someone who is at high risk of severe illness.

CBSA response (1)All leave with pay for other reasons will be reviewed on a case by case basis, this includes situations related to childcare or family care, as well as leave due to a work or technology limitation. Managers have been asked to engage in discussions with employees on leave with pay for other reasons related to the Pandemic about their individual circumstances and remain flexible. Employees will be asked to provide information regarding attempts made to secure childcare as they would in any duty to accommodate situation, the CBSA is not looking a creating a form at this time for the purpose of childcare/family care.

 The attestation form is only for employees who are at high risk or living with someone who is at high risk (leave Code 6916 or 6924).

CIU concern (2)Part III of the form asks employees to acknowledge that they may be assigned work when they are making a request for leave. 

CBSA response (2)The statement in PART III uses the word “may”, as the employer will make an effort to provide employees with work if and where possible, including any training and learning opportunities that employees who are working may have access to.

CIU concern (3):  The form specifically asks employees not to disclose a medical diagnosis.  Part III, however, anticipates that additional information may be required in order to approve the request for leave. 

CBSA response (3)These situations will be treated the same as any request for accommodation, should managers require more information they may seek a medical note from the treating physician. To be clear, we are not looking for any medical diagnosis.  Rather, we are looking for any limitations and restrictions that the employee may have or we want to confirm that despite all the measures put in place in the workplace, these are insufficient and the employee remains unable to report to the workplace.

CIU concern (4):  We have heard that our members are being asked to take their own leave pending approval of this new leave request.

CBSA response (4)Should there be specific examples of cases that you wish to provide us, we will look into them. Each situation is unique and while the guidance and application should be consistent, we need be mindful of the individual circumstances.

Should you wish to discuss any issues related to this leave or have specific questions related to concern (4), please contact your Branch President.

Grievance Regarding FB-02 Officers on 6990 Leave With Pay

Photo of CIU flag

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer has instituted two types of leave to minimize the exposure of our members to each other and to the public.

Members who can still attend at the workplace have been placed on “Employee Health Days for Social Distancing” (091) so that they can stay at home but be available to attend work if required. FB-02 Officers are being provided with online training and scenario-based learning opportunities so that all of their days spent on 091 will count for the purpose of the Officer Induction Development Program.

Members who are unable to attend at work  for  reasons  directly  related  to  COVID-19  have  been placed  on  Leave  With  Pay  (6990).   FB-02  Officers  on  6990  are  not   being   offered   the opportunity to pursue online training. Further, for those who stay on this type of leave for more than 30 consecutive days, this time will not count for the purpose of the Officer Induction Program. This will effectively delay the assessment period for these FB-02 Officers for weeks or even months.

CIU has approached management to request that FB-02 Officers on 6990 not be penalized for being unable to attend at the workplace for reasons entirely out of their control. We take the position that these Officers are being subject to a discriminatory practice that will needlessly delay their promotion to FB-03. The employer, however, continues to be unwilling to allow time spent on 6990 to count towards the FB-02 assessment period.

If you are an FB-02 and have been on 6990 leave for a period of more than 30 consecutive days and wish to contest the employer’s refusal to recognize this time towards your assessment period, you may file the following grievance:


I grieve that I have been the subject of a discriminatory practice on the part of my employer. I have been unable to attend at the workplace because of COVID-19 related issues and have been placed on 6990 Leave With Pay. The employer is refusing to count my time on 6990 leave in the calculation of service for the purpose of the Officer Induction Development Program. This creates an inequity as other FB-02 Officers who have been placed on 091 Social Distancing Leave are being credited with all days served.


I ask that the employer credit me for all days spent on 6990 Leave With Pay for the purpose of completing my assessment period under the Officer Induction Development Program.

I ask that I be placed in the same position with respect to time served under the Officer Induction Development Program as all FB-02 Officers on 091 Leave.

I ask that I be afforded any and all other remedies as necessary to correct this inequity.