Today one of the largest telethons was held by Steele Communications to help in Aid to Haiti.   I was honored on behalf of the Association of Allied Health Professionals to present a donation in the amount of $1500.00.  Our donation has been made in the memory of Jim Coates, a Newfoundlander who died in the earthquake in Haiti.  Jim, a United Nations employee,  was the brother to Nova Lee Coates Drover, RSW, (St. John’s) a member of AAHP.

On behalf of the Executive, Board, members and Staff of AAHP, I would like to extend our most sincere sympathies to Nova Lee and her family at this sorrowful time. 

JOB EVALUATION PROJECT

Update; December 8^th, 2009

This past summer was phase one of the pilot study, which involved mostly NAPE general service workers.  There were 147 employees invited to participate in the project which included a three hour training session and completion of the Job Description Questionnaire (PDQ); these 147 represented 55 different classes.  Only 63 people (43 %) attended training sessions, and by mid-September there had been 40 PDQ’s returned (of the 63).  Obviously the response was quite low!

Phase two of the pilot started in October, and this included “health care” among others.  We had identified our 29 AAHP participants earlier the Summer with the expectation that those people would receive letters by late August.  On September 9^th and it was realized that the Health Care Boards had not yet sent out those letters to invite participation in the pilot project.  Training sessions were scheduled for various locations throughout the province from September 28^th to October 16^th, and there was an expectation that PDQ’s be completed by early November.  Also, managers/supervisors/PPC’s were to participate in the training sessions.  Most AAHP members received their letter to participate in time for the training sessions.  In late September it was realized that unfortunately our members in Central were not notified of their participation by HR, and there was some last minute “scrambling” to get them included.   There were many delays by all union members in returning completed PDQ’s, and 12 of 29 AAHP were particularly late; however, it was ascertained that seven of those were delayed at the manager stage.  The final, overall return numbers of completed PDQ’s for the pilot study have not yet been given by Deloitte, but should be known by a mid-December meeting.  (It should  also be mentioned that because of the low turnout from phase one, there were “alternates” selected from that summer group of classes so that they could participate in the Fall training sessions along with phase two people).

The next significant part of this JE process is for the steering committee to function as a “sore-thumbing” committee for the pilot study evaluations/ratings (which are being done by Deloitte personnel).  There are three days in December (15^th to 17^th), three days in January (26^th to 28^th), and one day in February (11^th), for meetings to participate in this “sore-thumbing” exercise. 

By mid-Winter the pilot should be finished, and then it’s to the main, overall JE.  There’s already been a meeting of the JE steering committee in late October to have a preliminary discussion regarding the “employee selection strategy” for the main phase of the JE project.  A number of variables were considered necessary in order to obtain a good representation of employees in all classifications, (i.e. rural – urban; acute – rehabilitation – long term; male – female; etc.).  Finalization of the selection process for the overall main phase of JE will happen this Winter.

There’s been discussion at the steering committee regarding a “benchmark” committee at that main stage; the MOU says two-thirds management and one-third union representation.  We will have to give consideration to whom from AAHP participates in the “benchmark” process.

I expect that by early February, following the bench marking process, I will be providing a further update for our members.

Edgar Gaulton
AAHP Representative - Job Evaluation Committe

2009 Scholarship Winners:  Colin Thomas, Andrew Burry, Jaime Chafe, Patti O'Keefe, President.  Missing from Photo: Cameron Spinney; Rebecca Hedges

Since 2003, AAHP has awarded Five $500 scholarships to dependents of members.  This year's winners were:
  Andrew Burry, son of Keith Burry, Prosthetist Orthotist
  Colin Thomas, son of Candy Thomas, Dietitian
  Jaime Chafe, daughter of Virginia Whitten, Social Worker
  Cameron Spinney, son of Catherine Spinney, Social Worker
  Rebecca Hedges, daughter of Annette Hedges.

The winners and their parents were invited to a special Scholarship Awards luncheon with our Board Members and Executive on Thursday, December 10th.  Congratulations to all the winners - we wish you all the best in your continued education and future careers.

             Currently the the leadership of the five public sector Unions involved with the Pay Equity Ex Gratia award are taking steps towards arranging the final payout in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The initial payment was made on December 15, 2008. The Court directed that a six month deadline from that date had to be established for late claims ( June 15, 2009 ). Following the June 15, 2009 deadline late claims had to be processed and a decision made regarding eligibility. The claims were reviewed and assessed over the past few months.

Once the late claims were finally processed and the decisions forwarded to the claimants there was a two month time frame for late claimants to appeal the decision to the Appellate Officer. The Appellate Officer was then required to review the appeals and render a final decision.

All of this was necessary to ensure compliance with the direction of the Court and to establish the final amount of money remaining in the fund for final payout. We anticipate completing the process and arranging the final payout in the first quarter of 2010.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

What is the Job Evaluation System (JES) project?

• The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador intends to introduce a new job evaluation system and classification framework for unionized positions within government departments, the education sector, the healthcare sector, and selected government agencies.
  
• A job evaluation system is a method for measuring the value of jobs in a systematic, consistent fashion.
  
• The proposed new Job Evaluation System is a point factor system, that is, it is a system that will assess a job based on nine factors covering the four broad criteria of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

What is job evaluation?

·         Job evaluation is a means of determining the relative value of jobs within an organization.

• Job evaluation focuses on the scope and duties of the job.
  
• Job evaluation focuses on job content (“what is done”) and not individual performance or seniority (“how well it is done”).

What is the status of the JES Project?

• Government has engaged Deloitte Inc. to assist with the development of a new job evaluation system.  A Project Steering Committee has been created to review and advise on project activities. The Steering Committee is comprised of eight members (four management and four labour representatives - Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees (NAPE), Association of Allied Health Professionals (AAHP), Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union (NLNU), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Board Association, Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards via Nova School Board, and the Public Service Secretariat (PSS).
  
• The next step is to continue with a Pilot Project. The Pilot Project will evaluate approximately 135 job classes. Approximately 600 employees will be requested to complete a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) from June 2009 to October 2009.

Why has Government begun this project?

• Government has determined that it is appropriate and timely to develop and implement a new job evaluation system for the purpose of establishing a classification framework that ensures internal equity, is free of gender bias, and meets the needs of a modern public service.
  
• The overall objective is a new Job Evaluation System that is flexible, user-friendly, efficient, transparent, consistent in evaluation, and understood by users.  

How many employees will be affected?

• Approximately 25,000 unionized employees, allocated over approximately 1,200 job classes, will be covered by the scope of this project.

How have job classes been selected for the pilot project?

• Job classes have been selected by the Union and the Employer.
  
• These 135 job classes represent a cross-section of the approximately 1,200 job classes across the broader public sector. Pilot job classes are well-distributed over all employers, unions, departments, and geography.

How have employees been selected to participate in the pilot project?

• A percentage of employees from each job class have been selected to participate based on a representative sampling strategy. The employees were selected based on consultations among the union representatives, Government’s Project Manager and the employers, and are well-distributed among all employers, unions, departments, and geography.

How does this impact salary? Will employee’s salary change? Could employee’s salary be lower?

• The purpose at this aspect of the project is to determine whether positions are rated properly in relation to each other.

Will an employee’s position description change?

• During the Pilot Project selected employees will be asked to complete a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities. An employee’s current Position Description may serve as a guide in completing the PDQ.

How can an employee become involved?

• While employees are selected by the unions, project manager and employers to participate in the Pilot Project, if an employee has an interest in participating, he or she can forward a request to the project e-mail address, JES@gov.nl.ca and /or call the Classification and Compensation Division, PSS, at 729-3383.

Is employee participation mandatory?

• Employee participation is critical to the success of the project, but is voluntary. If an employee is selected and chooses to decline, he or she must advise the PSS either through email at jes@gov.nl.ca or by phoning 729-3383 so an alternate can be selected.   

Will employees receive support to participate in the pilot project?

• Once an employee has been selected for and agrees to participate in the pilot project, support will be provided. This will include paid time off for training and completion of the PDQ, and human resources support as required.
  
• If employees have specific questions when completing the PDQ, they may contact the Deloitte Job Evaluation Analyst at 1-888-758-5246 or by e-mail at gnljes@deloitte.ca.

Who can I contact for further information?

• Newsletters will be developed and FAQs will be updated as the project progresses. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please direct them to JES@gov.nl.ca  and /or Classification and Compensation Division, PSS, at 729-3383.

AAHP Dependent Scholarship Fund

Applications for the Scholarship Fund are due by

September 30, 2009

Five - $500 scholarships are available for dependents of AAHP Members.

Applications and more information about the fund are available on our website www.aahp.nf.ca - downloads section

Prime Minister, Stand on Guard for Medicare

September 21, 2009

Canadians have been angered by the dishonest representations of our public health care system made during the last several months by various groups and individuals in the United States. Opposition Members of Parliament have been strong and vocal defenders of our system against dishonest representations. Health professionals have raised their voices. Individual Canadians have written to President Obama, made videos and given speeches to tell our neighbours to the South the truth about Canada’s universal public health care.

But there has not been one word from our Prime Minister in defense of Canada’s cherished public health care system. Even as he met with President Obama and the media raised the issue, he implied there was no federal role in overseeing our national health care system.

While the Prime Minister’s silence on this issue is distressing, it is his failure to stand on guard against the privatization of public medical services that is truly dangerous.

He stood idly by as provinces allowed patients to be charged user fees for insured health services and permitted queue jumping for those who can pay.

He did not speak up as for-profit clinics expanded over the last five years in almost every region of the country, particularly Quebec, B.C. and Alberta.

He did not respond to violations of the Canada Health Act by for –profit clinics who mix medically necessary and unnecessary services and bill the patients.

As Canadians, we expect our Prime Minister to speak up to defend our health care system from misrepresentation and to enforce the Canadian Health Act. We expect our Prime Minister to stand on guard for Medicare.

TAKE ACTION -- TELL THE PRIME MINISTER TO STAND ON GUARD FOR MEDICARE

Related: Media Release and Letter to the Prime Minister, Sept. 16, 2009
 

The following information is provided by NUPGE/CHPS http://www.nupge.ca


H1N1 Pandemic

Yesterday, a meeting was scheduled with the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, Jerome Kennedy.  Upon our arrival at the Confederation Building we were informed Mr. Kennedy had to attend an outside meeting unexpectedly and would be unable to meet with us. The Assistant Deputy Minister – Geoff Williams – did agree to meet.  We outlined a number of issues we had hoped to address with the Minister.

Experience Credits – hired prior to July 1, 2008

 One of these was the Experience Credits.  Mr. Williams indicated that the new wording in Experience Credits giving one step for every one year of experience, applies to the AAHP; Nurses Union and NAPE Lab and X-Ray and Health Professional collective agreements.  Treasury Board is maintaining its position, that the change will only be effective for employees who were hired July 1, 2008 or since.  He further states, that Experience Credits are applied, upon hiring and those individuals hired prior to July 1, 2008 would have had the experience credits applied under the old collective agreement language, and Treasury Board are not prepared to adjust those hired prior to July 1, 2008. 

The only way we may be able to get this changed – so that the application of Experience credits is fair and reasonable to all – is through a political decision.  We will be bringing this up again when we meet with Kennedy.

Experience Credits – hired July 1, 2008 or later

Williams did confirm that Treasury Board would be sending the authorization as of yesterday, to the Health Boards to pay and make adjustments to the Experience Credits for employees hired on July 1, 2008 or later.  Authorization will also be sent to begin making the adjustments on the Automobile Allowance.  This will be a manual process and may take Payroll some time to calculate.  This has been a problem in Eastern Health – however, to the best of my knowledge, Central Health has already made these adjustments.

Mileage and Insurance

Some members, depending on the type of position they are in, are “required Upon hire to have a car at their disposal”.  The auto allowance  refers to those people “who are required  as a condition of employment to have a car upon hire”. 

There are others who may from time to time, be required to use their car for work purposes but are “NOT REQUIRED to have a car upon hire”.  These individuals can claim the basic kilometer rate (this can be claimed going site to site, if required by the employer)  AND he/she can also claim the difference between private and business insurance upon production of a premium invoice receipt – which should show the difference between private and business insurance.  A word or two of caution here though:  (1) the employee should verify with his/her manager that they are required occasionally to use their own private vehicle before purchasing business insurance.  The employee should advise the manager that the reason for the inquiry is for insurance purposes and that the employee will be claiming the difference as per Article 36.02 of the Agreement.  If the manager does not provide the confirmation that the employee is expected to use their private vehicle from time to time then the employee should use their own discretion if using their private vehicle for work purposes.  (2)  When purchasing business insurance, the employee should advise the insurance company if he/she will be transporting clients/patients of the employer, as part of their work.  This information may be integral for insurance purposes and may indeed affect the premium rate.

Our collective agreements were mailed out to all members in early August.  If you did not receive your collective agreement please contact our office.  Also if you have had or plan to have a change of address please notify our office.

The Education Committee met following the April Education Draw to review the AAHP Education Guidelines.  The previous review was conducted in October 2003.  In January, the Committee sent an email to members asking for feedback.  We received only one email making a number of suggestions for consideration.  A number of recommendations were approved by the AAHP Executive at its April 24^th meeting.

As a result of the review, the most significant change is with the deadline for applications.  The new application deadlines are as follows:  July 31 – November 30 and March 31.  Therefore, the next deadline for Applications is July 31^st (changed from August 15^th).

The educational event no longer has to be “directly related to a person’s position”.  The educational event must however, enhance the knowledge and skills as a health professional.

Since its inception, AAHP has maintained that primary funding for education should rest with the employer.  We are very cognizant of the demand for funding and are now requiring members to disclose any funding received from employers and other sources.

The final recommendation approved will now require individuals who are awarded funding from the AAHP fund to sign a self declaration form in order to claim the monies awarded. 

The revised AAHP Education Fund Guidelines and Application can be found in the download section  of this website.   We strongly encourage all members interested in applying for funding from the AAHP Education Fund to review these new guidelines.  Any questions pertaining to these changes can be directed to AAHP office or any member of the Education Committee – Barb Thomas, Chair, Bruce Callahan; Virginia Whitten.

The Labour Relations Board has  issued an order in relation to the application filed by Eastern Health requesting one bargaining unit for health professionals.  This application which was submitted in January 2007, requested the Labour Relations Board to issue an order that would see all AAHP health professionals (primarily institutions, cancer clinic & nursing homes)  and all the NAPE health professionals (primarily community health) in one bargaining unit.  An amended application in June 2008, advised that Eastern Health was removing the “faith based nursing homes” from the application.  The amended application was investigated and considered by the Labour Relations Board on February 25, 2009.  We received notification of the order on Monday, March 2^nd. 

Some of the issues the Board considered in its determination, the Labour Relations board stated:

 “Further, Eastern Health’s rationale for  seeking consolidated bargaining units is contradicted by the fact that it continues to assert that it is the employer of the employees of the Agens Pratt Home, Pentecostal Senior Citizens Home, Saint Luke’s Home, St. Patrick’s Mercy Home and the Salvation Army Glenbrook Lodge and yet it no longer seeks to include those employees in the consolidated bargaining units.

“Further, as Eastern Health maintains it is the employer, the bargaining unit structures proposed by the employer continues to lead to undue fragmentation and untenable bargaining units leading to disharmonious labour relations and is neither workable nor viable.  The consolidation of the bargaining units in the manner proposed by Eastern Health is not appropriate in the circumstances.”

Based on the above the Labour Relations Board has ordered that the amended application be dismissed.

We have confirmed with the Board that this essentially means this file is now closed.  Should Eastern Health wish to pursue a one bargaining unit model, a new application would have to be submitted and essentially the process restarted from the beginning.  We do not anticipate that happening in the near future. 

To summarize, the long, awaited, anticipated vote between AAHP and NAPE in Eastern Health will not be taking place.  The status quo will be remaining, at least for now.   We will be requesting Eastern Health to commence Transitional Talks with our current bargaining unit as soon as possible.

Central Health members are advised that this ruling does not affect the application by Central Health.  The Board reviewed the application and has asked its investigating officer to attained further information before it rules on the application.  No date has been set for an order to be issued.