On February 17, 2016, members of the CIU National Executive, Sister Lisa Addario (PSACLegal Officer), Brother Murray Star (EO Representative), Brother Bruno Loranger (Labour Relations Officer) and the employer met to discuss accommodations and issues related to Appendix G-1.

In CIU’s update of January 7, we provided the following list of duties as being suitable for accommodated members at level:

• Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
• Alternate Inspection Services (AIS) Risking
• NEXUS Enrolment Centres
• Inland Enforcement Officer (no road duty)
• Commercial (back office)
• Telephone Reporting Centres
• Hearing Advisors
• Postal Operations
• National Targeting Centre

We also indicated that CBSA was looking at the suitability of other positions for accommodated members, namely those of Instructor duties at training centres and desk duties for Intelligence Officers and Investigators.

CBSA has indicated that it will consider accommodating members in these positions. It should be pointed out that several members are already being accommodated at Rigaud. The employer has also stated that it may want to place some of our members there whose positions will be (or have been) eliminated with the closure of firearm training facilities in Prince Edward Island and at Slack Road.

Regardless of the list of duties deemed suitable, it bears repeating that members who are already in accommodated positions that do not involve face to face enforcement interactions with clients will remain in those positions.

While CBSA is willing to consider accommodating desk duties for Intelligence Officers and Investigators (in addition to Rigaud and the other duties listed above), it has indicated that all must be considered on a case by case basis. For some duties, several positions may be available while for others (e.g. Inland Enforcement Officer – no road duty), the number may be limited. CBSA further clarified that it needs to take into account the viability of suggested accommodations and must also meet financial, regional and operational requirements. Obviously, members who are placed in these positions must also have the necessary skills and knowledge (e.g. language, specialized training) to do the job.

The employer believes it has made great progress in accommodating those 108 officers who had been performing face to face enforcement but could not pass the DFC training. However, it also acknowledges that there will be other officers similarly situated who, in the future, will require accommodation.

It is the employer’s position that if a member is registered for DFC and is “trainable”, that member can remain in his/her position beyond March 31, 2016. The employer defined “trainable” as a member who either: a) has been scheduled to go to DFC; b) has failed DFC but is being provided with remedial support from the employer; or c) is in the process of obtaining their CAT III.

The employer agreed to remove the requirement for a CAT III medical for members working in postal operations.

CIU also raised concerns about CBSA requiring members to go to a Health Canada doctor for their CAT III. CIU reminded the employer that there is no legal requirement for our members to see the company Doctor.

If a member has failed the MMPI twice, CIU encourages that member to speak with a CIU Labour Relations Officer to determine next steps.

Members who do not want to attend DFC training but who plan to retire in the short term should discuss this with their Branch President. Together, they can approach the employer to discuss possible retirement dates/interim solutions. Again, note that this will be considered on a case by case basis. Note also that the shorter the period requested, the more likely it is to be approved.

The employer repeated that it had no intention of demoting accommodated officers or lowering their pay and added that such rumours were “science fiction”. They also agreed to speak with regional management team members and CIU Branch Presidents in regions where such rumours had been reported. Both parties acknowledged that where management included the union in discussions with affected members, the process had gone smoothly. CIU reminded the employer that it was to its benefit to have the union involved. The employer agreed to make it clear to its affected employees that the union was available and on hand to participate in such meetings.

CIU again confirmed with the employer the principles upon which it agreed to participate in these discussions: that members who were already in accommodated positions would continue in those positions; members would be accommodated at level, with no loss of salary or benefits; and members would be offered meaningful work.

In September 2015, CIU provided an update to its members with respect to the arming initiative and the CBSA position that, as of April 2016, no officer will perform face to face enforcement duties without the appropriate defensive equipment.

Since then – and most recently on December 8 – the CIU National Executive members, Jean Pierre Fortin, Mark Weber, André Beaulieu, Brea Lewis and Chantal Rajotte along with the Equal opportunities Representative, Murray Star, PSAC Legal Officer, Lisa Addario and Labour Relations Officer, Laurel Randle met a number of times with the employer to discuss placement strategies for our members who cannot be armed due to an accommodation.

Regional meetings involving CIU Branch Presidents and National Vice-Presidents along with either Sister Randle or Addario or Brother Fortin, CBSA Directors and Regional Directors General were held in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver in preparation of the employer’s meeting with members to discuss specific placement offers/options.

The National and Regional meetings were held to respond to management’s plans for the placement of members who are/were performing face to face enforcement duties without the defensive equipment that the employer has determined is required to perform those duties. The employer had identified 108 employees from across the country who fit into this group.

Although placement discussions were to have been held with each of these members prior to the December 8 meeting, our understanding is that some discussions have been delayed due to shifting priorities at the CBSA (dealing with the Syrian Refugees).

Our members who have limitations or restrictions based on a human rights ground are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. Although many wish to remain in their current face to face roles, the employer’s position is that it cannot allow this beyond March 31, 2016.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission provides that the employer has a duty to accommodate. Jurisprudence has established that while an accommodation must be suitable, it does not have to be perfect.

The employer has identified the following duties as being suitable for accommodated members at level:

• Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
• Alternate Inspection Services (AIS) Risking
• NEXUS Enrolment Centres
• Inland Enforcement Officer (no road duty)
• Commercial (back office)
• Telephone Reporting Centres
• Hearing Advisors
• Postal Operations
• National Targeting Centre

CIU has enquired about Instructor duties at the training centres and desk duties for Intelligence Officers and Investigators. The CBSA is looking at these profiles.

Your union does not agree with the employer’s broad position that it cannot accommodate members in certain face to face enforcement duties. However, in cases where CBSA offers a member who requires accommodation a position that is at the same group and level, within the same worksite and consistent with the member’s functional limitations, the employer may have met its legal duty to accommodate. Every case requiring accommodation must be individually considered. Members should immediately contact their Branch President if they believe the position(s) offered to them are unsuitable/unreasonable.

CBSA informed us that approximately 600 employees are currently being accommodated and are not involved in face to face enforcement. These accommodations are not being changed.

The employer has agreed to consider requests from members who do not want to attend firearm training and who will retire in the short term (less than a year). The CBSA has made it clear, however, that these members will not remain in face to face enforcement positions beyond March 2016. Note that CBSA has informed us that such requests will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Situations where members have taken a demotion because of the firearms implementation are being reviewed by the CBSA. It will get back to CIU with numbers and details.

The CBSA has also agreed to review situations where members have reconsidered their request to retire if that initial retirement request was made because of the impending firearm implementation.

We encourage our members to talk to their Branch President and, because the National Vice Presidents and Equal Opportunity Representative also sit on the National Strategy committee, issues can be raised with them as well.

It has been some time since we have provided an update to our members with respect to those of you who cannot take the CDT and Arming course based on a ground listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) or who have tried and been unable to successfully complete the course.

Much has transpired since last April when the CBSA issued its Letters of Confirmation. The CBSA remains fixed on having only tooled/armed members with face to face enforcement duties working on the front line. While the CIU/PSAC disputes that the employer has established this as a bona fide occupational requirement, we are nonetheless working with the CBSA to ensure that our members are treated fairly.

With that in mind, the CBSA and CIU/PSAC (CIU National Executive: Mark Weber, Brea Lewis, André Beaulieu, Chantal Rajotte and myself as well as CIU National EO Representative Murray Star, PSAC Legal Officer Lisa Addario and CIU Labour Relations Officer Laurel Randle) have been working to establish a strategy for the placement of the CBSA employees/CIU members who require accommodation or placement for reasons outlined in the first paragraph above.

We first worked to agree on some principles. In the meantime, the employer undertook to have regional management and human resources compile preliminary lists of employees who hold front line positions and who need to be accommodated under the CHRA, and to look at placement opportunities for these employees within those regions.

The CBSA has asserted that our members who are already in accommodated positions that do not involve face to face enforcement interactions with clients will remain in those positions.

For those employees who are in face to face enforcement positions, have limitations that are at least twelve months in duration and who will require accommodation by the March 31, 2016 arming implementation deadline, accommodated positions will be offered to them at their substantive level. This accommodation will be negotiated on a case by case basis. The employer has asserted that it has sufficient meaningful work for all these employees.

Under federal law, the employer has a duty to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship and CBSA recognizes this obligation.

The CIU will be monitoring this process closely. We must also make sure that the list of employees compiled by the employer is comprehensive.

We have asserted that the employer ought not to be offering our members demotions in this process and the principle agreed to by the CBSA is to find positions that are at the members’ substantive group and level.

With the above principles established, the parties agreed to a pilot for Southern Ontario Region within the Border Services Officer community. During the third week in August, CBSA management met with CIU representatives in Niagara Falls. Preliminary discussions were held wherein the CBSA brought forward the names of our members impacted as well as potential placement opportunities. Initially, the next step was for CIU representatives to meet with members individually to discuss their particular needs and options. However – and because we recognized that once such discussions would start, news would certainly spread and questions would abound – it was decided that before taking that step we would provide our membership with this piece of communication to inform them of the strategy and the meetings that will take place over the coming months.

The SOR Branch Presidents, National Vice-President for that region and CIU/PSAC staff members as required will meet in the near future with the impacted members individually. Subsequently, the employer, employee and Union representatives will meet so that accommodation arrangements can be determined.

Once the pilot in SOR is reviewed, such meetings will take place across the country, with the next region being the Atlantic. A schedule will be made available for the remainder of the country (before the end of September).

As a party to the accommodation process, the Union’s obligation is to not block a reasonable accommodation plan. The employer intends to canvass employees who currently meet the use of force requirements and are not in front line positions, inviting them to consider other positions in this regard so as to ensure continued employment opportunities for those members who require an accommodation in an unarmed/untooled position.

CIU and PSAC will be making every effort to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible. If you have any questions regarding the above, please see your union representative or Branch President.