YVR Bargaining Issue of the Day: Leave With Pay for Family Related Responsibilities

As bargaining between PSAC/UCTE Local 20221 (members working directly for YVR) and the Airport Authority ramps up, the bargaining team has prepared a series of issue papers designed to inform members around key issues at the table. Here’s  Issue Paper #4 – Leave With Pay for Family Related Responsibilities

Issue: Leave With Pay for Family Related Responsibilities

Article 12.10 (a), (b) & (c)

Union Proposal:

12.10 Leave With Pay for Family-Related Responsibilities

(a) Delete “dependent”

Add the following: …and anyone for whom the employee has power of attorney.

(b) Remove caps in (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)

Delete “dependent” (2 instances) from (i)

(c) Increase the total leave granted to seven (7) working days.


Our proposal is designed to achieve a number of things.  First, we want to remove the “caps” that are present in Article 12.10 (b) (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv). For example, 12.10 (b) (i) allows an employee to use up to one-half day for these type of appointments.  Leave would not be granted if the appointment was for more than one-half day.  Removing the current cap would allow this to take place.  Secondly, we want to delete the word “dependent” in 12.10 (a) & (b). These two changes would provide greater flexibility for members who use this type of leave.  The last change to the current language is to increase the amount of leave you can be granted to seven (7) working days from the current five (5).

These changes are necessary so that we can achieve a balance between work and family life.  Caring for both children and an elderly family member is in itself a full-time job. Members are looking for ways to balance their work life with their family care obligations.  Helping members find this balance should be as much a priority for the Employer as it is for our union.

This is the 3rd round of bargaining in which we have tabled this style of proposal.  The Employer does not want to provide to employees any more flexibility than they already have.  A comment made to us in a previous round of bargaining was that the Employer was convinced that employees would abuse this leave if our proposal was accepted.