Denied conference attendance? Here’s what you can do.

As Researchers, it is essential to be able to participate in conferences, not only for our career progression, but to benefit the research program and the reputation of the Government of Canada. We must remember that conference attendance, as well as scientific and professional society participation, are not “training” or a “perk”, but rather a critical part of how we do our work.

The importance of conference attendance is recognized in our collective agreement, signed by PIPSC and the Treasury Board (Article 19.03, emphasis added):

“The parties recognize that attendance at professional or scientific conferences, symposia, workshops and other gatherings of a similar nature constitutes an integral part of an employee’s professional activities and that attendance and participation in such gatherings is recognized as an important element in enhancing creativity in the conduct of scientific research or professional development. In this context, the parties also recognize the importance of research networking with national and international peers and active participation in the business and organization of relevant scientific and professional societies.”

More concretely, Article 19.03 (a) (ii) states (emphasis added):

“Each employee will have the opportunity to attend conferences, symposia, workshops, and other gatherings of a similar nature, which the employee deems relevant and beneficial to the research program or the employee’s career development. The Employer shall make a reasonable effort to approve the employee’s request subject to operational requirements.”

We all appreciate being able to connect with colleagues virtually, but in-person meetings are an essential component to accelerate progress. If you have been to a conference in person, you know the value of in-person meetings – the buzz and hum of discussion after a seminar, followed by more discussion out the door and in the hallways. The exchange of ideas that stems from planned and unplanned side meetings and hallway chats can lead to great collaborations that can advance research. 

The tangible effect of learning from each other in person, on the advancement of programs has been recognized by our government as a solid rationale for our return to the workplace:

“We have rediscovered the value of shared in-person experiences that are essential to cohesive, collaborative, and high-performing organizations. Working together in person supports collaboration, team spirit, innovation and a culture of belonging. It helps teams build trust and learn from each other.”

That same logic applies to in-person conferences. Working with and trusting the larger research community can lead to advancement of public science, benefiting Canadian society. 

Our collective agreement recognizes conferences and society work as an integral part of our duties. Management must make a reasonable effort to approve conference attendance when the researcher deems it relevant to either their career development or the research program (not necessarily both). Article 19.03 (a) (ii) places the determination of which meetings are relevant in the hands of the employee, not management.

We know that in many departments this is not what happens in practice. This short guide will walk you through:

• What factors you should identify in your application for attendance, 
• How you should respond to management if your attendance is denied, 
• How PIPSC can work with you to resolve both your individual situation and some of the more systemic challenges, and
• What to do about management decisions that were unfair, including unfairly delayed.

 

What to include in your conference application

While the Treasury Board and managers in your department have the right to create administrative processes and policies that deal with travel and conference approval, those policies do not override our collective agreement rights. So, it’s important to continue to identify all factors that are important to your career development and the research program in your application, not just those requested by management. 

We will refer repeatedly to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board 2015 decision Outridge v. Treasury Board (Natural Resources Canada), which set important precedents in this regard. We suggest you identify in your application:

• Links to your career progression framework, including requirements to publish, to be recognized by your peers, and to participate in the business and organization of scientific societies.
• Sessions you are chairing or co-chairing.
• Events you are attending, participating in, networking at, planning or judging.
• Any working meetings you are participating in as part of the conference.
• Any presentations put on by students or others that you are supervising. 
  • The arbitrator in the Outridge case found that: “Management supports his work in allowing him to take on the role of supervising a student. It should follow that the student’s presentation should be attended by his supervisor.”
• Regular and past attendance at the conference. 
  • We understand that many managers are specifically requesting this information be removed, but the arbitrator in the Outridge case found that it was “natural” for a researcher to expect to continue to attend a conference regularly put on by a society of which the researcher was an active member.

While we understand that your management may ask you to remove some or all of these factors from your application, it is important to at least include them in your initial request. This communicates to your manager that you are serious about your career, that you understand your rights, and that they cannot later claim they did not understand all your reasons for requesting attendance. If management threatens or disciplines you for “incorrectly” filling out your request by mentioning these factors, please contact your PIPSC steward or regional office immediately as their actions would likely be contraventions of our collective agreement.
 

What to do if you are not approved within a reasonable timeframe, or you are denied

We know that all too often decisions by management about attending meetings are simply delayed until it is too late to register for a conference, submit a paper, or obtain an affordable flight. Not being approved by the time you need to start making arrangements is equivalent to being denied – in fact until you are “approved”, you are “not approved”. The following steps can be taken whether you are explicitly denied, or the answer has simply not arrived in time:

Know your department’s criteria for conference attendance

In 2019, your collective bargaining team negotiated for further clarity and structure around conference attendance. Now, under Article 19.04 your department is required to establish criteria for conference attendance and other forms of professional development – as is required to provide them to any employee upon request. We know most departments have yet to actually fulfill this article negotiated in 2019. We encourage you to request the criteria at any point and discuss them with your steward if you feel they are unreasonable.

Find out why in a timely manner

The first step is to understand why the response was overly delayed or why you were not approved. Our collective agreement section 19.03 (a) (iii) requires management to provide an answer in a timely manner. As long as you have submitted your application “at least ninety (90) calendar days before the registration deadline of the conference or the abstract submission deadlines”, management is required to provide approval or denial at least 14 days before those same deadlines. The reason for denial is to be addressed, in writing, upon request of the employee (Article 19.03 (a) (iv)). Remember that no response at all is essentially a denial, so request the decision along with reasons once you reach the 14-day deadline. We encourage all members to request reasons for denial, and to report those reasons to your local steward.

Your steward will help you fill out a Grievance form. Grievances allows your collective bargaining team to monitor the number of delayed or denied applications, and communicate with the employer should common issues emerge. In the past, the employer has pointed out they cannot address a problem if there is no evidence that a problem exists.

While you can grieve if management refuses to provide written reasons, if they provide only oral feedback an option is to send an email describing the essential points of that conversation to your manager, and keep it for future reference.

Some of the reasons management may provide for denying conference attendance, and whether they are valid

While in some cases there may simply be insufficient funds to send everyone to every conference that they request, often this is not the whole reason, or even part of it. Remember, management has to “make a reasonable effort to approve the employee’s request” who are subject only to operational requirements. As per the Outridge decision, it is clear that while management has discretion, it is not untrammelled and must be exercised reasonably. Consider whether an effort has been made, and offer some of these suggested rebuttals:

•  “Too many people are going to the same conference” or ”This is more people than went last year” 

– There is nothing fundamentally wrong with having a large number of employees go to the same conference. In fact, if it is the most pertinent and useful conference in the field, it will have great value to a wide swath of researchers. Many fields also effectively hold multiple conferences in the same venue at the same time, to increase the networking value for attendees. It makes no sense to obligate some researchers who applied to instead choose a different conference that is of lower quality simply because of concerns about the total number. This was briefly touched on in the Outridge decision, where the arbitrator noted that his reasons were “at least as reasonable” as those of the other attendees. This is particularly absurd where the attendance comes at no cost to the department, and this should be challenged.

• “We are cutting people to keep the overall cost under $25,000 or $50,000 to reduce the approval level” or ”The total cost is too high” 

– Remember again that management has to ‘make a reasonable effort’ to approve your attendance. Cutting people from a conference merely to avoid having to request a higher approval authority is indicative of them refusing to make an effort on your behalf. If there is money available in the local budget, and the conference is a reasonable choice, it is not reasonable to deny your attendance based simply on administrative choice to limit the total cost (especially if this is done only to avoid asking for approval). The Treasury Board has explicitly told departments that RE travel to conferences does not need to be subject to an “Event” approval. Even if other employees (e.g., in the SP Group) are going to the same conference and have to complete an Event submission, it is explicit that RE Group member costs are not to be included in the calculation of the total cost for that submission.

• “This is not related to our Minister’s mandate letter” 

– Remember that your attendance can benefit the research program or your career development. It does not have to be both. The research program may reasonably have longer-term goals than those identified in this year’s mandate.

•  “This was not identified in your performance agreement” 

– While we encourage members to pre-identify conference attendance in their performance agreement where possible, unpredictable opportunities often arise. Management still needs to make a reasonable effort and exercise their discretion reasonably – simply saying no without considering your request may not be reasonable. Similarly, refusing to even consider a request because it fell outside of an arbitrary internal submission deadline does not necessarily constitute a “reasonable effort” on management’s part. Remind the employer that performance agreements are designed to be updated over the course of the year as opportunities arise and circumstances change. Also, remembering that conference attendance and society participation are integral parts of our work, consider including them in your work objectives, rather than as training and developmental objectives.

• “There are operational requirements that prevent you from going” or “There is no money left for travel”

 – While in limited circumstances this may be true, the term “operational requirements” has a specific meaning that has been interpreted in legal decisions. Notably, the employer cannot unilaterally establish policies for financial reasons if they have the effect of denying employees their rights under collective agreements. We understand that Parliament has established a budget that limits how much money departments can spend on travel, but that budget cannot override our collective agreement.

Next steps if you still consider management’s response was unreasonable 

At this stage, if you still think management’s rationale is unreasonable, we recommend that you request a meeting with your manager and a PIPSC steward, citing Article 35.05 (c) of the collective agreement. Doing so pauses the 25 business day limit on filing a grievance, which preserves your options. These meetings are generally not confrontational and simply show that you care about your research and your career. Ideally, your manager will seek to find a reasonable remedy.

If the reasons for the denial continue to be unreasonable and no acceptable solution is proposed, you can file a grievance. Consult the Grievance “how to” and forms and contact your local steward or a member of the RE Group Executive to proofread and sign the grievance. The sooner it is filed, the greater the chances of having the issue resolved. The grievance must be filed within 25 business days of the final decision denying your request. A grievance hearing will be scheduled to discuss the situation.

If you have been repeatedly denied attendance at conferences and in society meetings, or have simply stopped trying, make a note of the impact of this in “Annex H” of your Performance Management Agreement, and in any submissions under your career progression framework. It is important for your management and for people evaluating your career progression to understand when your opportunity to develop career progression evidence has been limited. If the denials become chronic or seem to be focused on you in particular, talk to your steward about other potential remedies.

Remember:

• Document all steps of the approval process.
• Keep all emails related to your request.
• If the approval is inside a software tool that does not allow saving, take a screenshot of your request and any responses.
• If “not approved” or “denied”, document the amount of informal (planning and researching) and formal (meetings) time you have dedicated to:
  1. meeting with management prior to filing a grievance and 
  2. filing a grievance.
• Keep track of deadlines, and follow up as soon as they are missed.
• Never give up on your career.

RE rights to conference attendance have been reaffirmed and are protected

In 2017, the federal Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures instructed departments to limit the number of public servants permitted to attend any given conference to achieve the departmental expenditure objective. The RE Group successfully argued that achieving the departmental objective conflicted with article 19.03 (a) (ii) of the RE collective agreement. In 2019, the federal government clarified the relationship between the directive and conference attendance: 

“As conference attendance constitutes an integral part of RE employee professional activities, departments who employ REs can consider attendance of these employees at conferences as part of meeting their departmental objectives.”

Further, the Outridge decision means that the approval process must consider the following examples of researcher’s justifications for conference attendance in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner:

• Presenting the employee’s own work
• Sitting on a panel discussion
• Chairing or co-chairing sessions
• Ongoing participation in the planning activities of the society organizing the conference
• Supervision of students presenting at a conference
• Judging submissions of other conference participants

During the approval process, it is important that your managers reasonably consider all relevant factors when you request attendance at a conference, and not base their decision on a limited number of arbitrarily selected factors. Based on the example factors listed above, and their relation to training or operational activities, RE conference attendance is not required to be part of an event approval process.

If you believe your department’s procedure regarding the directive may contradict our agreement, we would ask that you take copies of those procedures and send them to:

• The RE Group President (Eric Hortop ehortop@pipsc.ca) and
• Your Departmental Consultation Team President
   

Final thoughts

While the last many years have been frustrating, you are not alone. Other members are in the same situation, and it is part of our duty, as civil servants, to uphold public science agencies, especially in what feels like an age of austerity. Our combined voice can be powerful and we encourage you to get in touch and stay in touch on this issue. Your steward, your executive, and the PIPSC staff are here to help.

Please also note that our collective agreement has this very important provision (Article 6.02):

“Employees shall have the right to express themselves on science and their research; while respecting the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector adopted on April 2, 2012, without being designated as an official media spokesperson.”

Consequently, no one can stop you from talking publicly, including to the media, about science and your research. Providing you are not commenting on government policy decisions, you do not need the approval of your manager to present your results. We do not encourage you to fund your own travel or expenses, but when your expenses are covered by another organization, nothing prevents you from taking personal leave to attend if you think the meeting is crucial to your career. This is especially true for ”at home” meetings where you do not need to travel, although you will still need to get authorization to participate in a conference. Conference participation is essential to your career, your research and the advancement of Canadian public science on the world stage. It is too important to not defend your rights. You are not alone, PIPSC can help you.