News - May 2006

The headlines for news items published during this month are listed immediately below.

Click on the headline of your choice to see the entire text of the article.

 

An all-too-familiar tale: PSLRB rules CFIA wrongly suspended

veterinarian-in-charge over industry complaints

Erratum - Amended bargaining team selection process

to enhance CFIA negotiations

New temporary Service Officer at work in National Office

Update - EG Review at AAFC

An all-too-familiar tale: PSLRB rules CFIA wrongly suspended veterinarian-in-charge over industry complaints

(posted May 18, 2006)

We’ve seen this movie before. In a front-page story, the Globe and Mail reported on May 16 that a veterinarian-in-charge was suspended from regular inspection duties at a Nova Scotia packer after industry complaints of his ‘excessive’ rate of product condemnation.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency claimed the one-month suspension was merely ‘administrative’ and not disciplinary in nature. Dr. Scott Frazee and his union took the suspension to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

The PSLRB agreed that the suspension amounted to discipline, and that it was unfounded. It ordered the employee’s record cleared. In addition, it ruled that CFIA violated the collective agreement when it ignored Dr. Frazee’s request for an investigation into industry interference in the performance of his duties.

The Board went on to note that the industry’s conduct amounted to ‘harassment and coercion’ that interfered with inspection duties. It ordered CFIA to investigate and implement corrective action concerning the interference.

It is scandalous in this day and age, when the public is rightly concerned with the security of the food chain, that the employer caves in to pressure from private industry and discredits the professional opinion of both veterinarians and food inspectors.

Indeed, as reprehensible as it is, a number of Agriculture Union PIs have suffered the same fate as Dr. Frazee.

Here is the Globe and Mail article:

 

Meat inspector’s rigorous standards led to three-year beef with bosses

          Dr. Scott Frazee has been a veterinarian with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for 10 years and he knows all about the pressure meat inspectors face from the food industry.
But what he never expected was how quickly his own bosses at the agency would succumb to that pressure and potentially put food safety at risk.

          "I was shocked," Dr. Frazee said from his home in Berwick, N.S. "It's difficult to do your job even with support, but in this case there was no support from my own employer."

           For the past three years, Dr. Frazee has been battling the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) over the way it handled complaints about his meat inspections at Larsen Packers Ltd., a Nova Scotia pork plant owned by Maple Leaf Foods Inc.

           The plant is one of the largest in Atlantic Canada. It employs roughly 600 people and processes about 2,000 hogs a day. Dr. Frazee joined the agency in 1996 and has been head veterinarian at Larsen since 1997, leading a CFIA team that includes one other veterinarian and six meat inspectors.

           When plant manager Mike Larsen and a group of hog producers complained that Dr. Frazee was rejecting too many hogs, the agency suspended him from the kill floor and launched a review of his inspection techniques.

           Despite three independent assessments that upheld Dr. Frazee's conduct, his duties continued to be restricted after Mr. Larsen and the producers took their complaints up agency ranks to the regional director. In one letter to a senior agency official, a group of hog producers said that, if Dr. Frazee was not removed, they would take their hogs to other facilities. "No other option is acceptable," the letter warned.

           Dr. Frazee was eventually restored to his position on June 25, 2003, after two months of wrangling between the plant and CFIA, but his fellow inspectors were stunned by the agency's actions.

           After his reappointment, Dr. Frazee asked the agency to look into how it handled the situation, alleging the agency buckled under intimidation. When his request was ignored, he took his case to the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The CFIA rejected his allegations and argued before the board that it did its best to resolve a difficult issue.

            In a decision released last week, the board backed up Dr. Frazee's concerns and ordered the agency to review its actions. Adjudicator Léo-Paul Guindon ruled that the repeated requests by Mr. Larsen and the producers to remove Dr. Frazee amounted to "harassment and coercion."

            "The expressly stated objective of the industry was to have Dr. Frazee removed off the kill floor and, later, out of the Larsen Packers Ltd.'s plant," Mr. Guindon said in his ruling. He added that the agency sent the wrong signal by suspending Dr. Frazee before properly assessing the complaints.

             Jeanette Jones, a spokeswoman for Maple Leaf, said the company and Mr. Larsen were unaware the issue had gone to the labour board. She said they will review the decision and make any necessary changes.
"The vets play a very important and valuable role at these facilities," Ms. Jones said.

             A CFIA spokesman said the agency is reviewing the ruling.

             The tribunal heard that Dr. Frazee's case was not the first. "This is becoming an all too frequent occurrence in this Agency," Maureen Harper, a vice-president with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents the veterinarians, said in a letter filed with the board. "Plant management makes a complaint to CFIA if they perceive a vet is too stringent in performing his duties, which causes an economic loss to the plant and CFIA pulls the vet from the job to keep the industry happy. And we dare call ourselves a regulatory Agency!"

             Industry pressure is a concern for veterinarians across Canada, said Alan Phillips, a union official who represented Dr. Frazee. Mr. Phillips said many veterinarians simply quit because of the stress. He added that Dr. Frazee was the first to fight back and his case has already resulted in important changes.

             Dr. Frazee, 37, is still working at Larsen but his relations with management remain strained. "Life hasn't been quite the same since. I wish it never happened in the first place," he said. "It's hard to hold your head up going down the halls some days, but you got to put the smile on anyway. Right?"


Erratum - Amended bargaining team selection process to enhance CFIA negotiations

(posted as amended, May 16, 2006)

(This article, originally posted February 22, 2006, inadvertently contained incomplete information.)

Changes to the Agriculture Union’s process for selecting bargaining team members will bring about major advances in upcoming preparation process for negotiations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The improvements were enacted at February’s National Council meeting, following recommendations from the Collective Bargaining and Occupational Safety Committee. As delegates to regional and national bargaining conferences will be selected at this year’s Agriculture Union Regional Seminars, it was important to approve the by-law changes before the seminar cycle begins in March.

The former process was out of sync with the regulation of our bargaining agent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), governing the collective bargaining process (Regulation 15).

The new process results in a number of improvements that bring our CFIA members into line with other PSAC bargaining units:

          • The PSAC will organize and fund a National CFIA Bargaining Conference.

          • A PSAC negotiator assigned to CFIA bargaining will be available at that conference to explain and                      advise on contract demands brought forward from the membership.

          • Two delegates per region will be sent to this conference with the possibility of additional

                 representatives if needed for equity

        

New temporary Service Officer at work in National Office

(posted May 11, 2006)

There’ll be a new face around the National Office for the next six months. Jerry Kovacs started work May 7 as an Agriculture Union Service Officer. He will backfill Sylvia Prowse’s position until her return from leave next October.

Jerry, who has considerable experience working for other unions, will assume Sylvia’s responsibility for all Agriculture Union Locals in the Prairies and British Columbia. He can be reached at kovacsj@psac-afpc.com.

All of us at the National Office extend a warm welcome to Jerry!


Update – EG Review at AAFC

(posted May 2, 2006)

Our Agriculture and Agri-Food members involved in the ongoing EG Review in the Prairies region – known internally as ‘Phase 1’ – have completed the Informal Dispute Resolution process.

Those Phase I members who are not satisfied with the outcome of the IDR process have the option of proceeding at the final level of the grievance procedure.  For some EG members, that means reviving a grievance put into abeyance pending the results of IDR.  Other members need to file a grievance.

In either case, it is critical that Locals send the following information for each member choosing to grieve to Sylvie Rochon at the Agriculture Union National Office:

          • a legible copy of the grievance form (signed and dated by the grievor, the union representative and the

                employer);

          • a copy of the letter received by the grievor and the job description (including the point rating);

          • arguments submitted through the IDR process; and

          • a note highlighting why the grievor wants to proceeds with the grievance.

EG members involved in the Review in the rest of the country – known as ‘Phase II’ – are currently going through the IDR process.  It is important that this process be followed until its completion.   Then, Phase 2 members wishing to grieve must follow the steps outlined in the preceding paragraph.

Our EG members should bear several points in mind.  First, unlike the case with other grievance levels, at the final level there is no time limit to present your arguments at a hearing.

Secondly, to ensure that we put the best case forward at final level, the National Office must examine and analyse each individual grievance.  Of course, this means we cannot proceed from our end until the results of the IDR process for both Phases are made available to the union.

We will continue to keep our members updated as events dictate.

© 2005-2009 AGRICULTURE UNION - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 
Site Search
Update Membership Information
'KeyInfo' Information Kit
Agriculture Union Equal Opportunities
Social Justice Fund
Health & Safety
Adobe Acrobat Reader Download
Syndicat Agriculture Union Logo
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Series of seven head-and-shoulders photos of a representative variety of
Francais