bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1986) — Fall 1986 // Automne 1986, p. 40
by Christine Manseau
When in the fall of 1984 over 250 FS-03 were converted to EX/FS-01 and EX/FS-02 they were advised by the department they could no longer belong to the PAFSO Group Life Plan as any claims made against the Public Service Insurance Management Plan of which they became members upon conversion would be offset by the amount paid under the PAFSO Group Life Plan. Many cancelled their coverage for that reason while others maintained it hoping PAFSO would be able to convince Treasury Board officials to lift the offset clause on the grounds it was in contravention with the Canadian Charter of Rights.
PALSO made repeated appeals to Treasury Board officials and was finally advised in February that no claims would be offset and that the clause would soon be removed. The official removal was announced in June of 1986. PAFSO Executive Committee then decided to welcome back into the Group Life Plan without proof of medical insurability for a coverage of up to a maximum of $125,000 all former plan members. Any coverage over and above that as well as any other EX/FS wishing to join the plan would require proof of medical insurability.
Bref, ceux des agents du Service extérieur qui ont dû quitté les rangs de l’APASE suite à leur nomination au sein du groupe EX ont maintenant l’opportunité comme membres affiliés de se joindre au plan d’assurance-vie de l’APASE au même titre que les membres à part entière. La qualité de membre affilié leur permet aussi de recevoir le bout de papier et partant d’être informés des questions d’intérêt actuel pour l’APASE et ses commettants.A July 12, 1986
Tom Boehm Director General ABD Personnel Administration Bureau Department of External Affairs
The question of the adjudication decision in the Robertson case has been discussed at length by our executive. We believe that PAFSO has a responsibility to advise those who were promoted to the FS-2 level in the past of their entitlement to a performance pay in accordance with that set by the Performance Review Committee (as defined in past contracts and in the current FS contract under Article 8.04).
In our view, the PSSRB decision in the case of Robertson and the Treasury Board has implications for all promotions from the FS1 to the FS2 level. The department has an obligation to provide other PAFSO members with the performance pay award to which they are entitled in accordance with the decision of the Performance Review Committee This will ensure fairness and equity across the board
In particular, we would be grateful if the department would ensure prompt action is given to the following: that Ms. Feldman whose grievance was not referred to adjudication by decision of the bargaining agent as she was away from Ottawa be granted the same as is awarded Mr. Robertson in Mr. Bendell’s decision;
2) that employees promoted to the FS-2 level in the years 1985 and 1986 and whose assessment for performance pay purposes by the Appraisal Review Committee was higher than fully satisfactory be awarded the appropriate performance pay, so as to conform with the PSSRB decision. Would you please advise me of your decision?
Yours truly, Len Mader President
Editor’s note: Both requests were granted
View the original scanned pages / Voir les pages numérisées →
Originally published in / Publié à l’origine dans bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1986) — Fall 1986 // Automne 1986, p. 40. Read the rest of this issue / Lire le reste de ce numéro →
