Training and Education Committee
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 6th, 2017
Present: Kimberley Skanes, Chair
Nancy Lamarche, Director of Regional Labour Relation Services
Gordon Bulmer, National Capital Region
Peter S. Jozsa, Ontario
Peter MacDougall, British Columbia / Yukon
Carolyn Hynes, Atlantic Region
Robert Tellier, Quebec
Ivana Saula, Education Officer
Audrey Joyal, Staff Resource
Alternates: Bobby Eiswirth, Prairie / NWT
Regrets: Kieth L. Laing, Prairie / NWT
1. Call to Order
K. Skanes called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. (EST), November 6th, 2017, in the National Office (Salon A).
2 Approval of the Agenda Peter
The Committee requested that the following items be added to the Agenda:
+ Brainstorm for AGM video
+ AGM Self-Identification Form
P. Jozsa and G.Bulmer approved the Agenda as modified.
3. Approval of Minutes of last Meeting
P.MacDougall and G.Bulmer approved the meeting minutes from September 11th, 2017 as presented.
4. Review Action Items
The Committee updated the action items; the staff resource is to update the items for the next meeting.
5. Ongoing Business
A. Feedback Steward Council Presentations
The Committee members were asked to give a short presentation of the New Training and Education Model during their respective steward councils1.
G.Bulmer, National Capital Region Representative, reported that he received a positive response to the new model. The NCR stewards appreciated the National Training component and realized the cost-saving benefits. There was a positive response to highlighting the Communication/Information as part of the steward’s role. This advocates for those who wish to be involved with the union outside of representational duties.
There were some concerns regarding the appropriate authority approving/assigning levels and how this determination could be made accurately.
Along with the youth identifier, it was suggested that a section on identifying all equity seeking groups be included in the next version. This way, the form would be more inclusive and provide the Institute with valuable information on its membership.
C.Hynes, Atlantic Region Representative, expressed that their stewards had an overall positive response to the reform.
In terms of feedback, they were concerned with how the annual budget would be allocated and whether the regional budgets would be reduced to accommodate the national program. Queries involving the existence of budget exercises and the impact the new model would have on PIPSC’s frontline Staff were posed.
The reluctance for identifying stewards by levels surfaced. The levels insinuated progression and hierarchy. Some felt this could have negative repercussions on their interactions with their employer. This became more alarming given the possibility that these levels may be wrongfully attributed to begin with.
K.Skanes, Chair of the TEC, also presented in the Atlantic Region and explained to their stewardship that the levels are meant for internal purposes only as a means to measure the type and the extent of involvement. This information is not to be publicized. The new format is to improve the steward’s learning trajectory and better record progression. Questions regarding the accuracy of the data captured were also expressed; these matters will be addressed in due time during the rollout.
There was a consensus in the Atlantic that it was too early in the process to self-identify levels.
It was suggested that the levels be renamed to better reflect what they are meant for. For example, the levels could be rebranded as “Education 1, 2, 3”. Instead of assigning levels, each steward could be assigned a learning path and/or specialization. That being said, it was cautioned that specializations could result in limitations.
On behalf of K.Laing, B.Eiswirth reported for the Prairie / NWT Region. The presentation was well received overall. Similar concerns pertaining to the level determination and inaccurate self-identifying were expressed. Much of the concerns mentioned in the Atlantic report echoed in the Prairies/NWT.
To conclude, B. Eiswirth noted that their region experienced an increase in young delegates (status: youth) attending steward basic training and becoming involved with the union.
P. MacDougall, B.C. / Yukon Region Representative, advised that the presentation was well received. Eddie Gillis, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Secretary of The Institute, joined P.MacDougall in the Question and Answer segment. E.Gillis confirmed The Institute’s support of the New Education Model presented by the Training and Education Committee. There is a need to continue improving and catering training to better serve the membership; the stewards were receptive to this.
P.Jozsa, Ontario Region Representative, shared concerns with the inherent subjectivity behind asking one to self-identify. Stewards were concerned that the responses would not be objective and would lead to undeserved level promotions. P.Jozsa then reiterated how the levels should be interpreted, i.e. beginner, intermediate and advanced. In addition, he assured that National Training is not to replace Regional Training. National training is to allow steward specializations and in-depth training.
R. Tellier, Quebec Region Representative, reported that the self-identification cards generated extensive discussion amongst the stewards. There was an overall rejection of level classification. The stewards suggested that that the identification process be training-focused versus steward-focused; this classification approach would be more informed. This way, the appropriate audience could be determined by training offered on an ongoing basis. This approach better lends itself to specializations and more accurately captures the level of involvement.
B. Self-Identification Cards, now, Expression of Interest Form
I.Saula, Education Officer, provided a summary on the self-identification cards canvassed from the regions following their steward councils. In the self-identified “areas of interest”, stewards provided topics mostly offered in training (i.e. Negotiations, Consultation and OSH) and consistent with the education survey.
Various available systems were explored to record the data gathered from the self-identification forms distributed at the steward councils. Once the data entered, statistics could be generated and trends identified. The Mobilization Section is currently using Nation Builder. For the time being and for the purposes of identifying training, PIMS will be used as the database. In the future, I.Saula explains, the information could be integrated into Nation Builder and tags could be created.
It should be noted that there is an observable interest in co-facilitation and mobilization/recruitment amongst stewards. This information should be recorded in a database. There is an interest in mobilization activities outside of the traditional steward role. Indentifying these stewards would help recognize future specializations and develop training.
There should also be a database recording stewards involved with committees, such as Occupational Health and Safety, as they require custom training and are active within the union. G.Bulmer cautions that the employers are legally obliged to provide employees with training on Occupational Health and Safety (OSH). In order to avoid any confusion regarding employer responsibility, the PIPSC training on OSH must be union-centric and clearly titled to differentiate itself from the employers’. The PIPSC training is not meant to release the employer from its duty to provide training to its employees. I.Saula confirmed that the OSH training is meant to be given nationally and will not be portrayed as a replacement.
In response to the feedback provided on the new model and the regions, the self-identification card was revised2. The card is now referred to as the “Expression of Interest Form” and focuses on training, themes and specializations. It also encourages stewards to provide three (3) preferred themes, welcoming them to specialize in more than one topic. The Committee suggested that the following integral topics to a steward’s role be added to the form including, “Collective Agreement Interpretation and Grievance Handling”. These were added under “Steward Development”.
The form moved away from being level-centric and emphasized themed training; the Committee voted to use the revision for the upcoming AGM.
- Education to update form (French/English) with changes and prepare copies for the AGM.
C. Regional Selection Criteria
There were no changes made to the language proposed.3
D. National Selection Criteria
Changes were made to better reflect the criteria and process for National Training. To summarize the changes, the Education Coordinator will manage registrations and the Training and Education Committee will select the attendees for both attendees and those in waiting4.
I.Saula suggested that National Training evolve from theory-based learning to predominantly practice-based learning. The lecture-like content could be introduced as pre-course materials and assignments. This would better utilize the participants’ time in class and more activities, role-plays and exercises could be introduced. P.Jozsa further elaborated on how beneficial role play scenarios are to grasping a skill. The Committee agreed that practice-based learning for National Training would better prepare stewards during their development and specializations. Lastly, this approach to training would encourage all attendees to actively participate and engage during class as the setting would be more interactive. The Committee members responded positively to this approach.
- Education to update National Selection Criteria to reflect amendments.
In an effort to redistribute the TEC budget within the regions to better meet the needs for training, twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) were allocated to Ontario’s budget under “other”. Ontario did not have a budget for this type of training accounted for in the breakdowns. This reallocation within regions does not put TEC over budget.
K.Skanes to communicated with CFO and amend budget allocation by region.
F. AGM Video Preparation
Each committee member provided one line in support of the new model. These were reviewed by Communications Officer assigned to the project and the Production Company prior to filming.
6. Round Table / Regional Reports
These items were mostly covered during the meeting (steward councils and the selection criteria). The production crew arrived at 3:00 p.m. sharp to start filming; The Committee members opted out of explicitly addressing these.
7. Next Meeting Date
An invitation survey, Doodle, proposing dates around December 8th and 9th, 2017 will be sent.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. EST. The video shoot for the AGM took place from 3-5:00 p.m.
1 Appendix A : Preview, TEC’s Steward Council Presentation
2 Appendix B : Expression of Interest Form
3 Appendix C : Regional Selection Criteria (page 10)
4 Appendix D : National Selection Criteria (page 11)
THE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM
The new model enables stewards to specialize in their chosen area of interest through themed training. To gain a better understanding of steward’s education and training interests, we are seeking your input through this form. Please read each of the descriptions of proposed themes and indicate a maximum of three topics you are most interested in specializing in, in order of preference. Also indicate if you hope to gain a fundamental, working or expert knowledge in your chosen topics of interest. Note that the descriptions of themes are not exhaustive, and will expand as we continuously gain feedback from stewards.
• Human Rights Topics: Duty to Accommodate, Applying Concepts of Human Rights in Workplaces, Mental Health In The Workplace
• Performance Management: Progressive Discipline, Bullying and Harassment, The Performance Management program
• Negotiations: The Process of Negotiating, Negotiating Skills and Techniques, Preparing for Negotiations, Strike Aversion and Preparedness
• Consultation: What is Consultation? Levels of Consultation, Building Effective Consultation Teams
• Occupational Health and Safety: Workplace Violence, Psychologically Healthy Workplaces, Skills for Workplace Health and Safety Reps and Committee Members, Foundations of OSH
• Member Engagement and Mobilization: Engaging Members In Your Workplace, Foundations of Mobilizing, Using Social Media, Organizing Events: Setting Up For Success
• Pensions and Benefits: Preparing for Retirement, The Public Service Pension Plan, Health and Dental Benefits, The Disability Plan
• Steward Development: Having Difficult Conversations, Persuasive Communication, Facing Management, Public Speaking, Dealing With Member-Member Conflict, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Advanced Grievance Handling, Informal Resolution Processes
THE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM
Membership ID: #
Age: Indicate if under 40:
Based on the descriptions of provided themes, I am most interested in the following, in order of preference;
In chosen topic indicated as number;
1, I hope to gain, a fundamental understanding of the topic, working knowledge, or expert knowledge.
2, I hope to gain, a fundamental understanding of the topic, working knowledge, or expert knowledge
3, I hope to gain, a fundamental understanding of the topic, working knowledge, or expert knowledge
As a means to gather information on diversity, please check any of the diversity groups you belong to;
Women Visible minority LGBTQ
Aboriginal Disabled-(visible and invisible)
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The information is for internal purposes only, and will help the Institute meet training needs.
PLEASE RETURN CARD TO THE EDUCATION OFFICERS.
PIPSC Steward Training Selection Criteria and Approval Process
TEC Review 2017 – Edited November 6th, 2017
Level I – Regional Basic Steward Training and Selection and Approval Process:
1. Regional Office Administrator prepares a list of eligible applicants and forwards it to the Regional Training Committee Chairperson for review and approval.
2. An eligible applicant is one that has completed the online prerequisite, “Introduction to PIPSC and the Labour Movement”.
3. If there are more than 20 applicants then priority will be given to distribution between departments, groups and geographical locations.
4. If there are less than 20 applicants then Stewards eligible for a refresher may be invited to apply and a business case may be required.
5. Stewards requesting a refresher course, who have met the five (5) year waiting period, may be placed on a waiting list as priority goes to new applicants.
6. Stewards who have taken basic training within the last five (5) years will not be eligible.
7. A limited number of seats may be offered for refreshers (for example limited to 5)
8. There should normally be at least twelve (12) new stewards registered for the course to proceed.
9. A steward is normally limited to redoing the course twice (2) unless there is major content change.
10. A final list may be determined in consultation with the regional professional staff (EROs).
11. Regional Office Administrator notifies the eligible candidates that their application has been approved and provides ‘Confirmation of Registration’ as well as travel information and any administrative details.
12. Regional Office Administrator sends an email to any candidates who were not selected to advise them that their names will be recorded on a waiting list and their applications may be approved should space become available.
13. As cancellations occur, the vacant spaces are filled from the waiting list. The minimum period for replacements is normally two weeks prior to the course, after which time no more changes are made for administrative reasons.
Level II and III - Regional Advanced Labour School Screening and Approval Process:
1. Regional Office Administrator prepares a list of eligible applicants and forwards it to the Regional Training Committee Chairperson for review.
2. Priority is given to distribution between departments, groups and geographical locations.
3. Stewards requesting to repeat a course, who have met the five (5) year waiting period, may be placed on a waiting list as priority goes to new applicants.
4. Stewards shall normally only repeat a course twice unless there is a major content change (or three times, depending on focus area/ come courses require more reviews)
5. Training courses offered will be based on the specific role of the steward.
6. A final list may be determined in consultation with the regional professional staff (EROs).
7. Regional Office Administrator notifies the eligible candidates that their application has been approved and provides ‘Confirmation of Registration’ as well as travel information and any administrative details.
8. Regional Office Administrator sends an email to any candidates who were not selected to advise them that their names will be recorded on a waiting list and their applications may be approved should space become available.
9. As cancellations occur, the vacant spaces are filled from the waiting list. The minimum period for replacements is normally two weeks prior to the course, after which time no more changes are made for administrative reasons.
All Levels - National Training Screening and Approval Process:
1. Each region will compile a list of applicants for review by the national committee (TEC).
2. Priority is given to distribution between departments, groups and geographical locations.
3. With group specific training it will be the national group executive who will provide recommendations for the participants.
4. If training applies to consultation specific, the consultation team president will make recommendations.
5. Stewards requesting to repeat a course, who have met the five (5) year waiting period, may be placed on a waiting list as priority goes to new applicants.
6. An eligible applicant will be selected based on their identified role of the steward.
7. To be eligible applicants must identify if (or how) they meet their current role or the identified aspiration of the role.
8. Keeping in mind taking advanced training requires new roles.
9. If there are prerequisite courses they must be completed in advance (3 months).
10. Experience in the subject matter in the workplace must be illustrated.
11. Workplace requirements should be considered, such as consultation and OSH.
12. A final list, including a waiting list, shall be determined in consultation with the Training and Education Committee.
13. The classroom sizes shall normally seat a minimum of twenty (20) participants and a maximum of twenty-four (24).
14. The Education Coordinator notifies the eligible candidates that their application has been approved and provides ‘Confirmation of Registration’ as well as travel information and any administrative details.
15. The Education Coordinator sends an email to any candidates who were not selected to advise them that their names will be recorded on a waiting list and their applications may be approved should space become available.
16. As cancellations occur, the vacant spaces are filled from the waiting list. The minimum period for replacements is normally two weeks prior to the course, after which time no more changes are made for administrative reasons.