The background to this is fairly simple.
Council, until recently, would receive reports from the various committees and departments that undertook the business of the municipality. One of those committees was an HR Committee. The head of that committee would be part of any employee grievance process.
When Council transitioned to a Committee of the Whole format, those individual committees went by the wayside. As for human resources matters, Council still had an HR Liaison in place, but that person wasn’t formally designated as being the replacement for the “committee” that made up the town’s part of a grievance complaint. That’s a requirement in the collective agreement that exists between the town and its employees, and a requirement that’s not currently being fulfilled after the disbanding of the committee structure.
Staff recommended that, to close this gap, a motion was needed designating what this grievance team might look like, and several options were tendered to Council, and one of those options was recommended.
In my opinion, the staff recommendation was flawed in the first place.
It may have cemented or concretized the protocol as it currently exists, but that’s not a good enough reason to hammer forward with it.
I’m talking, again, about what form of council/staff representation takes the reins in a human resources situation involving a contract grievance brought forward by an employee.
There are three steps in the grievance process before a case goes to arbitration. The first involves the employee reaching out to their immediate supervisor to attempt some form of resolution, or to formally give notice of a grievance being filed by the employee. The second step involves the program director of whatever program the employee works in. Thirdly, and at present, the final step before arbitration involves a designated council member, the CAO, the program director and assistance from the Renfrew County HR support team.
Of the four options presented to Council for consideration, Option 3, representing the status quo, was recommended by staff. That option was defeated in a council vote.
Instead, Option 1 was put forward by Councillor Cybulski, an option that named the CAO, department director, and Renfrew County HR Support as the Stage 3 team. It’s important to note the elimination of a council representative from this option.
Councillor Legris made a point of advocating for the presence of a council member, any council member — he’s currently involved in town HR matters since the elimination of the committee structure that included an HR Committee — on the panel of Stage 3 representatives for the town. Although all staff-related grievances and their resolution come before council in closed session anyways, especially if there’s a financial component to the settlement, Mr. Legris feels there’s an important need for council to have some involvement in these matters prior to a settlement, and prior to any closed door session.
That would have been Option 3, but that option was just defeated, so perhaps a bit of a moot point for the councillor, except it’s not.
As Chief Administrative Officer Gloria Raybone indicated in her remarks, there are plenty of configurations available for this team, and this role. Some include a councillor, others do not. So defeating Option 3 doesn’t defeat the idea of having a councillor as part of this HR process.
A vote was held on Option 1 and it was carried, with Councillors Legris and McDonald dissenting and Councillor McWhirter absent. The mayor, the reeve, and Councillors Cybulski and Dick supported the motion that passed.
That done, two weeks passed by, and the matter came up February 25th for formal ratification, meaning that after two weeks of sober consideration, it would be formalized by another council vote.
Except it wasn’t.
Councillor John McDonald, requesting a recorded vote, indicated his preference for council representation on this grievance team. He felt that having some form of council representation is necessary to keep a “finger on the pulse” of a grievance issue, saying that past oversight mis-steps or non-steps contributed to some serious errors being made that cost and will cost the town millions of dollars. He indicated his opposition to the motion under consideration, the one with no council representative.
Councillor McWhirter indicated that council had traditionally had representation in matters involving employee grievances, that there was a benefit to having that representation, and he didn’t see why council would move away from a model that included an elected councillor. He indicated that he would also be against the current motion to ratify.
Councillor Legris echoed Councillor McDonald’s sentiment of having a finger on the pulse, and further concurred with Mr. McDonald’s rationale. Suddenly there are three councillors lining up as opposed to the motion, which is precarious given the fact that only the mayor, the reeve, and Councillor Dick remained in chambers to vote, with Councillor Cybulksi, the mover of the motion, not present. A tie vote is a defeated motion.
The CAO successfully got the councillors to understand that somebody had to be designated, as there was a current grievance in the system, one with a scheduled meeting for the following Monday. CAO Raybone was successful in having Council designate the current HR Liaison, Councillor Legris, as the designate to fulfill the terms of the collective agreement, but for the current case only, so as to be able to process that grievance. But for all matters after that, Council was informed that, at some point, they were going to have to coalesce around a motion identifying and designating the HR grievance team stipulated in the collective agreement.
Councillor McDonald requested an amendment be made to the current motion, one that included the current HR Liaison to the three people already identified in the motion, meaning the Option 1 that was just defeated, but including the HR Liaison. That would mean the HR Liaison, the CAO, the department director, and Renfrew County HR Support, which is the exact same thing that was voted down at the February 11 meeting. In short, Option 3, the original staff recommendation, was back on the table.
This motion was defeated 3-3, McDonald, Legris, and McWhirter in favour. Dick, Emon, and Sidney opposed. And Option 3 from the meeting two weeks previous was dealt its second death in as many weeks.
So back to the original motion we went, and another recorded vote. For the original Option 1, it was Dick, Emon, and Sidney in favour, and McDonald, Legris , and McWhirter opposed.
So, of the four original options, two of them have now been defeated, one with a council representative, and one without.
It could be a bit of a head-scratcher to be sure.
The absence of councillor Cybulski meant the issue was still alive, but with not much in the way of a pulse to put one’s finger on.
And there we were. Nowhere.
The conspiratorial part of me wonders if the three councillors (McDonald, Legris, and McWhirter) recognized an opportunity in the absence of Cybulski and decided to strike while that councillor was absent, knowing that Cybulski would likely have voted with the other three had he been there. This, and a request for two recorded votes by Councillor McDonald, makes me wonder if this is something that would come in handy during an election campaign, where you could point to another candidate’s unwillingness to have a member of council present on this grievance “committee.” This in a time of “openness and transparency.” It’s a legitimate arrow to let fly, especially if the target was a candidate who served on the previous council and was prominent on either the Parks and Recreation Committee (Sidney) or the HR Committee (Emon). The optics of voting “against” council representation, and by extension “against” council oversight, would not be helpful if those criticisms are levelled by someone who has the reach and breadth to get those notions out to the voting public.
If the conspiracy card was in play, it was played craftily. From a political optics point of view, the three councillors (McDonald, Legris, and McWhirter) painted the other three (Dick, Emon, and Sidney) into a political corner.
The latter three can paint their way out of it if, in the future, they support a solution that involves council participation in that grievance committee. Also, the return of Councillor Cybulski may return the voting advantage to them. But if they stick with any proposal not involving a council representative, then they’ll be in that corner until and during the next election campaign.
Councillor Legris even offered up the perfect sound bite, easily snagged from the YouTube livestream for any future campaign. From memory, it more or less went like this:
“What is it about having a councillor on this committee that bothers you so much?” Or something like “Why would you guys not want to have a councillor on this committee?”
If you’re a backroom political tactician and strategist, this is where gold is found.
Luckily, I have a way forward that makes absolute sense and lacks any political minefields. I don’t have a political war room down in the basement lab churning out solutions with fabulous political optics, although that does sound pretty cool.
It’s marginally different from the Options 1 and 3 that have been bandied about, and it gets everyone out of any corners they may find themselves in.
My summary, and attending solution, is as follows:
It’s not complicated.
The collective agreement calls for a designated town representative for the grievance process. That representative(s) can be a councillor, a staff member, or both. Everyone agrees that Renfrew County HR Support should be part of the process.
When Council moved to a Committee of the Whole format, that designated person(s) went down with the committee (The HR Committee) leaving the town with no designate as was required for the grievance process in the collective agreement.
So a designated replacement is needed. The current Council HR Liaison, Councillor Legris, would fit the bill, but he has to be designated by vote. And to be designated, there must be a motion designating him, a motion that carries and is then ratified by another vote to confirm. So for that upcoming grievance meeting, the councillor would have to go through this process.
That’s the easy part, the temporary solution. It meets the needs of the then-upcoming grievance before the town.
The difficult part is what comes after, the more permanent solution.
My proposal centres on four essential points, and they are:
- There must be council representation.
- There must be CAO representation.
- There must not be Director representation.
- There must be Renfrew County HR support
Council representation is needed for the reasons offered by Councillors McDonald and Legris. The CAO must be present because that’s the lead administrator in the entire system. The director should be excluded, as they’ve already been involved at Stage 2 of the grievance process, and they may well be one of the reasons for the grievance in the first place. Stage 3 should be extra-departmental, as I don’t see a need for specific departmental expertise to completely and properly assess a grievance situation.
Should there be a desire for a second staff representative, I would suggest the treasurer. Not the person, the position. People come and go, but the office remains. So if there is some personal conflict existing between the current treasurer and some members of council, that conflict ought to be set aside for these deliberations.
To me, a treasurer is a better fit than a department director.
And there it is, solved, by a citizen journalist.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 