<
 
 
 
 
ž
>
Vous consultez une page Web conservée, recueillie par Bibliothèque et Archives Canada le 2006-12-10 à 22:53:06. Il se peut que les informations sur cette page Web soient obsolètes, et que les liens hypertextes externes, les formulaires web, les boîtes de recherche et les éléments technologiques dynamiques ne fonctionnent pas. Voir toutes les versions de cette page conservée.
Chargement des informations sur les médias

You are viewing a preserved web page, collected by Library and Archives Canada on 2006-12-10 at 22:53:06. The information on this web page may be out of date and external links, forms, search boxes and dynamic technology elements may not function. See all versions of this preserved page.
Loading media information
X
njc logo - Return to Home Page
National Joint Council
 Français Contact Us Help Search
njc logo - Return to Home Page
about the NJC
what's new
current committee activities
njc directives
rates and allowances
njc grievances
health plans
publications
links
Public Service Commission Advisory Council (PSCAC)
Union-Management Advisory Committee

print version of this page

NJC Grievances

Related Topics
Search Decisions
Archived Decisions
Grievance Levels
Grievance Procedure
Grievance Process
Guidelines

The NJC Grievance process is a very successful example of alternate dispute resolution which has been in place for many years.  At the final level, the process has two distinctive and innovative features:

The criterion for reviewing grievances is the intent of the directive.  Final level hearings are fact-finding inquiries designed to discover whether an employee has been treated within the intent of the directive.  This contrasts with the formal adjudication under the Public Service Staff Relations Act where the test is the meaning of the specific words in a collective agreement.

Who better to determine the intent than the parties who were responsible for the directive in the first place?  At a final level NJC hearing, committee members from both management and bargaining agent sides who co-developed the directive weigh whether or not the directive has been applied as they intended.  While there is sometimes disagreement between the parties about intent, much more often both sides reach consensus about how an employee should have been treated.  This process is very different from conventional final level hearings where only one side --- management hears and decides the issue.


[ HOME | TOP | BACK ]
Last Modified: 2006-07-06 [ Important Notices ]