Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats. Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving.
166-2-30176 to 30179 (2002 PSSRB 43)
Bisal et al. v. Treasury Board (Veterans Affairs)
Before: A. Bertrand
Appearances: Y. Michaud, for the Grievors; H. Newman, for the Employer
Decision rendered: April 17, 2002
Rate of pay – Pension Advocates – Whether extrinsic evidence admissible – Law Group bargaining unit – the grievors were pension advocates employed at Veterans Affairs Canada – their positions were classified at the LA-2 group and level and they were paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale – area advocate positions were also classified at the LA-2 group and level, but were paid at a rate in the LA-2(II) scale – over time, the duties of pension advocate and area advocate positions have became the same – the grievors sought to be paid the same as area advocates, at a rate in the LA-2(II) scale – in response, the employer decided to reorganize its workforce and that new area advocates would be paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale – in their 1990 collective agreement, the employer and the bargaining agent had introduced two scales of rates for employees in positions classified at the LA-2 group and level – that collective agreement contained a pay note stating that "[a]n employee whose position was classified at the LA-2 level on or after January 1, 1990, and who was paid on or after December 31, 1989 at a rate of pay in the LA-1 scale of rates, shall be paid in the LA-2(I) 'A' scale of rates, other than an employee who is appointed to a position to which the LA-2(II) scale of rates applies" – on December 31, 1989, pension advocates were paid at a rate in the LA-1 scale – another pay note stated that "[e]ffective January 1, 1990, an employee paid in the LA-2 scale of rates on December 31, 1989 shall be paid in the LA-2(II) 'A' scale of rates at the rate of pay which is immediately below the employee's rate of pay as of December 31, 1989" – on December 31, 1989, area advocates were paid at a rate in the LA-2 scale – those pay notes had not been reproduced in subsequent collective agreements – the grievors wanted to adduce extrinsic evidence to explain the ambiguity which they perceived in the collective agreement – the adjudicator found that there was no such ambiguity – the grievors argued that they were entitled to the same rate of pay as the area advocates, because they all performed the same duties – the employer responded that it exercised its managerial rights to reorganize its workforce, reviewed area advocate positions and decided that new area advocates would be paid at a rate in the LA-2(I) scale – the employer also grandfathered the rate of pay of existing area advocates – the employer added that the grievors could not point to any breach of the collective agreement – the adjudicator found that the grievors did not establish a violation of the collective agreement.
|Cases cited:|| |
Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada,  2 F.C. 471 (C.A.); Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board, (1986) 76 N.R. 229 (F.C.A.).