Employer’s Position on ETO Banks and Update on Reimbursement for Court Robes

/in

Employer’s Position on ETO Banks
As you know, the November 14, 2024, Transition Agreement between the PSA and the PEA states that existing ETO banks will remain available in accordance with current practice. However, the Employer and the Union disagree on what that practice was at the time of the agreement.

The Employer asserts that ETO balances must be reduced annually to ensure no hours remain in the bank for more than five years, rather than being maintained indefinitely up to the maximum cap. And as such, many of you will see a payout of hours on your coming pay summary.

The Union’s understanding is that historically, the ETO bank has functioned as a capped bank, with the only limit being the maximum allowable balance. We understand that members have been able to retain banked ETO up to the cap, without mandatory reductions or scheduled payouts imposed by the Employer.

Given this disagreement, we have referred the matter back to Arbitrator Dorsey, who remains seized of issues related to implementation of the Transition Agreement. Please send an email to Laura Jeffreys if your ETO bank history supports the union’s understanding that the practice at the time of the agreement.

In particular, we are looking for specific fact patterns that show that the employer did not require ETO balances to be reduced or paid out after five years. Examples include:

  • Instances where you retained ETO hours in your bank for more than five years without any Employer initiated payout or forced reduction, and that show surplus hours rather than the oldest hours are being paid out.
  • Situations where you took a leave of absence and did not receive a payout of older ETO hours that were accumulated more than five years before your leave.
  • Any occasions where your ETO balance remained at or near the maximum cap for an extended period without the Employer instructing you to use or reduce it.
  • Any written communications, pay statements, or historical records showing that balances were carried indefinitely up to the cap, consistent with the union’s understanding.

If your experience reflects any of these patterns—or anything else demonstrating that ETO hours were not subject to mandatory five‑year reductions—please reach out. These examples will help provide clear evidence of the practice as it existed when the Transition Agreement was signed

Article 31 – Court Robes: Confirmed Interpretation
The recent resolution of an individual grievance regarding eligibility for reimbursement of court robes has resulted in the Employer confirming that counsel may submit claims for court clothing items using the Court Clothing Reimbursement Form – PEA Legal Counsel, in accordance with Article 31 of the Collective Agreement. This outcome reinforces our interpretation and provides clarity for future claims.

In solidarity,

Laura Kate Jeffreys
Labour Relations Officer

Back to News