Employer Ordered to Correct Inaccurate Job Descriptions for Officer Trainees

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 202 60616 File : 566-02-40688 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 73 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME_2], [NAME_1], [NAME_3], [NAME_3], [NAME_4], [NAME_5], AND [NAME_6] [NAME_7] s and [NAME_8] ( Canada Border Services Agency) Employer Indexed as [NAME_1] v. [NAME_8] (Canada Border Services Agency) In the matter of individual grievances referred to adjudication Before: [NAME_9], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For the [NAME_7] s: [NAME_10] , counsel For the Employer : [NAME_11] , counsel ADVANCE \y 657 Heard at Montréal, Quebec, October 23 to 27, 2023, and via videoconference, October 30 to November 3, 2023, and August 20 and 21, 2024 , and on the basis of written submissions, filed October 25 and December 20, 2024, and January 24, 2025.

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Individual grievances referred to adjudication [ 1 ] On July 12, 2019, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”, which in this decision also refers to any of the current Board’s predecessors) received a group of 64 individual grievances referred to it for adjudication. The Public Service Alliance of Canada ( PSAC) made the referral on behalf of its component, the Customs and Immigration Union. [ 2 ] The grievances were joined and given a single Board reference number (Board file no. 566-02-40688). PSAC selected seven of them to proceed first while the others were to be kept in abeyance. [ 3 ] [NAME_7] are [NAME_2], [NAME_1], [NAME_3], [NAME_3], [NAME_4], [NAME_5], and [NAME_6] (“[NAME_7]”). When the grievances were filed, they were employees of the Canada Border Services Agency ( [NAME_12] or “the employer”) and were subject to the collective agreement between the [NAME_8] for the [COMPANY_13] that expired on June 20, 2018 (“the collective agreement”). [ 4 ] [NAME_7] were hired on different dates between 2016 and 2018 as officer trainees (OTs) classified at the [NAME_14]-02 group and level. They were part of the employer’s new Officer Induction Development Program (OIDP or “the program”). It extended for 12 to 18 months, during which the OTs were probationary employees and were subjected to several evaluations. The successful OTs were promoted to border services officer (BSO) positions classified at the [NAME_14]-03 group and level. For clarity, any reference to “officers” in this decision refers to both OTs and BSOs. [ 5 ] [NAME_7] alleged that during the OIDP, they performed the same work as the BSOs. In their grievances, they alleged that the employer failed to provide a complete and current statement of their duties, which violated article 54 of the collective agreement. Each sought retroactive pay from their start date. [ 6 ] The PSAC provided an amended job description that highlighted the changes that it thought were necessary to reflect the actual work that the OTs performed. Most of the changes deleted references to the OTs “learning how”, “developing”, being “under the guidance of” someone, or having only “basic” or “fundamental” knowledge of certain things. [ 7 ] For the reasons outlined in this decision, I find that the OT job description was not a current and complete statement of [NAME_7]’ duties.

II. Summary of the relevant evidence [ 8 ] All seven [NAME_7] testified. They spoke about their training, duties, and responsibilities as OTs and the supervision that they received while at their assigned ports of entry (POEs). They worked at four different POEs, namely, the Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport in Montréal, Quebec (“the [NAME_15]”), the Quebec City Jean Lesage International Airport (“the Quebec City Airport”), the Calgary International Airport in Alberta (“the Calgary Airport”), and the [NAME_17], New Brunswick, land border crossings (“the [NAME_17]”). [ 9 ] They also called [NAME_18], a PSAC labour relations officer and former BSO (from 2008 to 2021), who described the requirements of that role and the discussions between the employer and PSAC during previous rounds of collective bargaining. [ 10 ] [NAME_18] explained that he was hired before the OIDP was put into place, when only a two-month probation period applied. He stated that the employer had proposed adding a new band level for the OTs during collective bargaining, to reflect their progression, but after failing to secure an agreement, it introduced a new [NAME_14]-02 classification unilaterally. [ 11 ] The employer called 10 witnesses. [NAME_19] was its director of recruitment and professional development (from 2012 to 2016), and [NAME_16] was its national manager of the OIDP and the former superintendent of the OTs. He spoke to the program’s national structure, purpose, and expectations. [NAME_20] was the strategic advisor who drafted the OT job description and explained its choice of wording. [ 12 ] Seven superintendents who supervised [NAME_7] also testified: [NAME_21], [NAME_22], and [NAME_23] (from the [NAME_15]); [NAME_24] (from the Quebec City Airport); [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] (from the Calgary Airport); and [NAME_26] (from the [NAME_17]). A. The OIDP’s structure [ 13 ] [NAME_19]’ team was responsible for developing the OIDP. She spoke about its structure and its goal to promote consistent national standards. She explained that the employer introduced a new Officer Induction Model (OIM) to fix issues in the previous program, such as unclear performance standards and inconsistent assessment criteria for probationary employees. Those gaps had left new BSOs ill-prepared. [ 14 ] [NAME_16] was the manager responsible for the OIDP at the national level and was responsible for ensuring a consistent and uniform application of the program across the country. He was involved in the program from its inception — initially as a superintendent, then as a liaison for two regions, and finally as the manager. [ 15 ] The following is their description of the OIM and OIDP. [ 16 ] The OIM consisted of 3 phases: the recruitment process, 18 weeks of formal training, and 12 months of on-the-job development that could be extended to 18 months. [ 17 ] The formal training consisted of online (4 weeks) and in-person (14 weeks) instruction at the [NAME_12]’s training centre in Rigaud, Quebec ( “ the college”). During that stage, the recruits were not employees and received only a stipend. The training was extensive. It covered legislation, policies, procedures, and firearm use. The trainees were taught the procedures to follow to process travellers and goods arriving in the country by land and plane — the two most common types of POEs. The trainees were able to practise processing travellers and goods with actors in make-believe settings. [ 18 ] The on-the-job development, known as the OIDP, consisted of a 12- to 18 ‑ month probationary period during which trainees were hired as OTs at the [NAME_14] ‑ 02 group and level. It was intended to provide on-the-job training and development at a POE, to allow the OTs to apply the knowledge and skills gained during the classroom training to real-world situations. Those placed at smaller POEs (such as infrequently used land border crossings) also rotated to larger POEs for a time, to ensure that they were exposed to a variety of situations. [ 19 ] The OIDP began with an onboarding program that varied in length, depending on the POE. It provided training specific to the POE and job-shadowing opportunities. The training was either in a classroom setting or one-on-one instruction, depending on the POE’s size. The OTs were paired with more-senior BSOs, who acted as their coaches for the duration of the onboarding period. The job-shadowing allowed the OTs to observe their coaches perform BSO duties and, vice versa, to be observed and provided with feedback. [ 20 ] The balance of the OIDP was spent performing a BSO’s work. The intent was to expose the OTs to all the tasks that a BSO normally performed, with the exception of special assignments that not all BSOs performed and that required additional specialized training. [ 21 ] An OT’s performance was evaluated each quarter by a superintendent who was assigned to oversee their progress. The superintendents completed a document entitled “Trainee Performance Questionnaire” (TPQ), in which they provided a rating and written feedback on 43 tasks and experiences in the areas of 1) client service, 2) program and service delivery, 3) enforcement activities, 4) legislation, policies, and procedures, and 5) behavioural expectations and requirements. [ 22 ] The TPQs were completed based on the superintendent’s observations, discussions with other superintendents, feedback from other BSOs, and a review of the OT’s reports (which all officers had to complete after certain actions were taken). A meeting was then held with the OT, to discuss their TPQ and to share feedback on their performance. [ 23 ] For each of the 43 tasks and experiences in the TPQ, the OT was rated as “Exceeds Expectations”, “Meets Expectations”, “Improvement Needed”, or “Unsatisfactory”. Each rating was defined. The following are of note. [ 24 ] An OT was rated as Meets Expectations when the following was true: … … Work performance meets the standards of performance and consistently demonstrates the necessary actions and behaviours relative to the task. Some limitations exist, but none that cause a major concern that cannot be addressed with further experience, training, or development; is able to complete the task without guidance. … [ 25 ] An OT was rated as Improvement Needed when the following was true: … … Work performance did not meet expectations. Able to perform the task but requires guidance or is inconsistent in demonstrating the necessary actions and behaviours relative to the task. Work performance does not consistently meet the standards of performance for the task. Significant improvement is needed. … [ 26 ] An OT was rated as Unsatisfactory when the following was true: … … Work performance was consistently below expectations in the task. Reasonable progress toward the successful performance of this task has not been observed. Does not recognize OR has ongoing difficulty OR is unable to adequately demonstrate the knowledge, skills and abilities to complete the task. Serious effort is needed to improve performance. … [ 27 ] The following are a few examples of the listed tasks and experiences that were assessed: … 6. Adapts approach when interacting with clients depending on the situation(s) and the person(s) concerned. … 9. Makes a timely and accurate decision based on findings. … 13. Ensures mandatory questions are asked. … 16. Appropriately uses available databases, tools and equipment …. … 18. Makes appropriate release / authorize entry or referral decisions. … 20. Asks appropriate additional and clarifying questions. … 23. Maintains direction and control of interview / examination and uses appropriate intervention options when necessary. … 25. Chooses and applies appropriate enforcement actions within legislative guidelines.

26. Detains/seizes goods or detains/arrests people based on all evidence. … 28. Follows established policies and procedures when conducting secondary examinations 29. Completes required documentation to meet [NAME_12] standards.

30. Understands and appropriately applies legislation, policy and procedures. … 32. Applies the appropriate penalty/officer option when a contravention has occurred.

33. Stays current on legislation, policies and procedures. … [ 28 ] In addition to the quarterly reviews, the OTs had to complete eight “Competency Demonstration Reports” (CDR), to demonstrate that they met the following core behavioural and technical competencies: 1) analytical thinking; 2) client-service orientation; 3) conscientiousness and reliability; 4) effective interactive communication; 5) judgment; 6) information-seeking techniques; 7) inspection techniques; and 8) safety orientation. [ 29 ] [NAME_19] testified that the OTs’ competency profiles were lower than the BSOs’. She stated that the OTs were required to perform tasks at a basic level and to respond to situations as they arose (referred to as a “level 2” response), while the BSOs had to perform tasks at an intermediate level and address situations proactively, before they arose (referred to as a “level 3” response). To be promoted, the OTs had to demonstrate that they could perform those eight core competencies at the higher level. [ 30 ] The OTs completed the CDRs and self-reported a workplace situation that showed the OT performing each core competency at the higher level. Completed CDRs were sent directly to the [NAME_12]’s national office in Rigaud. [ 31 ] In addition to completing the 8 CDRs, the OTs were required to complete a list of additional online training courses during the 12-month period. [NAME_19] stated that the training to become a BSO was so extensive that it was not possible to fit it all within the initial 18 weeks of training. [ 32 ] Finally, to be promoted, the OTs required a “Positive Readiness Report” (PRR) from their superintendents, to pass their probation and receive an indeterminate BSO appointment. That usually occurred at the 12-month mark. For those who did not receive a PRR, the probationary period could be extended, up to 18 months, to implement additional steps, to improve their performance. An OT who was unable to satisfy the program’s requirements was rejected on probation, and their employment was terminated. B. The employer’s expectations [ 33 ] [NAME_16] testified to the expectations during the OIDP and how they changed as the OTs progressed through the program. He pointed to the diagram that follows as an illustration of the expectations put in a chart. Over the 12 months, the OTs moved from doing basic tasks under direction to doing more-complex tasks, with greater independence: [ 34 ] [NAME_16] stated that superintendents supervised the OTs and were responsible for observing the OTs and ensuring that they received the opportunities and experience required to succeed in the program. If performance gaps were identified, the superintendents were required to inform the national OIDP team, so that targeted developmental strategies could be put in place to correct them. The chiefs of operations oversaw the program locally and were responsible for ensuring that the superintendents adequately performed their roles. [ 35 ] [NAME_16] stated that the program expected that the OTs would not be scheduled to work alone and that a BSO would either be scheduled nearby or that a superintendent would be reachable, so that the OTs could ask questions, if needed. [ 36 ] [NAME_16] stated that it was expected that another more-senior BSO would accompany an OT when they carried out high-risk tasks for the first time such as an arrest or a seizure because of the legal implications if it was not done properly. However, he stated that in less-serious situations, an OT might simply solicit feedback from a colleague but do that less frequently as the tasks became routine. He added that they would likely ask questions of others all their careers, due to the job’s complexity. [ 37 ] [NAME_16] described the employer’s expectations, as split into four quarters. [ 38 ] During the first three-month period, expectations were low. The OTs were expected to learn and be ready to listen to feedback. The work was basic and directed. They were expected to be able to ask mandatory questions in the primary inspection line, which is the first point of contact for travellers wishing to enter the country. [ 39 ] During the four-to-six-month period, the expectation was that the OTs would be able to perform more-complex tasks and that the work would become more routine. They were no longer being directed but rather guided . [ 40 ] During the seven-to-nine-month period, the OTs began to become autonomous. They no longer asked as many questions. They knew how to do things and did not need to look things up as often. Guidance was more of an oversight, with the superintendents giving a quick review on occasion. [ 41 ] During the 10-to-12-month period, the OTs were expected to use that period to show their superintendents that they were able to perform their duties autonomously and on a sustained basis. They were able to perform acting BSO assignments during that period. [ 42 ] [NAME_16] spoke to the OIDP “Manager’s Handbook” that was developed as a quick-reference guide for superintendents and chiefs responsible for managing and assessing the OTs’ performance and behaviours. It provides the following general expectations for each quarter: … 0-3 Month Review Period · During the first period of review the Superintendent should be able to observe that the Officer Trainee can: ○ Perform PIL independently and make correct release/ refer decisions. ○ Perform basic secondary examinations, be they baggage or vehicle. ○ Recognize basic indicators, and articulate them. ○ Determine basic admissibility and inadmissibility of people and goods. ○ Demonstrate expected behaviours and be a positive element in the workplace. These may vary depending on the port as well as the rotation of Officer Trainee in various Agency program and service delivery areas. 4-6 Month Review Period · During the second review period there should be sufficient development to clearly demonstrate more initiative driven activities/actions by the Officer Trainee with a diminishing level of intervention by management and peers. The Superintendent will have observed that the Officer Trainee demonstrates: ○ Increased confidence and tangible officer presence ○ An ability to provide accurate advice, guidance and information to travellers ○ A capacity to articulate, to make, to apply and to defend decisions ○ Demonstrated openness to learning, is engaged in the office environment and is a positive element in the workplace These may vary depending on the port as well as the rotation of Officer Trainees in various Agency programs and service delivery areas. 7-9 Month Review Period · During the third reporting period there should be continuing development of the Officer Trainee’s ability to work more autonomously and an even greater diminishing level of intervention by Superintendents and peers. The Superintendent should be able to confirm that the Officer Trainee: ○ Can properly articulate actions and decisions taken which are in accordance with legislation, policy and procedures. ○ Has completed all required online training. ○ Is actively gathering all information required for submission of their CDR’s. ○ Has or is addressing all issues from previous TPQ’s and is on the path to correcting them. ○ Is demonstrating an openness to learning, is engaged in the office environment and is a positive element in the workplace. ○ Is the lead officer on more and more cases. There should be little variation between different POEs at this time as almost all Officer Trainees should have had the opportunity to work all aspects of port operations in the traveler stream. 10-12 Month Review Period · During this period of the Program, the skills and abilities previously developed by the Officer Trainee are being further refined leading them to full autonomy. The Officer Trainee will be demonstrating consistency, stability and a level of confidence in their ability to perform all duties (officer presence). ○ The Officer Trainee should be performing his daily duties effectively with little or no supervision. ○ The competency demonstration reports are being developed for submission at the required time. ○ All previously identified issues have been satisfactorily resolved. If not, the next steps will be identified in collaboration with local management and the OID Program Team. … [ 43 ] [NAME_16] stated that the suggestion that the OTs were able to perform their work independently without guidance was false and would risk Canadians’ safety and security. [ 44 ] However, in cross-examination, he stated that being under a superintendent’s guidance did not mean that they were at the OTs’ sides all the time. He stated that the OTs were to develop autonomy over the course of the program. He agreed that superintendents provided guidance to both the OTs and BSOs. He agreed that it was possible that some OTs were assigned regular duties after the initial onboarding period and that they made decisions on their own. However, he stated that that was not the program’s intent. [ 45 ] In terms of learning and developing the skills and knowledge of the job, he agreed that it continued after the 12 months. However, he stated that what was different was what was expected of the OTs versus the BSOs. The OTs were expected to be learning, while the BSOs were expected to have learned what was required to perform their duties. He agreed that the experience obtained was random, as it was not possible to anticipate in advance the type of situation that would unfold. [ 46 ] [NAME_19] stated that the OTs were not expected to deal with outside stakeholders and were not eligible to work in special assignments such as being detector-dog handlers. She stated that those assignments required additional training and that the BSOs had to apply for them. [ 47 ] [NAME_16] stated that a review of the program was conducted from 2018 to 2019 and that significant changes were made. He stated that it was decided that the OTs would be offered acting assignments as BSOs at the nine-month mark for the last three months of the program, as long as they were just “tweaking” their skills and were “pretty much there”. He stated that it made sense to provide an acting assignment at the nine-month mark since that was when the employer expected the OTs to show more autonomy. That change was made after [NAME_7] had completed their OIDPs. C. The OT job description [ 48 ] [NAME_20] had been employed by [NAME_12] for 33 years when she testified and held a variety of roles over her career, including as a BSO and a superintendent. Due to her experience, she was offered the role of strategic advisor responsible for drafting the OT job description. [ 49 ] [NAME_20] explained that when she was first approached, she was informed of the intention to develop a year-long program to help recruits apply their classroom learnings to a live-world setting. The role was described to her as akin to a cadet, where each would be assigned a more-senior BSO who had volunteered to take them on and mentor them. [ 50 ] The intention was to help new recruits develop through their dedicated mentors’ assistance for a time. For 12 months, the OTs were not expected to perform a BSO’s full job and received quarterly checkpoints, to monitor their performance and help them, as needed. It was an opportunity for them to learn and grow into the job without the expectation that they had to know everything when they started. [ 51 ] [NAME_19] stated that the job is very complex — officers must apply over 100 Acts and regulations. It requires time to learn. That was why the employer decided that 12 months were required for an OT to be able to properly integrate knowledge and to perform their work autonomously. The content of the 18-week classroom training had grown so much and had such an intense amount of knowledge to share that it was not reasonable to expect the OTs to know what to do on day one at their assigned POEs. The program was meant to provide the opportunity to learn in the field. It was to be solid coaching and mentoring, to help with learning. [ 52 ] [NAME_20] stated that since the trainees were sent to different POEs for their on-the-job training, the job description had to be generic and transferable. It was developed based on what had to be learned to become a BSO. She stated that when she drafted the OT job description, she started with the BSO job description and worked backwards from there. She adapted it to reflect the employer’s lower expectations for its OTs during the OIDP. [ 53 ] She explained that upon completing the initial 18 weeks of classroom training, the OTs knew the basics. The words “basic fundamental … knowledge of”, “developing”, and “learning how to” were added to the OT job description, to reflect that the OTs’ knowledge level would increase in time. The employer had no expectation that the OTs would have all the necessary knowledge or skills when they completed their classroom training; developing them took time. She added that it took her years to develop some of those skills. It took time to learn and develop analytical thinking, and the OTs were not expected to make the right decisions on day one. [ 54 ] Similarly, [NAME_19] stated that the references to having “basic” or “fundamental” knowledge of different things were used to recognize that the OTs were still developing and were in the process of applying those skills consistently. The word “developing” was used to recognize that their skills were basic when they came out of the college and that those skills had to be developed further before they would have the competencies required to be at the level expected of the BSOs. [ 55 ] [NAME_20] stated that the word “guidance” was used rather than “supervision” to emphasize that the intention was to learn rather than having an atmosphere of “a big brother” watching everything that they did. The employer felt that using the words “under the guidance” took pressure off the new OTs. D. The OIDP as applied to [NAME_7]

1. The [NAME_15] [ 56 ] [NAME_4], [NAME_3], and [NAME_3] started their OIDPs on December 15, 2016, July 17, 2017, and in or about November 2017, respectively. [ 57 ] [NAME_23], [NAME_22], and [NAME_21] were superintendents (or acted in that role) during all or part of [NAME_7]’ OIDPs. They described how the OIDP was applied at the [NAME_15]. [ 58 ] [NAME_23] had a lengthy career with the employer, dating from 1997. She first became a superintendent in 2008 and was involved in the OIDP from 2015. She was responsible for preparing [NAME_4]’s first and third TPQs, [NAME_3]’s fourth TPQ, and [NAME_3]’s first TPQ. She also recommended [NAME_3]’s promotion. [ 59 ] [NAME_22] started his BSO career in 2008. He began an acting assignment as a superintendent in 2016. He was responsible for preparing [NAME_3]’s second and third [NAME_3]’s third TPQ. [ 60 ] [NAME_21] started his BSO career in 2010. He began acting as a superintendent in 2016 and was permanently appointed to that role in 2019. He was responsible for preparing [NAME_3]’s first and second TPQs. a. The superintendents’ evidence [ 61 ] The [NAME_15] was a large POE with a significant daily passenger volume and staffing complement. Due to its size and the passenger volume, its immigration and customs offices were separate. Most BSOs, including the OTs, worked in the customs office. Work in the immigration office was considered a special assignment and required additional training. [ 62 ] The three superintendents who testified were part of a small team that had responsibility for overseeing the OTs, in addition to their normal operational supervisory duties. [ 63 ] Those superintendents were responsible for guiding the OTs during the onboarding process, completing the TPQs, and meeting with the OTs, to provide feedback quarterly. They also ensured that the OTs were exposed to all the tasks required to complete their eight CDRs and signed off on the PRRs that confirmed whether an OT was ready for promotion. But they were not responsible for supervising the OTs day-to-day; supervision was carried out by the superintendents assigned to the shift. [ 64 ] All the superintendents, including those responsible for the OTs, were assigned to 1 of 3 supervisory posts, 1 in each of the primary and secondary areas, and 1 in the administrative superintendent post. Each shift had 2 or 3 superintendents assigned and 18 to 28 officers, which included both OTs and BSOs. [ 65 ] The primary area was where travellers first presented themselves when entering the country. The duties of Officers there were to question the travellers and determine whether they should be granted access to the country or be sent to the immigration section (located behind the primary area) or to the secondary interrogation area for further assessment, or both. [ 66 ] While in primary, the superintendents managed the floor and ensured that enough staff were present. They had a booth with a view of the entire floor and were available to help all the officers if they had a question or were unsure about something. [ 67 ] The secondary area was where some travellers were sent for further questioning or a search. It had approximately 10 counters to process them. The duties there were more involved and included actions such as searches and seizures, detainments, and arrests. [ 68 ] The OTs and BSOs were required to inform a superintendent before taking those actions and to advise of their intended course of action. The superintendent would ensure that those decisions were well guided and would sign-off on all seizures and arrest warrants. The OTs and BSOs were then required to document their actions by preparing a report, based on a template. [ 69 ] The superintendents were located in a room overlooking the secondary area via one-way glass. Similarly to primary, the superintendents were available to help all the officers if they had a question or were unsure about something. [ 70 ] The superintendents could also be assigned as administrative supervisors. In that role, they were responsible for taking calls, assigning staff to posts throughout the day, making changes as needed, and planning the roster for the week ahead. They were located in the secondary-area office. i. The onboarding period [ 71 ] The [NAME_15] generally welcomed up to six different cohorts of OTs each year, with two to eight OTs in each group. The onboarding program lasted four weeks, and the OTs were assigned a coach (a senior BSO) for the duration. The details of each of the four weeks of onboarding follow. [ 72 ] Week 1 - the OTs received a tour of the airport and were granted the required accesses. They met the [NAME_12]’s chief of operations for the airport and the two program superintendents, to discuss the expectations during their probationary period. They received instructional lectures on site-specific subjects such as coding, high-risk flights, and primary inspection. They performed job shadowing with their coaches and potentially performed that role while the coaches observed. [ 73 ] Week 2 - the OTs received more instructional lectures and orientation sessions on the airport’s posts, programs, and practices and were introduced to the secondary section. They performed job shadowing and were observed in that section. [ 74 ] Week 3 - the OTs performed primary and secondary duties themselves under the coaches’ supervision. [ 75 ] Week 4 - the OTs received training on so-called “key posts” at the airport such as the statistics counter, the cash position (for collecting taxes imposed on goods), and the client-service counter (known as the “Y-38” post). They continued performing primary and secondary duties under supervision. The superintendents assessed whether they were ready to perform those duties on their own, i.e., without close supervision. [ 76 ] At the end of week 4, if performance gaps were noted, further support was provided such as additional job shadowing with their coaches or a different coach, to observe different approaches. Otherwise, the OTs were scheduled for regular shifts with ordinary operational supervision. [NAME_22] stated that they were scheduled on the same shift as their coaches for the first week of regular scheduling, so that the coaches could keep an eye on them and make sure that they were fine. [NAME_21] stated that superintendents ensured that the OTs were assigned shifts with more-experienced BSOs for “the first few times on their own”. [ 77 ] Upon being assigned to shifts on their own, the OTs introduced themselves to the public as BSOs, not trainees. They had the same legal powers as the BSOs. ii. Months two and three [ 78 ] According to the superintendents, most OTs were on their own after the initial four weeks of onboarding. They performed the normal tasks of the job and made decisions independently, such as deciding in primary whether to release or refer travellers to secondary. [ 79 ] The superintendents stated that the supervision level during that period was high and that expectations were low, in recognition that the OTs were still learning the job. The OTs were assigned to the primary and secondary sections, to perfect those skills. They were not assigned to key posts during that time, as those were considered easy, and the intention was to have them focus on developing their skills in primary and secondary — which were the two main posts. The OTs were encouraged to ask many questions and did so. They were encouraged to take their time. Perfect performance was not expected. They were expected to become comfortable with primary by the end of the quarter. Schedules were modified during that period, based on where the superintendents saw the need for additional development. iii. Months four to six [ 80 ] The OTs were assigned to key posts, in addition to primary and secondary. The superintendents tried to get them involved in all the activities at the airport during that period. The OTs were expected to become more comfortable with secondary-screening tasks and to become more autonomous and efficient. They were expected to find the information that they needed rather than be told the answers. [ 81 ] [NAME_23] stated that in this period, she could see if the OTs seized the fundamentals of the position or if they still needed a little more help. For example, superintendents would see whether the OTs caught the right things, were able to make a decision as to when to refer a traveller to secondary, and were able to make receipts for duties and taxes. The superintendents were also able to see their development through their reports. iv. Months seven to nine [ 82 ] In these months, the OTs were assigned duties in the same way as the other BSOs. The OTs were expected to show significantly more confidence in their decision-making at this point. They were more efficient because they were more at ease with their work. The length of time to prepare reports was expected to be much shorter. Any remaining performance gaps were identified, and the OTs’ schedules were modified, to provide more opportunities to practise and correct those issues, if needed. Any OT who did not meet the standards was placed on a development plan, to ensure that they could reach the level of meeting the expectations. [ 83 ] On cross-examination, the superintendents all agreed that by that point, the average OT would know the techniques for questioning people, examining goods, and how to assess risk. With respect to their knowledge of the legislation, [NAME_23] stated that there was too much to memorize but that by that point, they would know where to look, which was the real key. All three agreed that the average OT was able to gather information, analyze it, and make decisions in accordance with the law by that point. [ 84 ] [NAME_23] agreed that some of the OTs were ready for promotion before the 12-month mark. [NAME_21] and [NAME_22] agreed that some might have been ready after 7 or 8 months. [NAME_22] stated that by that point, they expected the OTs to have the basic knowledge of the job. v. Months 10 to 12 [ 85 ] The OTs were expected to perform at a high level of confidence. Their reports were expected to be more detailed. They were encouraged to obtain their airside driver’s licence for private planes. The expectation was that the OTs could demonstrate the level of performance capable of supporting a recommendation that they be promoted to a BSO position. [ 86 ] The superintendents testified that at the end of each quarter, they completed the TPQs and met with the OTs, to discuss their performance. The TPQs were prepared by gathering feedback from other superintendents and BSOs and by reviewing the OTs’ enforcement statistics and written reports, to identify any areas for improvement. [ 87 ] In terms of day-to-day supervision, the superintendents responsible for the OTs were not scheduled to be continuously on the same shifts as the OTs assigned to them. Their shifts usually overlapped 10 to 18 times per month. [ 88 ] The OTs’ level of supervision changed over time if superintendents saw the OTs display confidence. [NAME_23] said that superintendents would let them “fly on their own” but would help them if they saw that it was necessary. If she saw that the OTs were doing well, she would not constantly have an eye on them. [NAME_22] said that each OT had a different learning curve. Some were able to work independently, while others had more questions. [ 89 ] No officer was scheduled to work alone, unless they were at the Y-38 counter. Each had radios to reach a superintendent if they had a question. [NAME_23] stated that they tried not to schedule only OTs in secondary but that it could happen. However, a superintendent was always available for assistance. [ 90 ] As for arrests, the OTs observed a more-senior BSO before making one on their own. An arrest always required two officers. [NAME_23] stated that it was not unheard of for two OTs to carry out an arrest if the superintendents felt that they were comfortable with it. As for seizures, the superintendents made sure that an OT was accompanied by a more-experienced BSO when they performed one for the first time. [ 91 ] As for the job description, [NAME_23] agreed that the OTs were under guidance and supervision, were learning and developing, and were acquiring more knowledge during the program. She stated that the OTs learned the basics of their position at the college. During their 12-month placements, they developed their skills and knowledge to become full-fledged BSOs. She stated that there were many skills to develop. The more that the OTs did certain tasks, the better they got at them. [NAME_22] stated that the term “guidance” did not mean holding their hands but rather teaching them how to do things themselves. [ 92 ] [NAME_21] was asked whether the comment “under the guidance” should be removed from the job description. He disagreed, stating that the superintendents assigned to the OTs took the TPQs seriously and reviewed all the information, to make sure that the OTs progressed as expected. [ 93 ] As for learning, all the superintendents agreed that it continued after 12 months, due to the nature of the job, but at a different level — it was greatest at the beginning. [NAME_21] agreed that when a BSO transferred to the [NAME_15] from another POE, they had to learn the site-specific information. [ 94 ] The superintendents did not identify any differences in supervising the OTs and BSOs day-to-day. After the initial three months, they supervised from a distance, to provide more independence, answered questions if anyone was unsure of something, reviewed enforcement actions before they were taken, and reviewed the enforcement reports after they were prepared. All the BSOs and OTs had a radio at all times, to reach a superintendent. [ 95 ] The BSOs were also subject to performance reviews, but they were done less frequently. The BSOs were given expectations at the beginning of the year and received mid-year and year-end evaluations that confirmed whether those expectations had been met. b. [NAME_7]’ evidence [ 96 ] All 3 [NAME_7] who worked at the airport were promoted to BSO positions after 12 months in the OIDP. [NAME_3] and [NAME_4] testified that their OT duties and responsibilities were the same when they became BSOs. [NAME_3] added that the only thing that changed when he became a BSO was his salary. In cross-examination, he agreed that the expectations of the OTs were different at month 2 than at month 12. [NAME_4] pointed out that lower expectations were also placed on BSOs who transferred from another POE for a time after they arrived. [ 97 ] [NAME_3] stated that the nature of the work was such that tasks were assigned randomly to the OTs and BSOs. The OTs were expected to perform the same tasks as the BSOs. There were no duties that they were not allowed or expected to do (other than the special assignments previously referred to). He agreed that the OTs were expected to seek guidance or assistance for their first significant actions. [ 98 ] Similarly, [NAME_4] stated that the OTs could ask that someone be placed to assist them for the first few times that they conducted more-critical actions. However, he stated that this was not to be repeated too often since the expectation was that they would be able to perform their work on their own. [ 99 ] [NAME_4] stated that the OTs were treated no differently than the BSOs. In secondary, both the OTs and BSOs had to involve a superintendent for certain more-serious actions, without distinction. To perform certain actions, such as an arrest or a strip search, a second officer was mandated. That requirement applied to both the BSOs and OTs. He recalled performing a strip search while he was an OT and having another OT assigned to assist him. [ 100 ] [NAME_4] stated that there were 10 counters in the secondary area, with 1 or 2 officers behind a counter, based on their personal preferences. He preferred to be on his own. [ 101 ] As for duties, all three stated that as OTs, they interrogated travellers, inspected goods and conveyances, determined when a traveller had committed an offence, decided the appropriate actions to take, and executed those actions. [ 102 ] In terms of knowledge, all three stated that when they were OTs, they knew when to involve other stakeholders, and that they understood the [NAME_12]’s mandate. They had knowledge of the legislation that was relevant to the [NAME_12]. [NAME_3] stated that there were so many pieces of legislation involved that it was impossible to know them all. What was important was to know how to look up the information. [ 103 ] All three confirmed that as OTs, they were required to analyze information. [NAME_4] provided the example of collecting several information sources and analyzing them, to adjust when questioning travellers. He stated that at the college, the OTs were taught the different information sources to consider. For instances, a traveller’s destination point or place where they arrived from were considered good indicators. They also looked for verbal and non-verbal indicators, such as a change in tone or inconsistencies in stories. [ 104 ] In terms of involving other stakeholders, [NAME_3] stated that a large board on the wall identified whom to contact in different situations, so the information was clear. [NAME_4] stated that the OTs interacted with other police agencies when they confirmed a warrant for the arrest of a traveller and when handing them over after the arrest. They interacted with airport security and the staff who cleaned the secure area. They also called on specialized teams, such as the Flexible Response Team or the K9 officers, when the need arose. [ 105 ] As for learning, all three stated that they continued to learn even after they completed their probations. [NAME_4] pointed to the online training on interviewing techniques that he completed as a BSO a few months before the hearing. [ 106 ] [NAME_4] stated that he had since been assigned as a K9 handler, which was one of the special BSO assignments (a lateral one). He stated that that role was completely different and required significant learning. He stated that as an OT, he knew when to ask for a K9 officer’s help since he had inquired about it from them. He stated that the OTs have since started to receive a presentation during their onboarding on when to engage K9 assistance. That presentation was not available when he was an OT. [ 107 ] As for supervision, [NAME_4] stated that a superintendent was not always present in the primary area. He stated that it depended on the superintendent and that some spent most of their time in the office in the secondary area. The secondary area was approximately a two-minute walk away. That door was locked, so it was necessary to knock to enter. He stated that the superintendent’s office in secondary was L-shaped and that most of that office did not have a line of sight to the secondary counters. He agreed that superintendents could be reached by radio at all times. [ 108 ] As for guidance, [NAME_4] stated that the feedback that he received as an OT was no different from what he received as a BSO. He provided as an example that a superintendent would comment if a report had errors, regardless of whether it was from an OT or a BSO.

2. The Quebec City Airport [ 109 ] [NAME_5] started his OIDP on or around January 7, 2019. [ 110 ] [NAME_24] had been a superintendent since 2003 and was responsible for preparing all of [NAME_5]’s TPQs. She recommended him for promotion. She described how the OIDP was applied at the Quebec City Airport. a. The superintendent’s evidence [ 111 ] The Quebec City Airport is a medium-sized POE similar to other airports. However, unlike the [NAME_15], its immigration and customs offices are integrated. As a result, the OTs performed both customs and immigration duties. Further, the officers dealt with both commercial and traveller traffic, as the POE was too small to have specialized units. [ 112 ] About 35 officers were at the airport. It received a few cohorts of OTs per year, with 1 to 4 OTs per cohort. Any given shift had 4 to 6 officers and 1 or 2 superintendents present. During the winter, no superintendent was present between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m., but one was on call. [ 113 ] The onboarding period consisted of six to eight weeks of being paired with a more-senior BSO. The OTs job shadowed the BSO during primary screening functions and then were observed while performing those duties. The OTs then performed those duties on their own while their mentors worked in close proximity. That process was repeated for secondary-examination duties. [ 114 ] If their performance was satisfactory at the end of that period, the OTs were scheduled for regular shifts. If there were performance gaps, they received additional support, depending on their needs. [ 115 ] [NAME_24] stated that during the zero-to-three-month period, she expected the OTs to ask a large amount of questions and to get help with their tasks. She spoke of the supportive team environment and of how more-senior BSOs helped their junior colleagues learn. [ 116 ] During the four-to-six- and seven-to-nine-month periods, [NAME_24] expected to see more confidence from the OTs. If they had questions, superintendents and BSOs were always nearby to assist. However, as the year went on, she expected the OTs to become more independent and to find answers themselves by accessing the guidebooks and resources rather than asking their colleagues. [ 117 ] After the OTs had at least six months of experience, they were also assigned to work in a position called the “roving officer”, which consisted of patrolling the luggage area. [ 118 ] During the 10-to-12-month period, she expected the OTs to perform at a high level, to support a recommendation for promotion to an indeterminate BSO position. [ 119 ] Those OTs who were destined for marine ports also received a week-long training course on how to search vessels during their third quarter, followed by three weeks of training during their last quarter in Halifax, Nova Scotia. [ 120 ] [NAME_24] talked about the steps that were available if an OT was struggling, which included further job shadowing, supplementary coaching, or further scenario-based training. [ 121 ] As the Quebec City airport was smaller, [NAME_24] testified that she crossed paths frequently with her OTs and that they had many informal discussions, to check on how things were going. She also met with them formally every quarter, to discuss their performance and review their TPQs. The comments in the TPQs were based on her observations, feedback from other superintendents and BSOs, and her review of their written reports. [ 122 ] She expected the OTs to be paired up with more-senior BSOs during their first enforcement actions. Superintendents did not expect the OTs to deal with complex cases alone or to do things perfectly the first time, without support. All officers were required to notify a superintendent before taking certain enforcement measures. [ 123 ] She agreed that the OTs developed their skills and continuously learned during the first year. However, in cross-examination, she agreed that this continued after 12 months. [ 124 ] When asked whether an OT’s experience depended on the luck of the draw, she somewhat disagreed. She indicated that the airport provided a good opportunity to see a wide variety of cases in the 12-month period. [ 125 ] She agreed that the OTs obtained most of the knowledge that they required during their first 18 weeks of training but that they had to learn how to apply it to the realities of their POEs. [ 126 ] On cross-examination, when asked to imagine an average OT at the seven-to-nine-month mark, she agreed that they were able to perform a BSO’s basic work. They knew how to obtain the information that they needed to complete files of medium complexity. However, she stated that they still required help for more-complex cases. [ 127 ] She stated that the program changed and that it became possible for OTs to obtain acting assignments at nine months. She agreed that [NAME_5] would have been capable of performing in an acting BSO assignment at nine months. b. The [NAME_7]’s evidence [ 128 ] [NAME_5] was promoted to a BSO position after 12 months in the OIDP. He stated that the OTs performed all the same duties as the BSOs, with the exception of specialized assignments that not all BSOs perform. [ 129 ] He stated that he had a hard time at the beginning, so he had to ask questions. He stated that he improved with time and that he gained more independence as he learned more about the job. [ 130 ] His onboarding consisted of being paired with a more-senior BSO for three weeks. For the first two weeks, he was shown around the airport, taught how things worked, and job shadowed his mentor. The third week consisted of being observed by his mentor while performing BSO duties. [ 131 ] He stated that after three weeks, he ceased to have a mentor and was assigned to perform the same work as a BSO independently. He disagreed that he worked “under guidance”. Rather, he stated that guidance was given if he sought it. However, if he chose not to, no one came to provide any. He stated that other BSOs or a superintendent were available most of the time but that the superintendents expected the same of him as of other BSOs. He made decisions on his own that were not reviewed before they were actioned. He stated that students carried out most of the work in primary. [ 132 ] [NAME_5] stated that after a flight left the airport, a more-senior BSO or a superintendent carried out a review and that the officers in the primary area received feedback on their referrals. That was still being done. [ 133 ] In secondary, he made enforcement decisions on his own. He arrested people, made seizures, and refused some travellers entry into the country. He believed that he performed all the types of enforcement actions available during his first year. He stated that it was protocol for all officers to double up for certain enforcement actions. He stated that he acted as the primary officer and that a BSO acted as the secondary officer. In cross-examination, he agreed that he sought advice before taking enforcement actions. He added that he also did that on occasion as a BSO. [ 134 ] He stated that he met with [NAME_24] quarterly, to review his TPQs and discuss his progression. He also agreed that they had informal chats but that it mostly consisted of saying “Hi” and being friendly. [ 135 ] [NAME_5] agreed that for the most part, his skills and knowledge improved while he worked as an OT and that they continued to improve while he worked as a BSO. [ 136 ] He stated that as an OT, he communicated with external police forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) when travellers had arrest warrants. It was necessary to contact the entities that created the warrants. He also contacted other government entities, such as Environment Canada or Health Canada, for an expert opinion, depending on what was seized or held. [ 137 ] When he was pointed to the OT job description, he stated that as an OT, he had the knowledge required to perform a BSO’s job. He stated that he did not have as much experience but that he knew what to do. He stated that he continued to gain that experience. [ 138 ] To perform his OT duties, he was required to analyze the information that he gathered, determine the legislation that applied, and determine whether an offence had taken place. [ 139 ] He stated that the OTs received all the knowledge on the [NAME_12] and its mandate, responsibilities, and functions during their initial 18 weeks of training.

3. The Calgary Airport [ 140 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] started their OIDPs on July 14, 2017, and July 3, 2018, respectively. [ 141 ] [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] were superintendents during at least a portion of [NAME_7]’ OIDPs. They described how the OIDP was applied at the Calgary Airport. [ 142 ] [NAME_25] started her BSO career in 2013. She became an acting superintendent in 2018 and was responsible for preparing [NAME_27]’s last two TPQs. She recommended [NAME_27] for promotion. [ 143 ] [NAME_25] started his career at a land border POE in 2014 and transferred to the Calgary Airport in 2018 as a BSO. He became an acting superintendent that year and was responsible for preparing [NAME_1]’s third TPQ. a. The superintendents’ evidence [ 144 ] The Calgary Airport is a large POE with a significant daily passenger volume and staffing compliment. Similar to the Quebec City Airport, its customs and immigrations were integrated. In addition to the primary and secondary sections, a Voluntary Compliance Office was located within the secondary area, to process immigration matters. [ 145 ] Between 20 and 50 officers worked at the airport, depending on the time of day, with 2 superintendents (1 in primary, and 1 in secondary) assigned per shift. One administrative superintendent also worked there from Monday to Friday. [ 146 ] An OT’s onboarding consisted of being paired with a senior BSO for approximately two months. It was similar to the Quebec City Airport; i.e., it consisted of job shadowing, being observed, then working in close proximity to a mentor, first in primary, then in secondary. [ 147 ] [NAME_25] stated that by the end of the onboarding period, it was expected that the OTs could complete all the basic tasks at the airport. They were assigned to regular duties from that point and were no longer scheduled with their mentors. He stated that they were “pretty much on their own”. He never encountered a situation in which an OT was not ready to be scheduled on their own after that time. [NAME_25] contradicted [NAME_25] by stating that an OT kept their mentor for three to six months or longer, depending on the need. She stated that sometimes, the mentor could change. [ 148 ] [NAME_25] testified that expectations during the zero-to-three-month period were “pretty basic”. The OTs were expected to familiarize themselves with airport operations and conduct primary inspections confidently. [NAME_25] testified that after two months, the OTs began to be assigned their own schedules. Since they were starting to perform tasks on their own, supervision was increased, to make sure that they knew how to do things on their own. [ 149 ] [NAME_25] stated that during the four-to-six-month period, she liked to see the OTs working more in secondary inspection and developing their interviewing skills and techniques. They were expected to be confident when inspecting bags. As a superintendent, she tried to assign new OTs to help with more-complicated enforcement measures, such as arrests, to gain experience. She agreed that the OTs were supervised from a distance and that their interactions with clients were not listened to. However, depending on how well the OT progressed, it was possible that they would still be under closer supervision. [ 150 ] [NAME_25] stated that he expected the OTs to start having confidence making decisions and standing by them by the four-to-six-month period. He still expected them to ask questions if they were unsure of something, as they were still relatively new. In cross-examination, he agreed that he monitored their work in the same way as he monitored the BSOs’ work. [ 151 ] [NAME_25] described the seven-to-nine-month period as being more of the same and that the OTs built their confidence and skills. She noted that the OTs often had to focus their efforts on interviewing techniques. [NAME_25] stated that he wanted to see the OTs continue to show more confidence in their tasks. He stated that the supervision level was somewhat lower during this period. [ 152 ] During the 10-to-12-month period, the superintendents conducted their final assessments of whether the OTs were ready to be BSOs and verified that they met all the expectations in the TPQs. [NAME_25] stated that by the end of this period, the OTs should be working at the same level as the BSOs. [ 153 ] The OTs were not allowed to be on the enforcement team, which was a specialized team that roamed the airport. [NAME_25] stated that a minimum number of years and experience were required before being able to join that team. The OTs were also not allowed to become detector-dog handlers. [ 154 ] In terms of the experience that the OTs acquired, [NAME_25] agreed that it depended on the luck of the draw and that it was not possible to predict the type of file that would come their way. However, [NAME_25] stated that he tried to assign certain tasks to OTs in secondary if they asked for more exposure to them. They expected an experienced BSO to assist the OTs the first time they performed an enforcement action. [ 155 ] All officers were required to inform a superintendent before taking certain enforcement actions. [NAME_25] stated that that was mostly done to ensure that the superintendents were aware since those actions could take time and could impact staffing levels. She stated that she never had to intervene because the wrong enforcement action had been proposed. All officers were required to prepare a subsequent report on the actions that were taken. [ 156 ] [NAME_25] stated that if an OT struggled at any point in the program, the superintendents were to inform the national office responsible for the OIDP, so that a plan could be developed to address those issues. [ 157 ] [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] stated that in addition to the quarterly TPQ meetings, they also met with their OTs once per month. [NAME_25] testified that she had a hands-on approach and that she tried to meet with the OTs for whom she was responsible each week, to see how they were doing. [ 158 ] When asked whether the OTs were provided guidance, [NAME_25] replied that the OIDP was a development program. In the beginning, the OTs were under the guidance of superintendents and their mentors; they were also expected to seek guidance at all times, if needed. [ 159 ] She recalled a situation involving [NAME_27] in which [NAME_27] took on a very complex case by herself. She stated that [NAME_27] was a really good officer but that she should have asked for help. [NAME_25] stated that it was not expected of [NAME_27], or any officer, to handle complicated cases on their own. She added this: “we should all ask for help when dealing with complex cases.” [ 160 ] [NAME_25] referred to a mistake that [NAME_1] made. He stated that it was the first time that he had seen [NAME_1] make one. [NAME_1] forgot to inform a traveller after his arrest that his native country would be informed of the arrest. In cross-examination, [NAME_25] agreed that two officers make arrests and that in this situation, presumably, the other officer was a BSO and would also have been informed of the mistake. [ 161 ] [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] agreed that the college taught the OTs the basic knowledge required and that the POEs taught them how to apply that knowledge. [NAME_25] stated that her goal was to help the OTs develop and gain confidence over time. However, she added that she expected them to look up the answers to their questions before asking her. [ 162 ] With respect to an OT’s knowledge of the [NAME_12]’s mandate and how each function worked together, [NAME_25] stated that when the OTs arrived at their POEs, they had a basic understanding of the “whos and hows [ sic ]”. Once at the POE, a large matrix on a wall identified situations and stated this: “if you see this, then you do this”. She said that it was very easy. [ 163 ] [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] agreed with the statements in the OT job description that the OTs were learning and developing their knowledge and skills. However, they also agreed in cross-examination that that continued beyond 12 months since the BSOs continuously developed as they continued to encounter new situations. [NAME_25] stated that his expectation of a first-year BSO is different from one with 25 years of experience since a senior BSO would have significantly more experience dealing with more-complex cases. [NAME_25] gave a personal example of a skill that she had developed over several years of working as a BSO. [ 164 ] In cross-examination, [NAME_25] and [NAME_25] were asked to think of an average OT at the seven-to-nine-month mark who was progressing normally. They were then pointed to the skills and knowledge required to become a BSO. Both agreed that those skills and knowledge were present in that period. b. [NAME_7]’ evidence [ 165 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] were promoted to BSO positions after 12 months in the OIDP. Both stated that as OTs, they performed the same duties as the BSOs. [ 166 ] [NAME_27] stated that her onboarding consisted of being provided with a mentor (a senior BSO) for the first three months of her OIDP. She was shown around the airport, performed job shadowing, and was observed performing her tasks for the first couple of weeks. She then worked independently but was located side by side to her mentor for another couple of weeks. After that, she worked on the same schedule as her mentor but not necessarily side by side. She agreed that she received guidance during that period. [ 167 ] [NAME_1] had a similar experience, but his mentor was on vacation during the first two weeks, so at first, he was paired with several BSOs. [ 168 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] stated that after three months, they ceased to be on the same schedule as their mentors. They agreed that from that point, the expectations placed on them were the same as those of the other BSOs. They were not subjected to special supervision or provided any special guidance. However, a BSO or a superintendent was always available if they had a question. [ 169 ] Both said that they made decisions independently in primary. [NAME_27] stated that on occasion, she followed up on her own initiative, to see if she had made a good referral to secondary. However, no one reviewed her decisions, to verify their quality. [NAME_1] stated that the officers in secondary gave her general feedback as to whether a referral was good. He stated that that feedback was part of the normal course of business at the airport with all officers. [ 170 ] They stated that the OTs were expected to seek another BSO’s help when they took an enforcement action for the first time. After that, they made decisions independently in secondary. [NAME_27] stated that those decisions required her to assess the information that she had gathered and to determine whether an enforcement action should be taken. [NAME_1] stated that the nature of the duties required a constant need to analyze information, to make the appropriate decision. The analysis in secondary was even more in depth. [ 171 ] Both stated that all officers were required to inform a superintendent before taking certain enforcement actions. [NAME_27] stated that none were ever refused. [NAME_1] stated that a superintendent could disagree with an action if it was unlawful. That applied to all officers. [ 172 ] After an enforcement action was taken, all officers were required to prepare a report, detailing the action. [NAME_27] was unaware before testifying that a superintendent then reviewed them since she had never received any feedback on them. [ 173 ] Both recalled meeting with a superintendent quarterly, to review their TPQs. [NAME_1] stated that during those meetings, he was asked whether he had performed certain actions, which were then discussed. He stated that the superintendents wanted to make sure that he had learned from them. [ 174 ] [NAME_27] could not recall any monthly meetings being held to review her performance. [NAME_1] was not asked whether he was subjected to monthly meetings. [ 175 ] [NAME_27] spoke to her second TPQ, which suggested that she had to obtain exposure to a higher variety of cases. She said that the superintendents did not take any special measures to ensure that that was done. She stated that it was left to her to make it happen. To obtain the experience, she asked other BSOs to switch their schedules with her, so that she could spend more time in secondary. [ 176 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] stated that officers did not control the work that came their way. Officers were expected to take the next referral that came up, and doing otherwise was frowned on. [NAME_27] stated that she made it known to her colleagues that she wanted certain specific experiences and to let her know when they came up. [NAME_1] stated that rarely, a superintendent could assign a file to an officer, despite it not being the next one in order. [ 177 ] [NAME_27] stated that the comment made in her third-quarter TPQ about the need to ask for help when taking on complex cases came out of nowhere and that no specific incident was brought to her attention, despite her asking. [ 178 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] stated that as OTs, they communicated with external police forces when travellers had warrants and subsequently made arrests, when required. [NAME_1] also provided examples of engaging the airport authority in medical emergencies, to coordinate paramedics’ arrival or if cleaning staff were required after an incident. [ 179 ] [NAME_27] and [NAME_1] were shown the OT job description. Their opinions were that they had all the skills and knowledge to do a BSO’s work while working as OTs. They agreed that their skills and knowledge improved as OTs and that they continued to improve as BSOs. [NAME_1] stated that that could be said of any job. [NAME_27] stated that the longer one does something, the better they get at it. Both agreed that they obtained operational experience and that they knew when to ask for a dog handler’s help.

4. The [NAME_17] [ 180 ] [NAME_6] started her OIDP on or around June 20, 2018. [ 181 ] [NAME_26] started his BSO career in 2003 and acted as a superintendent a number of times starting around 2015. He was responsible for preparing all [NAME_6]’s TPQs. He recommended her for promotion. a. The superintendent’s evidence [ 182 ] PEOs are usually described as small, medium, or large. [NAME_17] is a micro POE. It is the oldest POE in Canada and is very outdated. It has limited hours of operation and is seldom used. It averaged three crossings per day — mostly by the same people. Only two officers worked there at a time. [ 183 ] [NAME_26] was the superintendent responsible for [NAME_17]. He was located at a nearby POE in Fosterville, New Brunswick, which is a slightly larger and more heavily trafficked POE. He averaged approximately one visit to [NAME_17] per week. However, he could be reached by email, phone, or Microsoft Teams. If he was not on duty, another superintendent was available at all times. He was also available to guide any BSO who had a question. [ 184 ] As part of their onboarding, the OTs assigned to [NAME_17] were first sent to Woodstock for a period of 3 to 6 weeks, for more exposure. Woodstock was a large POE in New Brunswick. It had 40 to 60 officers and 6 or 7 superintendents. It had 4 primary lanes with the booths typically seen at land border crossings. There was also a secondary inspection area. [ 185 ] [NAME_26] stated that Woodstock was extremely busy. Both customs and immigration duties were carried out there. The superintendents were required to perform significantly more operational work, given the nature of the business. Approximately 10 officers were there with less than 2 years of experience, so officers asked for help more frequently. As a result, the superintendents were very involved in helping officers and with secondary examinations or stepping in when no officer was available. [ 186 ] [NAME_26] stated that because it was so busy, it was difficult for the superintendents to find time to support new recruits. The other BSOs mostly provided that help. [ 187 ] For the first three weeks of onboarding, the OTs were not counted as part of the staffing complement for a shift. During that time, an OT job shadowed other BSOs and then was observed performing the duties and provided with feedback. [ 188 ] After those first few weeks, if everything looked good, the OTs became part of the normal staffing count. They performed duties on their own and sought guidance as required. After six weeks, an OT began working normal shifts at [NAME_17]. He tried to pair the OT working at [NAME_17] with someone with more experience. Once at that POE, the OTs had to learn about how things worked there and what to expect. [ 189 ] In addition to meeting with the OTs quarterly, [NAME_26] stated that he probably held more-formal meetings once per month but that he probably spoke with them daily, to ask how things were going. [ 190 ] To provide additional opportunities to gain more experience, [NAME_26] stated that he tried to send the OTs to Woodstock if the staffing levels allowed for it. However, he explained that doing so could be challenging. [ 191 ] [NAME_26] was asked how his supervision of an OT differed from that of a BSO. He replied that he had to trust that they had the knowledge to do the job if they successfully graduated from the college. He stated that the superintendents did not have the time to constantly verify if the OTs knew how to do their work. He did not spend much time observing and standing behind his staff and watch them working. If everything seemed to move smoothly, then he assumed that it was. However, he stated that during the six weeks in Woodstock, he attended a few days and tried to watch each OT while they performed their duties and provided some guidance or put them in touch with a more-senior BSO if that could help. He stated that his BSO skills were somewhat rusty, as he had not worked as one in a while. [ 192 ] As for preparing the quarterly TPQs, he obtained feedback from several sources such as superintendents in Woodstock and other BSOs. [ 193 ] He stated that he met with his OTs to discuss their TPQs. He explained to them how he saw their progress or areas of concern. He tried to see if his thoughts aligned with what they were thinking since it was possible that an OT could have acquired experience in some area that he was not aware of. [ 194 ] He recalled supervising [NAME_6]. He stated that she had some difficulties going through the program and that she had some performance issues. However, she was very keen on doing the job and showed some willingness to learn and adapt. Many of his comments in her TPQs were about having to develop more or about lacking confidence. He said that that came with experience. It was very stressful at first, but as time went on, the OTs became more at ease. In each TPQ, he recommended that she be sent to Woodstock for a period, to provide her with greater exposure. [ 195 ] [NAME_6] was provided with an “Enhanced Performance Development Plan” for the 10-to-12-month period. [NAME_26] stated that the OIDP representatives in the [NAME_12]’s national office built them for any OTs who were not meeting their performance expectations in the expected timelines. The plan provided that she was to work at Woodstock for 5 weeks. [ 196 ] [NAME_26] stated that he recommended [NAME_6] for promotion after 12 months. [ 197 ] In cross-examination, he referred to an incident that occurred during her OIDP that resulted in a letter of discipline. He stated that he believed that it should have impacted her progression and that he wanted to include it in her final TPQ but that he was told that he could not, as doing so would have meant double jeopardy. [ 198 ] As for the OT job description, he stated that he agreed that the OTs were “under guidance”. He explained that they sought guidance from their colleagues. [ 199 ] [NAME_26] was asked whether the OTs had basic and fundamental knowledge and whether they developed it over the course of their time in the OIDP. He replied that they did not have 100% of the knowledge to do the job when they first arrived at their POEs. However, he stated that in his experience, some of the knowledge slipped away with time and that perhaps some of it was known better in the beginning. He stated that he would also have to brush up on some of that information. [ 200 ] He agreed that the abilities to question, investigate, observe, and communicate were skills developed during the OIDP. He also agreed that many things were learned over the course of the year. In cross-examination, he agreed that the BSOs continued to develop their skills after 12 months. [ 201 ] When asked to imagine an average OT at the seven-to-nine-month mark, he agreed that they possessed all the basic knowledge to perform a BSO’s job at that point. They could work independently, gather information, analyze it, and make determinations as to whether offences had occurred. b. The [NAME_7]’s evidence [ 202 ] [NAME_6] stated that [NAME_17] is very small. There could be weeks with no traffic. A superintendent came by every few weeks, to check on her and the other BSO working with her. She stated that Woodstock was much larger. It provided many more opportunities to make primary and secondary inspections. She was responsible for both customs and immigration work at [NAME_17]. However, the immigration work was separated at Woodstock and was performed by dedicated BSOs with specialized knowledge in that area. [ 203 ] She performed her onboarding at Woodstock. Another BSO guided her for a few weeks, perhaps three, with some job shadowing. It might have been three weeks, but she could not recall. After that, she stated that she “more or less” worked on her own, but the other BSO was the designated person to ask if she had questions. [ 204 ] [NAME_6] stated that she was the only OT at Woodstock. She worked there for the first 2 months of her OIDP. She returned to Woodstock periodically after that, more so toward the end of her 12 months, to obtain more experience since she was not getting it at [NAME_17]. [ 205 ] After her onboarding, she performed primary and secondary duties alone, with the exception of when a second officer had to be present for safety reasons such as when inspecting a vehicle. She stated that the other BSO’s presence was not for mentoring purposes but was required. [ 206 ] She stated that she did not recall anyone supervising or coaching her. Any assistance that she received was the same as that provided to other BSOs. [ 207 ] She performed enforcement actions such as a making a couple of arrests and some seizures, including catching undeclared firearms, a dog, and some drugs. She stated that the decisions that she made were hers to make but that at times, she discussed them with another BSO. She stated that the rules also required that two officers be present for arrests. Further, all officers were to inform a superintendent before taking certain enforcement actions. She stated that she discussed situations with the superintendent but that each decision was hers. Those discussions were the same after she became a BSO. [ 208 ] Each officer had to prepare a report after taking an enforcement action that was provided to a superintendent. The superintendents always provided feedback to all the officers such as “good decision making” or “good job”. [ 209 ] [NAME_6] stated that she met with her supervisor every couple of months and more officially every three months, to review her TPQs. [ 210 ] [NAME_6] stated that she was given an Enhanced Performance Development Plan after 10 months since she did not receive enough exposure at [NAME_17]. She stated that she also had significant stressors in her personal life that affected her performance. Those resulted in falling asleep during a night shift and receiving a written reprimand for it. The development plan lasted approximately 5 weeks. During that time, she met with a superintendent approximately once a week, to discuss how things were going. [ 211 ] [NAME_6] stated that as an OT, there were no BSO duties that she was not allowed to perform and that there was no change to her duties and responsibilities after she became a BSO. She stated that she received no special assistance as an OT. She had to reach out to a BSO if she required it. As an OT, she exercised all the skills and knowledge required to perform a BSO’s work. She reached out to external agencies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the RCMP for an arrest. She knew when to request a dog handler’s assistance. [ 212 ] With respect to her knowledge of the legislation, she said that there was too much to know but that she could locate the information that she needed. She stated that all BSOs must stay up to date since the legislation changes. [ 213 ] [NAME_6] agreed that her skills and knowledge improved as an OT and that they continued to develop and improve as a BSO. She agreed that she gained operational experience during the OIDP. [ 214 ] She stated that no OT should be sent to [NAME_17] for their OIDP since it does not provide them an opportunity to develop.

III. Analysis and reasons [ 215 ] Article 54 of the collective agreement provides that an employee is entitled to a “… complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of [their] position …”. [ 216 ] The seven grievances at issue alleged that the OT job description violated that article, as it did not provide a complete and current statement of [NAME_7]’ duties and responsibilities. Each sought retroactive pay from their start dates. They bore the burden of proof. [ 217 ] I will first address whether article 54 of the collective agreement was violated and will then turn to the issue of remedy. A. Does the OT job description provide a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities? [ 218 ] [NAME_7] sought to modify the OT job description, to remove certain qualifiers that the employer added to distinguish their duties and responsibilities from those of the BSOs. For ease of reference, I will refer to them as “the disputed qualifiers”. Broadly described, [NAME_7] objected to their work being “under the guidance” of others and to their responsibilities being limited to “learning how” or “developing” or to having only “basic” or “fundamental” knowledge or skills. [ 219 ] I considered the evidence presented and the parties’ submissions, and I have determined that the OT job description does not provide a current or complete statement of the duties and responsibilities. My reasons follow. [ 220 ] Both parties referred to [NAME_28] v. [NAME_8] (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) , 2011 PSLRB 20, as setting out the general principles that apply when considering job-description grievances. They are broadly accepted and can be summarized as follows: · job descriptions must contain enough information to accurately reflect what an employee does and cannot omit a reference to a particular duty or responsibility that the employee is required to perform; · they need not detail all the activities performed under a specific duty or list at length how those activities are accomplished; · no specific form of wording is required, as long as the words used broadly describe the duties being performed; and · broad and generic descriptions are acceptable, as long as they satisfy the fundamental requirements noted in the last three bullet points. [ 221 ] [NAME_7] also referred to [NAME_29] v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) , 2006 FCA 194 at para. 26, where the Federal Court of Appeal commented that work descriptions must reflect the realities of an employee’s work situation. They argued that the disputed qualifiers that the employer added to their work description are not meaningful and should be removed. [ 222 ] The employer submitted that the Board’s function is not to wordsmith the job description, to ensure that the best and most accurate wording was used. Further, the issue is not whether [NAME_7]’ proposed wording better described their work but whether the job description that they were provided satisfied the requirements set out in the collective agreement and the jurisprudence. [ 223 ] The employer submitted that when it makes its determination, the Board must carefully consider the meaning of the word “current” in the collective agreement in its context, in light of the unique nature of the [NAME_30] and the program. It submitted that given the program’s character and the organizational context, a “current” description of the duties and responsibilities must be understood as applying over the course of the OIDP; i.e., over its complete 12- to 18-month duration. [ 224 ] To support that point, it relied on the guidance in [NAME_29] v. [NAME_8] ([NAME_31]), 2021 FPSLREB 102 (“ [NAME_29] 2021 ”), in which the Board wrote as follows on the meaning of “current” in job-description cases: … [169] The word “current”, as well as the phrases “belonging to the present time” and “happening now”, are fluid and can mean many different things, depending on the words and phrases that they modify or that modify them. It can mean right at this exact moment in time or the current hour, day, week, month, or even year. The entire context of the workplace, including the organizational setup, is also important. Therefore, it is important to consider the organization, in this case the EPP, which is an organization within a larger organization, the [NAME_31], which itself is an organization within a very large employer, the [NAME_8]. [170] It is clear that the character of a job may have intrinsic to it any number of variables that may impact what “current” means. For example, hypothetically, someone may be asked to shovel snow as part of their job duties. In some parts of Canada, it would be done seasonally, and were that work location Ottawa and the job description was requested in June or July, it would be difficult to suggest that a job description that requires someone to shovel snow, if requested in July, would not be considered current, as the snow will eventually fall and have to be shoveled at some point during the year. “Current”, in that hypothetical context, would refer to over the course of the year. … [Emphasis added] [ 225 ] I agree with the employer that the interpretation of the word “current” is central to this decision. [ 226 ] It is clear that such as in the example provided in [NAME_29] 2021 , the word “current” cannot be interpreted to mean that all the duties and responsibilities of a position will necessarily be performed on any given day. Rather, the listed duties and responsibilities should be viewed as representing a current and complete list of what is expected in the position and that those duties and responsibilities can occur while in the position in question, albeit not all with the same frequency or at the same time. [ 227 ] However, can a job description be current if certain duties or responsibilities cease to be expected? I think not. I reviewed the evidence in this case, and I believe that the OT job description cannot be said to be “current”, as many of its stated expectations ceased to exist at a point during the OIDP. [ 228 ] It was undisputed that upon being assigned to a POE, an OT was subjected to an onboarding period, during which they were not expected to perform the same duties as the BSOs and during which they received training specific to their POE. They were assigned a coach or mentor to job shadow and were then observed while performing the job and provided with feedback. [ 229 ] Moreover, during the first three months of the OIDP, although the OTs were assigned to regular duties, they were expected to take their time and ask questions — which they did. They were expected to be accompanied during the first few times that they performed certain more-serious enforcement actions — which they did. Most of the superintendents testified that during that initial period, they kept a closer eye on the new OTs to make sure that they were OK, and that they encouraged them to ask questions. [ 230 ] Those lower expectations changed around the four-month mark. It was undisputed that at that point, the OTs were performing the same tasks as the BSOs (except for the few that are irrelevant since not all BSOs perform them). The OTs were assigned duties and responsibilities, just like any other BSO. They were not provided with tasks that were different, limited in scope, or less complicated or that required lesser skills or knowledge. They worked independently, and their decisions were not subjected to any special review by a superintendent or another BSO before being actioned (other than those instances that applied to all officers). [ 231 ] The superintendents who testified also agreed that from the four-month mark, the OTs were expected to demonstrate a degree of independence and to be able to find answers on their own rather than being given them. [ 232 ] Those changed expectations raise serious doubts as to whether the job description still accurately reflected a “current” statement of the [NAME_30]’s duties and responsibilities. To be current, a job description’s content must continue to accurately reflect what is expected of its incumbents. [ 233 ] [NAME_20] and [NAME_19] testified that the OIDP was built on the premise that it took 12 months of on-the-job training before a trainee was able to perform a BSO’s role. As to why that duration was selected, [NAME_19] pointed to the fact that the BSO position is complex — there are over 100 Acts and regulations to apply, and it requires time to learn. She stated that when it developed the program, the employer decided that 12 months were required to properly integrate the knowledge and for an OT to work autonomously. [ 234 ] By all accounts, it was a subjective belief. I see no evidence that the program’s length was based on any objective analysis. Indeed, the employer admitted that it later revised the program, to allow the OTs to start in acting assignments after nine months in the OIDP. [ 235 ] It appears more likely that the 12-month duration was selected to align with the length of the probationary period. Indeed, even if an OT could perform a BSO’s work during the OIDP, they were provided with only an acting BSO assignment. Similarly, if their performance was unsatisfactory, they remained in the [NAME_30] and had their probationary period extended. The substantive assignment to an [NAME_30] and the probationary period were linked and treated as inseparable. However, the purpose of a probationary period is not the same as that of a job description. [ 236 ] A probationary period is meant to provide a fixed time for an employee who already meets a position’s essential qualifications to adapt to their new role and demonstrate that they are capable of performing it. It necessarily entails learning about their new organization and its governing policies, rules, and practices. It can be used to confirm that someone is able to work effectively as a team member or independently or that they are capable of operating at the level of competency that is expected of the position (see Jacmain v. Attorney General (Can.) , [1978] 2 S.C.R. 15 at paras. 38 and 39, and [NAME_32] v. Deputy Head ([NAME_31]) , 2010 PSLRB 134 at paras. 109 and 110). [ 237 ] Most importantly, while on probation, an employee is expected to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position that they occupy. To pass their probation, they must show that they are able to perform the duties and responsibilities of that position. [ 238 ] That is where the employer’s logic falls apart. [ 239 ] In this case, to pass their probations, the OTs were not required to show that they were able to perform the duties and responsibilities in their job description; i.e., the OT job description. They had to show that they could perform the BSOs’ work — which is a different position at a higher classification level. The employer’s evidence was clear. It wanted to assess whether the OTs could perform a BSO’s work before hiring them indeterminately. [ 240 ] Based on the OIDP “Manager’s Handbook”, during months four to six, the OTs were expected to demonstrate confidence. They were to demonstrate an ability to provide accurate advice, guidance, and information to travellers. Further, they were to demonstrate a capacity to articulate, make, apply, and defend their decisions. [ 241 ] Based on the employer’s witnesses, if an OT did not meet those stated expectations, they were placed on an Enhanced Performance Development Plan. If they did not meet them at the 12-month mark, they were not promoted and had their probationary period extended. Finally, if they still did not meet them at the 18-month mark, their employment was terminated. All those actions are usually reserved for employees who do not meet expectations. Said differently, an employer does not usually impose remedial actions when a probationary employee meets their job description’s expectations. [ 242 ] The fact that the OTs had to show that they were capable of independently performing a BSO’s work proves that indeed, they performed that work while in their OT positions. Further, the fact that they had to complete eight CDRs during the OIDP, showing that they were operating at a higher competency level, demonstrates that they possessed those competencies while working as OTs and that they were expected of them. [ 243 ] If the disputed qualifiers were “current” and reflected the expectations of the [NAME_30], then an employee who after 12 months still had only basic knowledge and skills, was still only learning how to do the job, and still required others’ guidance to perform their work should arguably have passed their probation since that is articulated as expected in the OT job description. The evidence clearly demonstrates that that was not so in this case. [ 244 ] For all those reasons, I find that the OT job description does not provide a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of the [NAME_30], as article 54 of the collective agreement requires. [ 245 ] I turn now to examine the individual changes that [NAME_7] suggested. [ 246 ] The OT job description is broken down into three parts. Each disputed qualifier should be viewed in the context of the part where it is located. The analysis below follows the order in which they are found in the job description.

1. Part one of the job description [ 247 ] The first part of the job description contains a description of the “Organizational Context and Criteria”, a description of the “Client Service Results”, and a list of the “Key Activities”. I have reproduced it as follows, in its entirety. The suggested deletions are struck through. I have also put in bold text certain elements that are not contested but that I consider relevant to my analysis, which I will return to later in this decision: … Organizational Context and Criteria As part of the Officer Induction Development Program (OIDP), [NAME_12] will report directly to the Superintendent or Supervisor. These positions are under the guidance of BSOs, Superintendents and/or Supervisors . The position covers all modes of operational functions, i.e. Travellers, Commercial and Inland, to gain operational experience, increase operational knowledge and consistently demonstrate the ability to apply analytical communication and decision making skills . Trainees deliver excellent, timely service that is courteous, professional and takes into account the expectations of a diverse clientele, while respecting the service standards, values and ethics and code of conduct set by the [NAME_12] and the federal public service. Trainees maintain vigilance and perform thorough interviews, referrals, targeting, examination and enforcement actions, and identifies and interdicts high risk activities effectively, safely, with integrity and professional fortitude and in accordance with [NAME_12] policies and procedures. Competence is demonstrated with inspecting and examining people, documents, mail, goods and conveyances to control the international movement of people and goods for the facilitation of legitimate cross-border traffic and prevention of the entry of people and goods that pose a potential risk to Canada. Trainees contribute to a work climate that is conducive to positive relationships with colleagues, supervisors, partners, other government departments and clients by demonstrating, through words and actions, the [NAME_12] values of integrity, respect and professionalism. Trainees commit to lifelong learning in day to day work , keeping abreast of, and understanding, the [NAME_12] context and realities, and actively contribute to a healthy and safe work environment. … Client Service Results - Resultats axés sur le service à la clientèle As part of the [NAME_12]’s officer induction development program, and under general guidance, [NAME_12] will acquire the operational experience and competencies to consistently demonstrate the ability to apply technical knowledge, analytical, communication and decision making skills required, at the working level, to provide border control for the protection of Canadian society and economy through the facilitation of legitimate cross-border traffic, the identification and prevention of entry of people and goods that pose a potential risk, and the detention and removal of individuals who are inadmissible to Canada. Rotations through the different modes of operations may be assigned to deepen understanding and exposure to various operational service delivery situations. The duties assigned will be based on balancing operational need with available developmental opportunities. Key Activities – Activités principales As part of the developmental program; under the guidance of a Border Services Officer, Superintendent or Supervisor: Using well-established procedures, conducts case file duties, interviews, inspections, examinations, and verifications of people, goods and conveyances, both inside and outside [NAME_12] offices, to reach facilitation or enforcement decisions, and when non-compliance is suspected or encountered to ensure compliance with the law. Provide a first response capability with powers to arrest and/or detain individuals suspected of having committed offences under various Acts of Parliament. Builds, develops, and maintains collaborative relations, interactions and exchanges with clients and law enforcement agencies to maintain border integrity and security. Analyzes data and information to be included in databases for use in client service, risk management and the targeting of people and/or goods. Responsible for observing and respecting all [NAME_12] standard operating procedures, guidelines and manuals to maintain the quality of service and ensure efficient and timely decisions. Completes learning and development requirements as prescribed by the developmental program. Responsible for soliciting feedback from learning activities and work activities, to confirm, clarify and ensure understanding of operational requirements to gain experience, grow knowledge, and sharpen decision making skills to become an effective Border Services Officer. … [Emphasis added] [ Sic throughout] [ 248 ] I note that the “Organizational Context and Criteria” and “Client Service Results” provide a broad overview of what is expected of someone in the [NAME_30], while the “Key Activities” provides a list of the tasks to be performed. It is noteworthy that nowhere do those sections refer to the OTs being expected to be “learning how to” perform their work or being assigned less-complicated tasks based on having only basic knowledge or skills or having lower levels of competency. [ 249 ] To summarize the changes requested in the first part of the job description, [NAME_7] sought to remove all references to being “under the guidance” of others. They also sought to remove the words to “… acquire the operational experience and competencies to …” in the “Client Service Results” section. I will address each request in turn. a. The removal of references to being under the guidance of others [ 250 ] [NAME_7] argued that the employer’s decision to include a reference to the OTs being under the guidance of others by necessity implied that the OTs’ guidance and supervision should have differed from that of the BSOs, since the BSO job description was silent on that issue. They submitted that in fact, the supervision was no different. As such, all references to “guidance” should be removed. [ 251 ] The employer pointed to the superintendents’ testimonies. They all were of the opinion that the work description accurately described what was expected of the OTs. It stated that the OTs worked under the guidance of the superintendents, who monitored their performance and evaluated them quarterly, and the BSOs, who provided feedback and answered questions. It stated that [NAME_7] all agreed that they received guidance in the form of quarterly evaluations and that their superintendents were available to answer questions and provide feedback. [ 252 ] The employer relied on [NAME_33] v. [NAME_8] ([NAME_31]) , 2024 FPSLREB 54 at paras. 100 and 104, where the Board observed that “[i]t is not enough … simply to lay claim to a number of the descriptions of the tasks and responsibilities …” in a higher-classified job description. Rather, [NAME_7] had to establish “… that those tasks and responsibilities were not already adequately described …” in their own work description. [NAME_33] also stated this, at paragraph 104: [104] … The fact that one job description contains task descriptions similar to another, higher-level job description does not mean that the two are the same or that the first is inadequate. What matters is the degree, extent, and complexity of the tasks in issue . [Emphasis added] [ 253 ] The employer also relied on [NAME_34] v. [NAME_8] (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) , 2023 FPSLREB 107 at para. 104, where the Board agreed that job descriptions are not mutually exclusive and that two or more classifications could overlap. It submitted that it made sense that a development program would have substantial overlap in tasks and functions with the role into which the OTs are expected to develop. [ 254 ] The employer submitted that the OT job description reflected the tasks that the OTs were required to perform, as well as the expectation that they would perform them at a lower level of proficiency and competence and with a higher level of guidance and direction than the BSOs. It relied on the superintendents’ testimonies that the OTs were subject to a higher scrutiny level than BSOs, particularly at the start of the program. Further, the OTs were performance-managed and evaluated through the TPQs more often than were other BSOs. It submitted that that evidence refuted [NAME_7]’ subjective feelings and testimonies about their supervision level. [ 255 ] I am unable to agree with the employer’s position. [ 256 ] It was uncontested that after the first three-month period, the OTs were not supervised more closely than any other BSO. Indeed, the superintendents all testified that the supervision of the OTs and BSOs after that point was essentially the same. The superintendents’ job included supervising all their employees, which they did, from a distance. They were available to all officers for assistance and guidance. The OTs were left to conduct their duties on their own, and no special review of their decisions was made. Although their reports were reviewed, so were those of the BSOs. When they were required to advise a superintendent of an enforcement action, so were the BSOs. [ 257 ] As for being under the guidance of other BSOs, all agreed that it was common for the OTs and BSOs to seek guidance from other colleagues in situations in which they encountered something new, regardless of their years of experience. Several superintendents testified that in fact, their expectation was that all officers would seek a colleague’s assistance when performing a complex task. The only special assistance that other BSOs provided to the OTs was during the onboarding period, when they were assigned to act as coaches or mentors. After that, no BSOs were assigned to oversee or provide special guidance to the OTs. [ 258 ] I took note of the fact that in its argument, the employer did not deny that closer supervision was provided only during the initial period. I also took note of the fact that its prime argument in support of “guidance” being provided were the quarterly TPQs and the meetings with the OTs that followed. Indeed, all the superintendents pointed to this being the reason that they considered that the OTs were under their guidance. [ 259 ] The employer argued that that process did not apply to BSOs. However, I do not consider the fact that it tracked the probationary employees’ performance more frequently (four times per year for the OTs, versus twice per year for the BSOs) as constituting evidence of the OTs’ duties and responsibilities being performed “under the guidance” of others. All employees are subject to performance appraisals, and more-frequent assessments are common to all probationary employees. [ 260 ] Most telling is that the OTs were expected to work independently, without guidance. Indeed, the definition of “Meets Expectations” in the quarterly TPQ evaluations stated clearly that an OT met expectations if they were “… able to complete the task without guidance.” Conversely, an OT who was “[a]ble to perform the task but requires guidance …” was rated as Improvement Needed. [ 261 ] The evidence clearly shows that there was no expectation that OTs should have been able to work without guidance during the zero-to-three-month period. As such, the criterion stated in the TPQ was not followed at that time. However, it changed during the four-to-six-month period. By that point, all the superintendents confirmed that they were assessing an OT’s confidence and ability to perform their tasks independently — as is contemplated in the TPQ definitions. [ 262 ] I am satisfied on all the evidence that the references in part one (and part three, which is discussed further later in this decision) of the OT job description that state that the positions are “… under the guidance of BSOs, Superintendents and/or Supervisors” ceased to be expected during the four-to-six-month period. Since those qualifiers ceased to be expected, they cannot be said to represent a “current” statement of the duties and responsibilities, as article 54 of the collective agreement required. [ 263 ] As a final point on the issue of “guidance”, the employer pointed to [NAME_20]’s testimony about the choice of that word rather than “supervision” in the work description. According to her, the word “guidance” was selected to reflect the operational reality of the POEs, and the OTs could not be directly supervised at all times. She stated that the word “guidance” better reflected the reality that the program was based on mentoring, coaching, and feedback as needed while the OTs became more independent. She stated that “guidance” reflected that someone was always there to answer the OTs’ questions. [ 264 ] I note that the OT job description refers to OTs being the following: … … Responsible for soliciting feedback from learning activities and work activities, to confirm, clarify and ensure understanding of operational requirements to gain experience, grow knowledge, and sharpen decision making skills to become an effective Border Services Officer. … [ 265 ] [NAME_7] did not contest that statement. I believe that it provides a more accurate reflection of the expectations. Although the OTs were not actively “under the guidance” of others or expected to require it, they were expected to reach out to others as needed. b. Removing the reference to acquiring operational experience and competencies [ 266 ] [NAME_7] sought to remove the statement that as part of the OIDP, the OTs would “acquire the operational experience and competencies” to consistently demonstrate the ability to apply the technical knowledge and the analytical, communication, and decision-making skills required to provide border control services. Oddly, the statement appears in the “Client Service Results” section. I find it useful to reproduce that section from the BSO job description for comparison, as follows: … As Officers with law enforcement responsibilities provides border control for the protection of Canadian society and economy through the facilitation of legitimate cross-border traffic and the prevention of the entry of people and goods that pose a potential risk to Canada. … [ 267 ] That statement speaks to what the BSO position provides in terms of results for its clients — it is to protect Canadians and the economy and prevent potential risks to Canada. [ 268 ] The additions made to the OT job description make no sense. How can it possibly be that the “Client Service Results” are for the OTs to acquire operational experience and competencies? I am very cognizant of the fact that the Board’s role is not to wordsmith. However, the job description should at the very least make sense. In this case, the employer’s additions do not and therefore should be removed. [ 269 ] Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in other areas, the job description refers to the OTs acquiring operational experience and competencies, which [NAME_7] did not contest. [ 270 ] The “Organizational Context and Criteria” section states that the [NAME_30] “… covers all modes of operational functions … to gain operational experience, increase operational knowledge and consistently demonstrate the ability to apply analytical communication and decision making skills.” Further, the “Additional Information” section (reproduced later in this decision) states that the OT “… will be assigned various duties throughout the developmental phase to gain experience and demonstrate the ability to apply their skills and competencies to the operational environment.” [ 271 ] I conclude that the concept of the OTs acquiring operational experience and competencies is reflected elsewhere in the job description, in the areas where those statements actually make sense.

2. Part two of the job description [ 272 ] The second part of the job description is a signature page on which an employee certifies that they have received the job description, their supervisor certifies that it accurately describes the work assigned to the position, and the delegated authority states that it approves of it. It is unclear why the signature page is located in the middle of the document, and no evidence was led to explain whether that was of any significance.

3. Part three of the job description [ 273 ] The third part of the job description has five sections: “Skill”, “Effort”, “Responsibility”, “Working Conditions”, and “Additional Information”. [ 274 ] I have included as follows only the relevant portions of the sections for which changes were sought as well as the “Additional Information” section since its content was referred to in the last section of this decision (see the bolded text). The suggested deletions are struck through, and the additions are identified and set out in bold: … Skill – Habiletés Basic fundamental and development of knowledge of the techniques and practices associated with conducting interviews and investigations, inspecting and examining people, documents, goods and conveyances to control the international movement of people and goods for the facilitation of legitimate cross-border traffic and prevention of the entry of people and goods that pose a potential risk to Canada. The application and development of knowledge and experience is needed to undertake activities such as: assessing risk of people, goods, companies and conveyances based on information obtained through interviews, examination and analysis of documentation, systems reviews or intelligence products; employing use of force and situation diffusion techniques; using specialized tools and equipment to locate and identify counterfeit and altered documents, contraband and regulated commodities and to handle firearms and weapons and make them safe. [ ADD:] It may also require knowledge of the principles, methods and techniques associated with detector dog training and handling to detect contraband or regulated commodities. Fundamental understanding and application of knowledge of the legislation and standing operating procedures enforced by the [NAME_12] such as the Animal Health Act, Customs Act, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Plant Protection Act, as well as basic knowledge of the other Acts and regulations enforced on behalf of other government departments (approximately 75 acts).… Basic fundamental knowledge and understanding of the organization, mandate, responsibilities, functions and administrative processes of the district work units and how they inter-relate and complement each other in order to deliver [NAME_12]’s Admissibility and Enforcement programs… Basic knowledge is also required of the mandate of other government departments and Canadian and foreign law enforcement agencies in order to assist in making compliance decisions. Basic knowledge and understanding of the role, programs and services of various nongovernment organizations and industry sector to properly assist clients or participate in work groups. Basic analytical skills in order to develop ability to analyze information obtained through observation, questioning, investigation, reviewing databases, inspection of documents, interpretation of technical device images/data or the application of indicators or profiles to determine under the constraints of time whether people have committed an offence under various Acts of Parliament and whether people or goods should be released or referred for examination and to determine the degree of examination.… Develops active listening and observation skills to question, advise and interview individuals.… Develops public speaking and presentation skills to ensure that oral communication is clear, concise and accurate to testify in legal proceedings.… … Responsibility - Responsabilités As part of the developmental program; under the guidance of a Border Services Officer , Superintendent or Supervisor: The work requires learning how to conduct investigative-style interviews to obtain the most honest response or to gain information from uncooperative individuals who may not be complying with the various legislation and regulations.… The work requires learning how to build and maintain a network of working relationships through the spirit of diplomacy and mutual cooperation with colleagues, management, members of other law enforcement agencies, public and private stakeholder and client groups to effect the release of goods, entry of persons and to make compliance decisions on travellers and goods.… … The work requires learning how to conduct enforcement activities, and when to apply various levels of sanction including warnings, monetary penalties, seizure of goods, documents and/or conveyances, detention or arrest, imposing conditions on individuals for entry, removal and refusal. Decisions are based on the application of legislation and guidelines. However, learns how to apply discretionary abilities to make decisions that are balanced, fair and will withstand a legal challenge. The work requires learning how to quickly observe, question and analyze data and make a decision as to whether to release goods into Canada, to admit, allow to leave or refuse entry to individuals and to initiate the arrest or removal of individuals who fail to comply with Canadian laws or who pose a risk to Canada. … Additional Information - L’information additionnelle The [NAME_12] developmental incumbent will be assigned various duties throughout the developmental phase to gain experience and demonstrate the ability to apply their skills and competencies to the operational environment . The duties assigned will be based on balancing operational need with available developmental opportunities. [Emphasis added] [ 275 ] To summarize, [NAME_7] sought to remove from the “Skill” section the references to requiring only basic or fundamental knowledge, understanding, or skills to perform their work. They contested that they were only expected to be developing the ability to analyze information, active listening and observation skills, or public speaking and presentation skills. They also sought to add that they had knowledge of the detector dogs’ work. [ 276 ] In the “Responsibility” section, [NAME_7] sought to remove the references to being under the guidance of others and to only learning how to perform the work activities detailed in that section. [ 277 ] I will address each of those in turn, albeit not in the same order. a. The removal of references to “basic” or “fundamental” [ 278 ] The question to be determined is whether the words “basic” and “fundamental” accurately describe what was expected of the OTs while in their OT positions. [ 279 ] Neither party presented evidence about the use of those terms when crafting a job description and whether a certain meaning should be attributed to them when they are used. [ 280 ] The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term “fundamental” as “forming the base, from which everything else develops …”. The word “basic” is defined as “simple and not complicated, so able to provide the base or starting point from which something can develop …”. Both are referred to as being synonymous. [ 281 ] [NAME_7] submitted that the training that they received during their first 18 weeks at the college covered all the necessary knowledge of the following: · the techniques and practices associated with conducting interviews and investigations and inspections and examinations; · the legislation and standing operating procedures that the [NAME_12] enforced; · the organization, mandate, responsibilities, functions, and administrative processes of the district work units and how they interrelate to deliver on their admissibility and enforcement programs; and · the analytical skills to use information obtained through different means, to determine, under time constraints, whether people have committed an offence under several Acts of Parliament and whether people or goods should be released or referred for examination and to what degree. [ 282 ] They argued that if that was not so, then [NAME_7] would not have been able to start processing travellers and goods independently without another BSO actively shadowing them after only a few weeks at their POEs. [ 283 ] [NAME_7] highlighted that many witnesses agreed that the OTs probably had the best knowledge of the required Acts and regulations when they had just completed their training as compared to after several years on the job. Moreover, several witnesses pointed out that numerous resources were available from which to find information on the Acts and legislation and that the main objective was to know where to look. However, they conceded that the superintendents who testified tended to say that during the first three-month period, the OTs were gaining that knowledge. [ 284 ] The employer submitted that the 18 weeks of training at the college provided the OTs with the base level of knowledge required but that their knowledge and skills required time to develop. It submitted that that was the program’s very purpose. It relied on the superintendents’ testimonies, who stated that the OTs were not expected to know everything or to perform their duties at an experienced BSO’s level right away. It argued that the work description was accurate, as it set out the employer’s expectation for a gradual progression over a period of 12 months from basic and directed work to more-complex work with greater autonomy. [ 285 ] I have already found that the evidence did not support a gradual progression from basic and directed work to more-complex work with greater autonomy beyond the program’s first three months. After that, the OTs performed the same work as the BSOs. [ 286 ] I agree with [NAME_7] that the fact that they were trusted to perform all the same duties and responsibilities as the BSOs without any direct supervision, within weeks of arriving at their POEs, speaks to the fact that they had the necessary knowledge to perform that work. They were not assigned separate duties for which lesser knowledge was required, and their decisions were not subjected to any special or additional review before being actioned. [ 287 ] It is worth highlighting that the decisions that the OTs made dealt with real travellers and had serious repercussions. As stated in “Client Service Results”, the OTs were entrusted to do the following: … … provide border control for the protection of Canadian society and economy through the facilitation of legitimate cross-border traffic, the identification and prevention of entry of people and goods that pose a potential risk, and the detention and removal of individuals who are inadmissible to Canada.… … [ 288 ] The OTs had the legal power to perform those actions. [ 289 ] It is difficult to believe that the employer would have entrusted the OTs with those responsibilities without any special supervision (after the 3-month mark) if they possessed only “basic” or “fundamental” knowledge, understanding, or skills. Rather, I believe that the 18 weeks (i.e., 4.5 months) of training, coupled with the first 3 months of closer supervision, provided the OTs with the necessary knowledge to do that work. [ 290 ] As I have already mentioned in this decision, to be “current”, the use of the words “basic” and “fundamental” must remain current, as long as an OT is in an [NAME_30]. By the employer’s admission, it did not expect the OTs to stay at that level throughout the development program. [ 291 ] Since the employer’s expectations of the OTs were not that they remain at a “basic” or “fundamental” level at all times when in their OT positions, those terms cannot be said to be “current” and therefore violate the collective agreement. b. The removal of references to learning how or developing [ 292 ] [NAME_7] submitted that the OTs’ main activity during the OIDP was not to learn or to develop but rather to carry out a BSO’s job. They pointed to [NAME_20]’s testimony; she confirmed that the OT work description was meant to describe an employee fresh out of classroom training. They argued that that quickly ceased to be accurate after two or three weeks at a POE. [ 293 ] According to [NAME_7], it was normal and expected that any new job would include a period of learning and developing. They argued that upon arriving at a POE, an onboarding period was necessary to understand its inner workings. However, this was no different from what any BSO who changed POEs experienced. Further, given the nature of the BSOs’ work, the learning and developing did not cease after 12 months. In fact, certain aspects of the position could take years to fully master. [NAME_7] submitted that the evidence did not support a notable difference between the OTs and the BSOs in terms of learning and developing. [ 294 ] The employer disagreed with [NAME_7]’ framing of the issue to be determined. According to it, the question was not whether the OTs were learning and developing or whether they were doing the BSOs’ activities. It was simply whether the work description was complete and current. It claimed that the evidence supported that the OTs were learning and developing in the performance of the BSOs’ activities. As such, the work description broadly described their duties and responsibilities during the program. [ 295 ] The employer submitted that the issue was not whether [NAME_7]’ proposed wording better described their work but whether the job description that they were provided met the requirements set out in the collective agreement and the jurisprudence. The work description was created to describe a unique on-the-job training program that allowed for the OTs’ gradual development as they implemented the skills and techniques learned in a classroom environment to real-life scenarios. [ 296 ] The employer relied on the superintendents’ testimonies; they all agreed that they expected the OTs to develop their ability to analyze information, interview subjects, and communicate effectively during the probationary period. Moreover, they stated that the OTs were still “learning how” to conduct investigative interviews, work in a team, and conduct enforcement activities. [ 297 ] The employer argued that the fact that the OTs continued to learn and develop throughout their careers as BSOs did not render the OT job description inaccurate. It submitted that the evidence established that it reflected the tasks that the OTs were required to perform as well as the expectation that they would perform them at a lower proficiency level. I am unable to agree with the employer’s position, for the following reasons. [ 298 ] It is important as a starting point to locate the references to “learning how” in the OT job description. They are all made in the “Responsibility” section. To recap, those responsibilities are described as follows: … The work requires learning how to conduct investigative-style interviews …. The work requires learning how to build and maintain a network of working relationships …. … The work requires learning how to conduct enforcement activities, and when to apply various levels of sanction …. The work requires learning how to quickly observe, question and analyze data and make a decision …. … [ 299 ] Each responsibility clearly states that the required work is “learning how to” perform it. [ 300 ] Therefore, I cannot agree with the employer that the question to be determined is whether the OTs were learning and developing in the performance of the BSOs’ activities. That is not what the OT job description states. The employer’s suggestion omits the presence of the words “how to” that follow “learning”. [ 301 ] Rather, I agree with [NAME_7]. The issue to be determined is whether the OTs were expected to be learning how to do all those noted responsibilities or whether they were expected to be doing them. [ 302 ] There is no question that the OTs were learning and developing. However, there is also no question that this continued after they became BSOs. All the witnesses agreed on that point. I believe that that fact makes sense given the nature of the position. With over 100 Acts and regulations to apply, it is practically impossible that during their first year, an OT would encounter situations involving them all. [ 303 ] Indeed, most of the employer’s witnesses spoke to the fact that it could take years to master certain skills. Even the OT job description states in its “Organizational Context and Criteria” section that “[t]rainees commit to lifelong learning in day to day work, keeping abreast of, and understanding, the [NAME_12] context and realities …”. [ 304 ] Despite this noted commitment to lifelong learning, the BSO job description has no reference to learning or developing. For it to be appropriately referred to in the OT job description but not in the BSO job description, the references to “learning how” or “developing” should depict a difference in terms of degree or extent (see [NAME_33] ). Otherwise, if the expectations are the same, then so should be the language. [ 305 ] I am satisfied that the evidence supports that the OTs were expected to be learning how to do a BSO’s work during the first three months of the OIDP. As previously noted, during that time, they were encouraged to take their time and to ask questions. They were under closer supervision, to make sure that they were OK. However, it ended after those first three months. [ 306 ] From that point, the OTs were assigned regular shifts, the same as the other BSOs. They were expected to know where to look for answers and to be more efficient and were supervised in the same manner as the other BSOs. There was no evidence of a progressive increase in responsibilities beyond the first three months or of an expectation that they would perform their tasks at a lower proficiency level, as the employer suggested. [ 307 ] To the contrary, [NAME_16] testified that during the four-to-six-month period, the OTs were expected to be able to perform more-complex tasks and that the work should have become more routine. Superintendents were to inform the national OIDP team if any OT was not meeting those expectations. Those OTs received targeted performance-development strategies, to address their inability to meet the employer’s performance expectations. [ 308 ] Several of the employer’s witnesses commented on the fact that the supervision level was high during the first three months of the program, in recognition that the OTs “were still learning about the job”. The fact that that higher supervision level ceased after the third month is another illustration that the OTs were no longer expected to simply be “learning how to” do their tasks at that stage. They were expected to know, by that point, how to do them. [ 309 ] The employer submitted that it would be absurd or impractical to suggest that different OTs should require different job descriptions, based on their individual talents or the speed of their development. I fully agree. However, a job description’s purpose is to outline the expectations. If a person exceeds expectations, it does not mean that their job description is inaccurate. Everyone should be assessed against the expectations described in their job descriptions. [ 310 ] Earlier in this decision, I reproduced a sample of the 43 tasks and experiences listed in the TPQs. They list what was expected of the OTs. As previously mentioned, the OTs were evaluated quarterly and were given a ranking of whether they met or did not meet expectations on each of the 43 items. Nowhere in that listing is a reference made to the OTs being expected to be developing or learning how to do any of those tasks. They were assessed based on their ability to perform those tasks, not on whether they were learning how to do them or on whether they were developing those skills and knowledge. [ 311 ] For all those reasons, I find that during the initial three months, the OTs were expected to be “learning how to” perform the tasks or “developing” the skills identified in the OT job description. However, after that, they were expected to perform those tasks, not simply develop or learn how to do them. [ 312 ] Therefore, the references to “learning how” or “developing” that [NAME_7] suggested should be removed from the OT job description, as they do not provide a current description of what was expected of its incumbents when they were in those positions. c. The removal of the reference to being under the guidance of others [ 313 ] [NAME_7] sought to remove the following statement from the “Responsibility” section: “ As part of the developmental program; under the guidance of a Border Services Officer, Superintendent or Supervisor … ”. [ 314 ] For the reasons previously stated in this decision, this statement should be removed from the OT job description. d. [NAME_7]’ requested additions [ 315 ] [NAME_7] argued that the “Skill” section of the OT job description should be modified to add the following: “It may also require knowledge of the principles, methods and techniques associated with detector dog training and handling to detect contraband or regulated commodities.” They argued that, with the exception of [NAME_6], early in their training, they were all informed as to when and how to request a dog handler’s assistance. [ 316 ] The employer disagreed with that addition. It submitted that the evidence was uncontested that the OTs were ineligible to apply to become detector-dog handlers. As such, none of them was required to have knowledge of the principles, methods, and techniques associated with detector-dog training and handling. [ 317 ] The employer submitted that the program experts testified that this limitation was made by design. Working with detector dogs is an advanced skill that experienced BSOs may choose to pursue later in their careers. Only more-experienced BSOs may apply for those positions. [ 318 ] The employer argued that [NAME_7]’ required level of knowledge about this subject is already set out in the job description. For example, learning when and how to call a dog handler is captured in the requirement that the OTs do the following: … … develop knowledge of … local and regional units within [NAME_12] such as Intelligence, [NAME_12]-Immigration Enforcement in order to be able to make referrals for action, to assist in their activities and to provide input into prosecutions, projects and local initiatives.… … [ 319 ] I am unable to agree with [NAME_7]’ suggested addition. As stated in [NAME_28] , a job description need not contain a detailed listing of all the activities performed under a specific duty or list at length how they are accomplished. [ 320 ] For an addition to be made, [NAME_7] had to establish that 1) the duty or responsibility was expected of them, and, if so, 2) the duty or responsibility was not reflected in the job description’s wording. [ 321 ] I reviewed the evidence on this point, and I am not satisfied that [NAME_7] established that that knowledge was expected of them. However, despite that, I also agree with the employer that the OT job description’s wording is sufficiently broad to incorporate that knowledge. [ 322 ] Therefore, [NAME_7]’ requested additions are denied. B. What are the appropriate remedial actions? 1. [NAME_7]’ position [ 323 ] In their closing submissions, [NAME_7] sought the following: … 446 … i. That the Board allow all seven grievances and declare that the employer has breached the collective agreement. ii. That the work description for [NAME_7] be amended in the manner detailed in Appendix A with a date reflecting their start date in their [NAME_14]-02 position; and iii. That each of [NAME_7] be paid at the applicable [NAME_14]-03 salary step for the twelve months in their [NAME_14]-02 position. … [ 324 ] They argued that their entitlement to compensation was based on the collective agreement’s acting-pay provision, specifically clause 62.07(a), which reads as follows: 62.07 a. When an employee is required by the Employer to substantially perform the duties of a higher classification level in an acting capacity and performs those duties for at least three (3) consecutive working days or shifts, the employee shall be paid acting pay calculated from the date on which he or she commenced to act as if he or she had been appointed to that higher classification level for the period in which he or she acts. 62.07 a. Lorsque l’employé-e est tenu par l’Employeur d’exécuter à titre intérimaire une grande partie des fonctions d’un niveau de classification supérieur et qu’il ou elle exécute ces fonctions pendant au moins trois (3) jours de travail ou postes consécutifs, il ou elle touche, pendant la période d’intérim, une rémunération d’intérim calculée à compter de la date à laquelle il ou elle commence à remplir ces fonctions, comme s’il ou elle avait été nommé à ce niveau supérieur. [ 325 ] [NAME_7] relied on [NAME_35] v. [NAME_36] of Parliament , [1996] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 69 (QL), in which Adjudicator Galipeau noted this: 70 The job description … is a fundamental, multipurpose document which is referred to with regard to classification, staffing, remuneration, discipline, performance evaluation, identification of language requirements, and career planning. It is erroneous to limit its scope solely to use with regard to classification. It must be sufficiently complete to lend itself to the other uses I have just mentioned. [ 326 ] [NAME_7] argued that in this case, the importance of the job description related to their remuneration. In support of the Board’s jurisdiction to award acting pay, they relied on [NAME_37] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2004 FC 503, in which the Federal Court held that s. 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35; PSSRA ) could not be used to relieve employers of financial commitments that were entrenched in a collective agreement and voluntarily entered into through the collective bargaining process. [ 327 ] [NAME_7] argued that since the employer failed to provide a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities — contrary to article 54 of the collective agreement — they were entitled to seek acting pay as a remedy for that breach. The fact that a comparison of different classification levels was required (i.e., [NAME_14]-02 and [NAME_14]-03) did not automatically make it a job-classification grievance. They did not dispute that the Board does not have jurisdiction over classification grievances. [ 328 ] [NAME_7] relied on Stagg v. Canada (Treasury Board) , [1993] F.C.J. No. 1393 (QL), which also involved an acting-pay grievance and in which the employer also argued that “… to compensate the applicant at the higher rate of pay … would effectively be to reclassify her position retroactively”, thus, allegedly, taking the grievance outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The Federal Court rejected the employer’s argument, holding instead the following about the grievance: … 19 … [it] relates not to [the [NAME_7]’s] dissatisfaction with the classification of her position but rather to the employer’s refusal to provide the rates of pay fixed by the collective agreement. Section 7 of the [Public Service Staff Relations] Act does not relieve the employer of those contractual obligations, arising from the collective agreement, which relate to rates of pay.… 20 … The employer’s posture herein leads only to the nefarious notion that after imposing more onerous duties upon employees and according the commensurate upgrade of classification of position - proper and exclusive employer’s functions, the employer can then, by dragging its feet on remuneration, obtain the employees’ extra services free for a time by just delaying the commensurate raise in remuneration. This is a notion philosophically akin to that of slavery or forced labour because it exploits employees’ (increased) work without remuneration.… … [ 329 ] [NAME_7] submitted that their case is similar. It is about their right to have a work description that reflected the work that they were actually doing and the right to be paid fairly for that work. [ 330 ] They argued that the evidence was uncontested that during their 12 months in their OT positions, they performed daily the main duties and responsibilities of a higher classification — [NAME_14]-03. As such, they were entitled to acting pay, as stated in clause 62.07 of the collective agreement.

2. The employer’s position [ 331 ] The employer submitted that the remedy that [NAME_7] sought was beyond the Board’s jurisdiction because it effectively requested a declaration that the [NAME_30] should be upwardly reclassified and compensated as such. [ 332 ] Relying on [NAME_38] v. [NAME_8] (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) , 2019 FPSLREB 111, the employer argued that it is settled law that the Board does not have jurisdiction to establish classifications. The Board is limited to determining whether a statement of duties and responsibilities is current and complete, declaring a collective agreement violation, and ordering that a current and complete statement of duties be provided. [ 333 ] [NAME_7]’ reliance on [NAME_37] and [NAME_39] did not support their remedy argument because those cases involved judicial review applications of acting-pay grievances, not job-description cases, and therefore they did not address the Board’s authority to grant additional remuneration. [ 334 ] The employer submitted that the distinction between acting-pay and classification grievances is well established. In [NAME_40] v. [NAME_8] (Department of Public Works and Government Services) , 2005 PSLRB 40 at paras. 57, 59, and 60, the Board identified factors that indicate that a classification issue is in play, including the following: · an ongoing acting-pay claim rather than one for a specified period; · the [NAME_7] seeks reclassification; · the [NAME_7] continues to perform the same duties; and · a reliance on comparisons with similar positions in other work areas. [ 335 ] The employer submitted that an acting-pay grievance assumes that the substantive position is properly classified and concerns temporary additional duties, while a classification grievance claims a systematic undervaluing of duties on a continuing basis, requiring a reclassification. [ 336 ] The employer argued that all the [NAME_40] factors were present in this case. Relying on [NAME_41] v. Canada Revenue Agency , 2024 FPSLREB 65 at paras. 59 and 69, it noted that when the [NAME_40] factors were present, the Board has determined that the pith and substance of the purported acting-pay grievances were actually classification matters and therefore outside its jurisdiction. [ 337 ] In summary, even if the Board were to agree that parts of the work description should be changed, it is beyond the scope of its authority to order additional remuneration in the way that [NAME_7] requested. Such a remedy would amount to a declaration that the [NAME_30] should be upwardly reclassified and compensated as such — which would be a classification exercise and beyond the Board’s jurisdiction. [ 338 ] Finally, the employer submitted that if any changes to the work description are ordered, they should become effective only as of 25 days before the respective grievances were filed (see [NAME_42] v. [NAME_8] ([NAME_31]) , 2017 FPSLREB 15 at para. 61; and [NAME_43] v. [NAME_8] ([NAME_31]) , 2022 FPSLREB 92 at para. 65).

3. Reasons on the appropriate remedial actions [ 339 ] The Board’s authority over a grievance stems entirely from the legislation. The Board’s governing legislation either grants or constrains its jurisdiction. [ 340 ] Of relevance to this case, under s. 209(1)(a) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2), the Board has the express power to hear individual grievances related to “… the interpretation or application in respect of the employee of a provision of a collective agreement…”. However, s. 7 expressly constrains the Board’s power over assigning duties or classifying positions. Therefore, for the Board to have jurisdiction, the grievances must be about the interpretation or application of the collective agreement — not the OT positions’ classification. [ 341 ] The grievances all used essentially the same wording. They stated this: “I grieve the employer’s failure to provide me with a complete and current statement of duties and responsibilities. This violates Article 54 (Statement of Duties) of my collective agreement.” [ 342 ] In the corrective-action section, each [NAME_7] asked for this: “That I be paid in accordance with my collective agreement for the performance of the duties mentioned above, retroactive to the date on which performance of these duties began on [date].” Those dates were based on their start dates in their OT positions. [ 343 ] In their referrals to the Board for adjudication, each grievance referral stated that the collective agreement provision involved was “Article 54: Statement of Duties”. [ 344 ] On the plain reading of the grievances and referrals, they are job-description grievances. None of them mention acting pay or allege a breach of clause 62.07 of the collective agreement. [ 345 ] It is settled law that in job-description grievances, the Board has the authority to find that an employee’s statement of duties and responsibilities is not current or complete, declare that a collective agreement has been violated, and order that a current and complete statement of duties be provided (see [NAME_38] ). [ 346 ] Having found that the OT job description did not provide a current and complete statement of [NAME_7]’ duties and responsibilities, I have no hesitation declaring that the collective agreement has been violated and ordering that the employer provide a statement of duties that reflects the findings made in this decision. [ 347 ] In their submissions, [NAME_7] asked that I go one step further. They sought an order that they be compensated at the BSO level for the duration of the time that they were in their OT positions, on the basis of the collective agreement’s acting-pay provision. [ 348 ] The employer argued that I was without jurisdiction. It argued that if I found that the statement of duties must be changed, it would then become a classification matter, over which I would have no authority. I agree. [ 349 ] The grievances all concern [NAME_7]’ right to receive a statement of duties that complies with the collective agreement — they state this: “I grieve the employer’s failure to provide me with a complete and current statement of duties and responsibilities.” As just mentioned, the remedy for that failure is a declaration of the violation and an order that a proper statement of duties be provided. However, I do not have the authority to determine whether a new or updated statement of duties will result in any compensation for [NAME_7]. [ 350 ] The OT job description remains different from the BSO job description, even after the modifications that [NAME_7] suggested that were agreed to in this decision. They are not identical. Many differences remain, which [NAME_7] did not contest, which means that they are presumed to agree with those differences as representing an accurate statement of their duties and responsibilities. [ 351 ] With the findings made in this decision, it is possible that the changes to the OT job description will result in a classification change. Indeed, it is well known that the main reason that changes to job descriptions are usually sought is the hope that they will impact the position’s classification. However, this is not my determination to make. It will be up to the parties to determine their next steps after this decision is rendered. [ 352 ] I agree with the employer that [NAME_37] and [NAME_39] are not applicable in this case. [ 353 ] In [NAME_37] , a veterinarian working in a VM-01 group-and-level position filed a grievance, claiming that she had been “substantially performing the duties of higher classification level, VM-02, from March 31, 1998 to July 30, 2001…” and that under her collective agreement, she should receive acting pay at the VM-02 level for that period. [ 354 ] The adjudicator concluded that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the grievance, as s. 7 of the PSSRA prohibited him from making a decision that would effectively have reclassified the [NAME_7]’s position and result in reorganizing the public service. [ 355 ] On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the adjudicator incorrectly determined that s. 7 of the PSSRA applied. It referred to the grievance’s wording and stated that it was based on the [NAME_7]’s belief that her collective agreement’s acting-pay provision entitled her to acting pay for the period in which she substantially performed the duties of a VM-02 position. [ 356 ] In [NAME_39] , the applicant occupied a PM-04 position. She was given new responsibilities, effective January 1, 1989, but her position was reclassified to the PM-05 group and level only on July 3, 1990. The adjudicator declined jurisdiction over the grievance on the grounds that granting retroactive remuneration at the PM-05 level for January 1, 1989, to July 3, 1990, “would be to effectively reclassify her position at the PM-05 level retroactively”, in a manner prohibited by s. 7 of the PSSRA . [ 357 ] As in [NAME_37] , the Federal Court held that the adjudicator had improperly declined jurisdiction. However, also like in [NAME_37] , the applicant in that case had specifically grieved the breach of the acting-pay provision of their collective agreement and sought acting pay for a specific period. The Federal Court stated that clearly, the case was a remuneration grievance based on whether [NAME_39] met the criteria set out in the acting-pay clause. In that context, it stated that s. 7 of the PSSRA did not relieve an employer from its contractual obligations arising from a collective agreement that related to rates of pay. [ 358 ] [NAME_37] and [NAME_39] dealt with situations involving acting-pay grievances. While it is true that [NAME_7] could have opted to grieve a violation of clause 62.07 of the collective agreement and sought to be paid acting pay, they did not choose to. Instead, they chose to claim a violation of article 54, the job-description provision. They could not change at adjudication the essential character of their grievances in an attempt to obtain compensation (see [NAME_44] v. [NAME_8] (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development) , 2013 PSLRB 115 at para. 98 (upheld in [NAME_44] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FC 50), and [NAME_45] v. Canada Revenue Agency , 2009 PSLRB 73 at para. 59). [ 359 ] The employer cited [NAME_46] and submitted that my order may come into force no sooner than 25 days before the grievances were filed. [NAME_7] did not present me with anything to the contrary. [ 360 ] The collective agreement provides that a grievance may be presented “… not later than the twenty-fifth (25th) day after the date on which the [NAME_7] is notified or on which the [NAME_7] first becomes aware of the action or circumstances giving rise to the grievance” (see clause 18.15). [ 361 ] Therefore, the changes that I order will be retroactive to 25 days before the grievances were filed. [ 362 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

IV. Order [ 363 ] I allow the grievances. [ 364 ] I order the employer to change [NAME_7]’ job description by removing all the disputed qualifiers that [NAME_7] identified that are reproduced in this decision. [ 365 ] I will remain seized of the grievances, to resolve any dispute that may be brought to my attention within 120 days of my decision. June 16, 2026. [NAME_9], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board