ARCHIVED - Public Service Labour Relations Board

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

SECTION I: OVERVIEW

Message from the Chairperson

I am pleased to present the annual performance report of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (the Board), for the period ending March 31, 2007.

Established under the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA), the Board is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for administering the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the federal public service and Parliament. In providing services in its three mandate areas—adjudication, mediation and compensation analysis and research—the Board assists some 230 000 federal employees, 24 employers and 22 bargaining agents in their labour relations.

Over the last several years, the Board has witnessed and reported on a significant annual increase in the number of new cases referred to adjudication, which has resulted in a large backlog of cases being carried forward to the following year. The year under review was the first in which the number of new cases received by the Board did not rise dramatically, although the total number of active cases—new and existing cases combined—did increase by 4%. I am pleased to report, however, that the Board was able to close 44% of its total caseload in 2006-2007 and carry forward 22% fewer cases than last year.

The Board undertook a number of initiatives in 2006-2007 to address the backlog and bring its caseload to a more manageable level. This includes actively promoting mediation as an alternative to formal hearings, employing new case management tools, and making more use of pre-hearing conferences in an effort to streamline and expedite the processing of cases. It must be recognized, however, that some factors outside the Board’s control offset these efforts and protract its proceedings. A reduced complement of full-time and part-time members available to hear cases due to Board vacancies, the growing incidence of complex and challenging cases, and the ongoing resource limitations faced by bargaining agents and employers all hinder to some extent our ability to dispose of cases expeditiously.

As the newly appointed Chairperson of the Board, I met with employers and bargaining agents in early 2007 to explore ways of working together to reduce the number of matters that come before the Board. I welcome their willingness to develop collective solutions and look forward to future collaboration.

With the enactment of the PSLRA in April 2005, the Board was given an expanded mandate that now includes providing compensation analysis and research services. It was anticipated that the Board would begin to deliver compensation data at the end of 2006-2007. However, considerable work had to be done first to lay a solid groundwork for the new service: consulting the parties on the compensation information they require, negotiating partnership agreements, recruiting staff and resolving methodological issues. These efforts have put the Board in a good position to deliver three compensation comparability studies in 2007-2008, in time for new rounds of collective bargaining.

Good progress has also been made in enhancing the Board’s infrastructure and management framework. A multi-year project to redesign the case management system is now well under way; it will help deal with a higher volume of increasingly complex cases and the need to do more detailed reporting as well as give employees more efficient, up-to-date and integrated tools for managing cases. Other accomplishments included putting in place a business continuity planning program, developing policies and procedures to protect IT security, documenting internal processes to support corporate memory during times of staff transition and implementing a new learning policy that supports the training and development of employees.

Fundamental to the effective and efficient delivery of the Board’s mandate is an adequate and stable resource base. While the Board has gained additional responsibilities under the PSLRA, it has not been given a permanent commitment of increased financial resources to carry these out. I am concerned about the time, energy and human resources that have been expended over the past few years to submit repeated requests for the funds essential to conducting our work, given that the necessity for and disposition of these funds are not in question. I hope to see the matter resolved this year by the incorporation of these supplementary amounts into the Board’s core funding, thus rendering them permanent.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Board members, managers and employees of the Board for their continued dedication to our mission: promoting harmonious labour relations in the federal public service and Parliament in the interest of all Canadians.

Casper M. Bloom, Q.C., Ad. E.
Chairperson
Public Service Labour Relations Board

Management Representation Statement

I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2006-2007 Departmental Performance Report for the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2007-2008 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:

• It adheres to the specific reporting requirements outlined in the Treasury Board Secretariat guidance;
• It is based on the PSLRB’s Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture that were approved by the Treasury Board;
• It presents consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information;
• It provides a basis of accountability for the results achieved with the resources and authorities entrusted to it; and
• It reports finances based on approved numbers from the Estimates and the Public Accounts of Canada.

Casper M. Bloom, Q.C., Ad. E.
Chairperson
Public Service Labour Relations Board

Summary Information

Raison d'être

The Public Service Labour Relations Board (the Board) is a quasi-judicial tribunal mandated by the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) to administer the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the Public Service of Canada. The Board also administers the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act, which covers labour relations in the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Under the PSLRA,the Board has a three-pronged mandate, which consists of (1) hearing and deciding grievances, complaints and labour relations matters; (2) providing mediation services to help parties reach collective agreements, manage their relations under collective agreements, and resolve disputes without resort to a hearing; and (3) conducting analysis and research on compensation for comparable work in labour markets outside the federal public service for use by parties when negotiating collective agreements.

By carrying out its mandate, the Board seeks to achieve the strategic outcome of harmonious labour relations in the federal public service and in Parliament, which provides significant benefits to Canadians. Effective relations between public servants and their employers represent a cornerstone of good human resource management and contribute to minimizing the possibility of labour unrest that can lead to disruption in the delivery of government programs. Collaborative efforts between the parties involved—through communication and sustained dialogue—improve the ability of the public service to serve and protect the interests of Canadians.

Financial Resources

2006-2007 ($ thousands)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$17,924	$18,173	$10,377

Human Resources

2006-2007
Planned	Actual	Difference
90	85	5

Note: Please see Financial Overview for an explanation of the difference between planned spending and actual spending.

Board Priorities

Name	Type	Assessment of Progress Towards Priorities
1. Deliver compensation data	Previously committed	Important progress was made to further strengthen the Board’s capacity to conduct compensation analysis and research. The Board recruited researchers and experts in the fields of job evaluation and compensation. It has been working closely with Statistics Canada in order to benefit from its expertise in identifying and resolving methodological and process issues related to conducting a survey of compensation on a national scale. Three compensation comparability studies have been selected with the date for delivering compensation data slated for 2007-2008, in time for new rounds of collective bargaining.
2. Manage backlog	Previously committed	The Board’s backlog of cases has decreased mainly due to the withdrawal of 860 grievance cases by one bargaining agent after an issue was resolved through collective bargaining. The overall number of new cases received by the Board has stabilized. On March 31, 2007, 3292 cases were carried over to the next fiscal year. This number represents 56% of total caseload for the year under review and is 22% less than the previous year.
3. Improve infrastructure	Ongoing	The Board’s infrastructure has been improved through work on a multi-year project to redesign the case management system, the establishment of a business continuity planning program, the development of policies and procedures to protect IT security and the documentation of internal processes to support corporate memory.
4. Continue to enhance management framework	Ongoing	The Board’s management framework has been enhanced through the initiation of human resources plans for each division and the implementation of a Board-wide learning policy. Further work on human resource planning will be undertaken in 2007-2008.

Strategic Outcome: Harmonious labour relations in the federal public and parliamentary services. Program Activity: Administration of the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the federal public and parliamentary services, including mediation and compensation analysis and research.
Priority	Expected results	Performance status	Planned spending	Actual spending
			2006-2007 ($ thousands)
Deliver compensation data	Deliver limited compensation data	Partially met	6,330	5861
Manage backlog	Bring caseload to more manageable level	Partially met	–	–
Improve infrastructure	Business continuity plan developed, work underway to redesign case management system, policies and procedures developed to protect IT security and internal processes documented	Successfully met	625	559
Continue to enhance management framework	Human resources plans developed for each division and learning policy implemented	Partially met	25	-2

1. See Financial Overview for an explanation of the difference between planned spending and actual spending.

2. The $25,000 planned for human resources consulting services was not spent; the work was performed within the Board.

Overall Board Performance

Operating environment and context

The Public Service Labour Relations Board (the Board) has been operating for two fiscal years within the context of a new public service labour relations regime. On April 1, 2005, the new Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) came into force, replacing the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which had existed since collective bargaining was introduced into the federal public service in 1967.

The PSLRA was introduced as part of a larger set of reforms to human resource management in the federal public service. The new Act was specifically intended to foster more collaborative labour relations in support of healthy and productive public service workplaces. It recognizes that the relationship between labour and management benefits significantly from more dialogue and less confrontation between the parties. It introduced some significant changes to the conduct of public service labour relations, including the establishment by departments and agencies of labour-management consultation committees and informal conflict management systems.

The PSLRA covers some 230 000 federal public servants who belong to 86 bargaining units represented by 22 bargaining agents and who work for 24 different employers in the Public Service of Canada. Treasury Board, which is the employer of the core public administration, is by far the largest of these, employing 163 821 employees in federal government departments and agencies. The remainder–66 255 public service employees–work for one of 23 other employers.

Employees of the federal public service deliver a vast range of programs and services to Canadians. More effective relationships between labour and management can prevent work disruptions and disputes that result in delays, interruptions, or deterioration in the quality of programs and services Canadians rely on. An environment that promotes increased collaboration between employers and employees can improve the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

With the enactment of the PSLRA, the Board has an expanded mandate, which includes the delivery of compensation analysis and research services, enhanced mediation and conflict resolution services, an increased adjudication function and revamped collective bargaining processes. At the same time, the Board continues to provide many of the same services as the former Public Service Staff Relations Board and to build on its accomplishments and the solid body of jurisprudence it generated.

The Board’s expanded mandate has introduced certain complexities to its administration. Among other things, the new mandate has introduced pre-hearing conferences, new requirements for managerial and confidential exclusion orders and multiple types of grievances (individual, group and policy), each with different reporting requirements. Board members sitting as adjudicators may also consider human rights issues and the Canadian Human Rights Commission must, in those cases, be added as an entity that may make submissions to the Board.

Additional human and financial resources have been needed to carry out the Board’s new mandate. In particular, the requirement to deliver compensation analysis and research services has necessitated the establishment of a new division within the Board with new staff. A key risk faced by the Board is the failure to secure a permanent increase to its funding base to cover all its new statutory functions.

Also, given that the new Board continues to deal with matters filed with the former Board, employees have been managing cases filed under two legislative regimes at the same time for the last two fiscal years.

The Board relies on Board members to adjudicate cases and render decisions. Ongoing delays in appointing individuals to fill Board vacancies diminish its ability to function expeditiously. Cases can only be heard and decided by full- and part-time Board members, thus a reduced complement of members lowers the number of cases that can go to hearing.

Many factors outside of the Board's control affect the time it takes to close a case file. For example, more complex cases generally require more time. When employers and bargaining agents experience reduced capacity due to staff vacancies and resource cutbacks, requests for postponements increase, which introduce delays in the processing of cases.

Another challenge facing the Board is the growing number of cases involving individuals who are representing themselves. Most individuals who file grievances or complaints with the Board are represented by their bargaining agents. However, individuals may represent themselves when a grievance relates to termination, demotion or discipline resulting in financial penalty. While those cases still constitute a small proportion of the total number of cases filed every year, they require more time and have a disproportionate impact on the Board’s resources. This is largely because most self-represented individuals are not familiar with the Board’s legislation and regulations and need guidance and information from Board employees in the filing and processing of their cases.

Priorities

The main ongoing priority of the Public Service Labour Relations Board is to carry out its statutory mandate as a quasi-judicial tribunal charged with administering the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the Public Service of Canada, including providing mediation services and compensation analysis and research. It is in this context that the Board selects the priority areas it wishes to focus on from year to year. In 2006-2007, these priority areas included:

1. Deliver compensation data
2. Manage the backlog of cases
3. Improve infrastructure
4. Continue to enhance management framework

1) Deliver compensation data

In 2005-2006, the Board established a division to carry out compensation analysis and research as mandated by the new PSLRA. Its purpose is to enable the Board to provide impartial, accurate and timely information on comparative rates of pay, employee earnings, conditions of employment, and benefits in the public and private sectors. This compensation information, obtained through market-based surveys, is for the use of employers and bargaining agents that participate in the collective bargaining process in the federal public service and is also available to other interested parties.

Compensation is a key issue for both employers and employees at the bargaining table. Negotiations can proceed more smoothly when both sides have equal access to accurate and comprehensive compensation information provided by a neutral and authoritative third party. When parties begin negotiations by agreeing to use the Board’s compensation survey data as a reference point, they can focus their time and effort more efficiently on negotiating rates of pay and other benefits that will be acceptable to all.

It was anticipated that the division would begin to deliver compensation data at the end of 2006-2007. To do so, the division first needed to consult the parties on their compensation information requirements, negotiate cooperative or partnership agreements with provincial governments, staff positions, establish contractual arrangements with suppliers and implement the appropriate technology to manage the data. Considerable work was done in all these areas in the year under review. In light of the varied interests and needs identified by the parties and the various tools required to accommodate these, it was decided to proceed with three separate group-specific compensation comparability studies to produce data for the 2007-2008 round of collective bargaining and to pilot different survey processes and methodological approaches.

The process of selecting the studies began in early 2006, when the Board asked employers and bargaining agents under the PSLRA and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (PESRA) to identify the type of compensation information they required for their upcoming negotiations. Nearly half of the 50 parties contacted proposed one or more research projects that could be undertaken to meet their compensation data requirements.

The Board selected the studies based on criteria that included the opportunity to pilot various methodologies, the scope of the survey or research project, the interests of all parties involved, the timelines within which the data was required, and the resources and capacity of the Board to engage in these projects.

Once the three studies had been chosen, discussions were initiated with the parties involved about the framework and parameters to be used to conduct them. These included selecting the occupations and comparators to be included in the surveys and determining the compensation elements to be measured, such as wages and/or benefits and working conditions.

In 2006-2007, the Board also focused on strengthening its capacity to conduct compensation analysis and research. A great deal of effort was devoted to recruiting researchers and experts in the fields of job evaluation and compensation to join its core team. This team is supported by external service providers that are engaged as required to develop survey tools and conduct survey field work.

This organizational model envisions the contracting out of major survey development and activities and will enable the Board to maintain a strong internal capacity to oversee survey development and to guarantee the quality of survey processes and results. It gives the Board the added flexibility of being able to conduct small group-specific pay surveys or ad hoc surveys on specific benefits and working conditions. As well, it will permit the Board to carry out socio-economic and other research to support its survey activities.

The Board has also been working closely with Statistics Canada to benefit from its expertise in identifying and resolving methodological and process issues related to conducting a survey of compensation on a national scale. Dissemination of a preliminary set of survey results is planned for 2009-2010.

2) Manage the backlog of cases

The expeditious handling of cases before the Board in accordance with the rules of natural justice and fairness is key to carrying out its statutory mandate and maintaining its credibility.

Statistics on cases

One of the Board’s priorities in 2006-2007 was to bring its caseload to a more manageable level. The number of all cases carried over to the next fiscal year (grievances, complaints and applications) was 3292. This represents 56% of the total caseload and is 22% less than the previous year. A large part of this reduction can be attributed to the withdrawal of 860 grievance cases by one bargaining agent after an issue was resolved through collective bargaining.

The total number of cases before the Board–both new and carried over from previous years–continues to increase. In 2006-2007, the total volume of open cases stood at 5928. This represents a 4% increase over 2005-2006, a 35% increase over 2004-2005 and a 48% increase over 2003-2004.

Grievances referred for adjudication make up the largest number of proceedings before the Board, and in 2006-2007 accounted for 88% of the Board’s total active caseload. The types of grievances that can be referred to the Board result from disputes about the application or interpretation of collective agreements or arbitral awards or from major disciplinary action resulting in termination, demotion, suspension or financial penalty, and from termination or demotion as a result of unsatisfactory performance.

At the end of 2006-2007, the Board’s caseload of active grievances stood at 5211. This was 4% more than in 2005-2006, 22% more than in 2004-2005, 68% more than in 2003-2004 and 169% more than in 2002-2003. The substantial increase in new cases received over the past several years has created a backlog for the Board. Every year, there has been an increase in the number of grievance cases carried forward to the next fiscal year, up until 2006-2007. At March 31, 2007, the Board carried over 2992 active grievance cases to 2007-2008, representing 24% fewer cases than the year before.

The Board closed 2219 grievance cases in 2006–2007, or 43% of all grievance cases. Cases are closed when they are settled by the parties, withdrawn by a party, or disposed of by way of a decision or order of the Board or an adjudicator of the Board. A decision or order can close more than one case. The vast majority of cases closed in 2006-2007 were settled or withdrawn by the parties involved.

Cases can be carried over to the next fiscal year for a variety of reasons. Cases carried over include those that were heard in the fiscal year and were awaiting a decision at year-end, cases that were scheduled for hearing in the next fiscal year and cases that were held in abeyance at the request of the parties pending discussions or other decisions from the Board, other tribunals or courts.

The challenge

At the same time as the volume of active cases has been increasing from year to year, many employer groups and bargaining agents have been experiencing reductions in the resources available to deal with them. This has led to an increased number of requests to the Board to postpone cases, which contributes to the Board’s case backlog.

It is important to note that there are a number of factors that make the Board’s caseload appear larger than it actually is. Under the former Act, there was no formal provision for group grievances as it currently exists under the new Act. Instead, employees who shared a common concern might have submitted many separate references to adjudication on the same subject at the same time.

On occasion, bargaining agents have also used this approach as part of a collective bargaining campaign to press for solutions to common problems experienced by their members. On occasion, these campaigns have resulted in a large volume of similar grievances being referred over a very short period of time, such as several hundred in the course of one week.

In practice, the Board has normally consolidated these grievances for purposes of adjudication. Alternatively, an adjudicated outcome in a representative case might be used by the parties to resolve other references on the same subject. In still other instances, groups of cases have been withdrawn without formal Board intervention once the matter has been resolved in another setting.

The Board also frequently receives multiple references to adjudication from a single grievor, either at the same time or sequentially. In most situations where it is possible, Board mediators and adjudicators address these files together in one proceeding. Often, multiple files reveal related problems in the workplace that can best be solved through an integrated approach.

Finally, some files come to the Board when a party needs to comply with collective agreement or statutory time limits in order to protect its rights. A number of those cases are subsequently withdrawn when the parties themselves resolve the matter voluntarily prior to Board involvement.

Given these types of situations, the Board’s true caseload at any time is composed of a subset of the number of files formally referred to it—a subset that is not always easy to quantify with certainty.

The Board’s approach

When the Board receives a reference to adjudication, a complaint or another application, it gives priority to exploring options for resolving the matter voluntarily through mediation. Board mediators and Board members acting as mediators have established a strong record of success in helping the parties find solutions to their problems without the need for more formal hearings and decisions.

The Board’s mediation services also include preventive mediation, which is aimed at resolving disputes even before an application is filed. This can help reduce the number of cases before the Board.

In 2006-2007, the Board provided mediation services in 279 cases. This includes 223 cases in which a grievance or complaint had been filed and 56 cases of preventive mediation. Parties were successful in resolving 89% (247) of those cases with the assistance of Board-appointed mediators.

The Board took action in 2006-2007 to deal with a steep rise in the number of requests from parties on both sides to postpone hearings at the last minute, either because of eleventh-hour settlement discussions or because witnesses were suddenly unavailable. To address this, the Board notified the parties that requests for postponement would be more closely scrutinized in the future and could be refused. The Board is also encouraging the parties to propose alternate cases that can be substituted into the time slots of cases that are unable to proceed.

The Board has also introduced new case management practices to keep active files to a manageable number. When new references and complaints are filed, they go through a thorough screening to identify any trends that would permit the Board to administratively group matters to be heard together or at least to track them under one common element.

In addition, the Board is making greater use of the new provisions in the Act that provide for pre-hearing conferences. These have proven to be effective in clarifying issues prior to the start of a hearing, and, in some cases, they eliminate the need for an in-person hearing altogether. Pre-hearing conferences still present a challenge for the parties, who have to find time not just for the formal hearing, but also for these conferences. The Board is using alternate modes such as teleconferences to hold hearings as well.

For a number of years, the Board has offered expedited adjudication to parties who want to save time and resources. This allows certain grievances to be dealt with without resorting to a full hearing process. In the expedited process, the parties normally file an agreed statement of facts and no witnesses are heard. In 2006-2007, 21 cases filed with the Board requested the expedited adjudication process. The nine expedited adjudication hearings held during the year resulted in decisions affecting 20 cases from previous years.

In 2006-2007, the Board’s Chairperson held a number of meetings with the parties in an attempt to discuss strategies to reduce the number of new cases submitted to the Board. The Board has opted to try to reduce the number of cases on intake as well as set targets for backlog reductions.

The Board’s workload has grown significantly over the last five fiscal years without a concomitant increase in its permanent funding. Ever since the Public Service Modernization Act received Royal Assent in 2003, the Board has been requesting a reference level adjustment that would allow it to adopt more aggressive measures to deal with the backlog of cases. However, as we have stated in previous reports, the Board has only been allocated annual budget adjustments, for which it must re-apply each year, hence requiring time, energy and human resources in the submission of repeated requests for the funds essential to conducting the Board’s statutory mandate.

Ongoing delays in appointing individuals to fill Board vacancies have also affected the organization’s ability to function expeditiously. Since cases can only be heard and decided by full- and part-time Board members, a partial complement of members reduces the number of cases that can go to hearing.

3) Improve infrastructure

In the area of infrastructure improvement, the Board focused on continuing to implement a multi-year project to redesign its case management system, putting in place a business continuity plan, developing policies and procedures to protect IT security, and documenting internal processes to support corporate memory during times of staff transition.

In 2005-2006, the Board launched a project to revamp its case management application environment to respond to the pressures of a higher volume of increasingly complex cases, to facilitate more detailed reporting, to give employees more efficient, up-to-date and integrated tools for managing cases, and to conform to government information technology standards. The new case management system will allow the Board to manage case information electronically from initial intake to the distribution and posting of the decision.

In 2006-2007, project work focused on analyzing business processes, available technology and systems used by organizations with similar processes, as well as on introducing some electronic features that facilitate the processing of case files. More specifically, an electronic case file locator was introduced to facilitate the transfer and tracking of files by Board employees. This involved affixing bar codes to all case files, providing bar code scanners to employees and creating a simple electronic tracking system linked to the Board’s electronic records management system. An electronic “bring forward” module was also introduced, which has increased the efficiency of registry operations and records management services. The project team also studied the Board’s requirements for imaging, which entails the transformation of paper files to electronic files through scanning.

Business continuity planning is vital to ensuring the continued delivery of the Board’s mission-critical services when faced with crises or emergencies. In accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s policy and standards the Board developed and launched the implementation of a detailed business continuity program. The program is based on the results of a threat and risk assessment and business impact analysis and includes an internal policy on business continuity planning, a crisis response plan, business continuity response strategies and a pandemic response plan.

The Board has experienced some delays in implementing one key element of its recovery plan, which consists of simultaneous mirroring of data on a remote server. This would allow the Board, in the event of an emergency situation interrupting the operations of the main server, to access its critical systems through the remote server, with little manual intervention. Ongoing power issues being encountered by the remote data centre maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada have resulted in delays in implementing this critical element.

In 2006-2007, the Board implemented new internal policies and procedures to protect the security of its information technology resources in compliance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s security standards. These standards provide a framework for the security of information technology that is coordinated and uniform throughout the federal government. Policies developed during the year under review cover areas such as the use of the electronic network, and the security of network accounts.

Another achievement in 2006-2007 was the documentation of key processes unique to the Board in order to support corporate memory and facilitate transitions during employee turnover.

4) Continue to enhance our management framework

The Board implemented a new learning policy in 2006-2007 that supports the development of individual multi-year learning plans for employees. These plans will allow individuals to continuously update their knowledge base in order to meet the evolving challenges of their positions and prepare for possible advancement opportunities. The Board also organized in-house training sessions on conflict management and the requirements of Access to Information and Privacy legislation.

The effective management of human resources requires good human resource planning. In 2006-2007, the development of human resource plans was initiated for each division. Work was undertaken to identify operational requirements and organizational needs and reflect them in the Board’s planning documents. This work will be continued in 2007-2008.

For a number of years now, the Board has instituted a culture for internal audit and has made it a practice to commit ongoing and sufficient resources to this function. The Board produces a multi-year audit plan addressing the areas of highest risk and significance. When developing this plan, the Board takes into consideration the topics that are scheduled to be covered by government-wide audits to avoid duplication of efforts.

The Board took part in the first horizontal audit of small departments and agencies (SDA) conducted by the Office of the Comptroller General that looked at travel and hospitality expenditures. As of March 31, 2007, results of this audit had not yet been communicated to the SDA community. The Board also retained the services of an independent consultant to inspect the workplace occupied by the Board in order to identify any workplace safety risks or concerns to occupants and visitors. No major concerns were raised.

The planned development in 2006-2007 of an integrated, comprehensive code of conduct for Board employees was postponed in light of the impending coming into force of the new Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which took place April 15, 2007 and its requirement for a new Public Sector Code of Conduct. The Board seeks to ensure its code is consistent with these documents covering the wider public service. The Board will participate in consultation sessions on the main elements of the new Public Sector Code of Conduct to be held in early 2007-2008.

The Board also continues to assess opportunities for alternative service delivery, such as partnerships with other independent tribunals in the delivery of specific corporate services. As active members of a number of networks in the SDA community, the Board is keeping abreast of opportunities for such partnerships. For example, the Public Service Agency of Canada is now allocating resources to help the SDA community address some of its key human resources concerns, which the Board hopes will bear fruit in the future.

Link to the Government of Canada Outcome Areas

As a federal quasi-judicial tribunal operating in the area of labour relations, the Public Service Labour Relations Board is aligned to the “Government Affairs” Outcome area as set out in the government of Canada’s “whole of government framework.” By promoting harmonious labour relations in the public service and in Parliament and providing neutral third-party processes to employers, bargaining agents and employees for the resolution of workplace disputes, the Board contributes to the smooth operation of the Government of Canada.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page