Ruling gives border guard his just deserts


From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

September 10, 2008 at 4:20 AM EDT

It has taken nearly five years and a ruling from a federal tribunal, but Yves Julien has finally won a battle with his bosses at the Canada Border Services Agency to be reimbursed for a $9 meal.

The dispute began on Dec. 27, 2003, when Mr. Julien, a border services officer in Quebec, got called in to work. It was a Saturday, normally a day off for Mr. Julien.

He worked a regular 11-hour shift that day and put in another three hours when asked by his supervisor. Mr. Julien was paid time and a half for the shift and double time for the extra three hours (border officers make between $51,000 and $55,000 annually).

But when Mr. Julien asked for $9 to cover a meal, he was refused. He argued that, under the collective agreement, officers were entitled to the meal allowance if they worked three hours beyond their normal shift. But his supervisors said that did not apply when officers worked on holidays because they were already getting overtime pay.

Mr. Julien didn't back down. He filed a grievance on Feb. 16, 2004. The grievance went through various levels before finally being turned down on Jan. 23, 2006.

Mr. Julien didn't stop there. He took his case to the Public Services Labour Relations Board. During a hearing last June, representatives for Mr. Julien and the government clashed.

Mr. Julien's lawyer, Amarkai Laryea from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, argued that, under clause 28.09 (a), he was clearly entitled to the $9 allowance. Mr. Laryea added that the Canada Border Services Agency had paid similar allowances to others.

But Caroline Proulx, who represented the government, said other sections of the agreement made it clear that the meal allowance did not have to be paid.

Adjudicator Renaud Paquet sided with Mr. Julien. In a ruling dated Aug. 12, Mr. Paquet said the agreement provided for the meal allowance when employees work three hours beyond a normal shift.

"This is exactly what happened to [Mr. Julien] on December 27, 2003. Accordingly, the employer should pay him a meal allowance of $9, which it did not do." Mr. Paquet ordered the government to immediately pay him the $9.

Mr. Julien could not be reached and Mr. Laryea declined comment. An official with PSAC said the case may look trite, but the issue is important to thousands of public servants.

"This is a bread-and-butter administration of labour relations in the broader public service and to some people it looks like $9, but to others this is how labour relations work," the official said. "He got his $9."




Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre


Ottawa Mens, from Ottawa, Canada) wrote: Government "bad faith" is not just obvious, its a symptom of "abuse of power", its not unique to any government or organization, its insidious, its generally difficult to fight because those in power do anything and everything they can to "cover it up" , intimidate and or "make an administrative or judicial decision that favours those with connections to those with power and authority who have little or no conscience about abusing fiduciary duty.

Canadians need to remember that the person or person who is most likely to abuse them is the person or persons they trust the most.

That means judges, Canadian judges receive absolutely no psychological screening, it attracts those who seek power and authority, not necessarily to earn tainted cash, but for the sheer thrill of abusing absolute power for their own political connections.

Judges go to classes on feminism, thats right, special classes that are more properly referred to as "brain washing sessions",
then they have "judicial seminars" on how to "get rid of cases", that means making use of "innovative strategies"
which means, issuing draconian orders without any justification other than to satisfy their organizational goals of "reducing case loads" and their unofficial war against men, especially unrepresented male litigants seeking access to their children.

A few of the very worst disgraces who flagrantly abuse their judicial powers hang out at 161 Elgin Street Ottawa, bringing the administration of justice into ill repute, by issuing orders that permanently bar anyone they don't like from the court system, permanently. Their draconian orders are in many cases, indefinite life long jail sentences without any possibility of appeal or variation simply because a father wanted access to his child/ren.

Our family court judiciary are a national disgrace of epidemic proportions.