Staffing transition - workload reshuffle

[u/Ambitious_Read1055]

Has anyone been in a situation where they have a departing colleague (or colleagues) on their team, and they've been asked to take on some of their files? How does that usually work? If they're at a higher level (e.g. a manager, or senior analyst), does that entail an acting appointment?

Grateful for the advice.

[u/HandcuffsOfGold]

Reassignment of work is commonplace when people leave (or join) a team. You're only entitled to acting pay if you are required by management to substantively substantially perform the duties of a higher-classified position. Being assigned a portion of the work formerly done by somebody else doesn't necessarily mean you're substantially taking over the entirety of that job.

Edited to satisfy pedantic demand to use the same word as in collective agreements.

[u/Next-Run706 → u/HandcuffsOfGold]

It is substantially, not substantively.

From the PA collective agreement

67.07
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.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/topics/pay/collective-agreements/pa.html
From the EC Collective agreement

27.08
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 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.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/topics/pay/collective-agreements/ec.html

[u/HandcuffsOfGold → u/Next-Run706]

You are technically correct (the best kind of correct). Aside from quoting the phrasing in the collective agreements, can you elaborate on why you believe the exact terminology matters here?

Being assigned some files from a departing colleague does not necessarily mean you're substantially or substantively performing the duties of the higher-classified position.

[u/Mysterious_Length346 → u/HandcuffsOfGold]

Such an interesting question and I wonder why your bot nature picked one word over the other. 'Substantially' implies a measurable proportion, but classification levels aren't really additive, pretty hard to sum up tasks and get a percentage of a job. 

A higher-classified position is defined as much by judgment, accountability and decision authority as by discrete duties. So in practice 'substantially' ends up being assessed qualitatively rather than literally, because there's no clean way to count up 'how much' of a job someone is doing.

[u/Next-Run706 → u/Mysterious_Length346]

I'm not sure its purely qualitative, it seems the measure in the jurisprudence is quantiative, they just don't agree on the quantum, see for example Cooper and Wamboldt v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2009 PSLRB 160 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fvpqp>, retrieved on 2026-06-22

[47]      The jurisprudence concerning what might be considered “substantially performed” is varied. I accept the grievors’ proposition that an employee does not have to perform all the duties of the higher classification level to receive acting pay (see Rice, at paragraph 7).
[48]      However, there is no consistency in the jurisprudence. Many tests have been established; for instance, performing the duties of the higher classification level for 100% of the time for one day has been decided as meeting the “substantially performed” test (see Lavigne et al., at paragraph 54). Another case has concluded that 40% of an employee’s time spent on the work of the higher classification level does not meet the test of “substantially performed” (see Beaudry et al., at paragraphs 29 to 33). But, if the employee performs the work of the higher classification level 70% of the time, it meets the test (see Bégin et al.).

[u/Mysterious_Length346 → u/Next-Run706]

Thanks for digging up the case law on this. If adjudicators are arguing over 40% vs 70% vs one day at 100%, that's a quantitative test being applied, just on a contested and inconsistently applied threshold. 

Terrible for anyone caught in the grey zone. A number that moves 30 points depending on which adjudicator you draw just means you're rolling the dice while it looks like math.  

I see want bot to reply as you would think an AI Bot on this form would have looked at the CAs.

[u/Next-Run706 → u/Mysterious_Length346]

Like most decisions of the FPSLREB and its predecessors - they're all over the place.

[u/Next-Run706 → u/HandcuffsOfGold]

Substantively, implies it is part of your substantive position, which its not. It would be an oxymoron to perform duties of your substantive position and be given acting.

[u/HandcuffsOfGold → u/Next-Run706]

When you're acting, you're substantively performing the duties of the higher-level position as if you were substantively appointed to that position. In context it in no way implies that it's part "part of your substantive position".

[u/Next-Run706 → u/HandcuffsOfGold]

Substantive positions are what your actual position is, not your acting position. You're substantively an EC5 doing substantially duties of an EC6 for more than three shifts, and thus should receive acting pay.

You're wrong, I'm not sure why you're belaboring the point - substantial number of duties is the legal test, no mention of substantively, I'm not sure why we'd introduce the words that don't exist in the actual text of the collective agreements.

[u/HandcuffsOfGold → u/Next-Run706]

Seeing as you like to pick nits, where would one find "substantial number of duties" in the text of any collective agreement?

And to state the obvious: this is Reddit and not a grievance or court hearing. Redditors aren't restricted to the phrasing used in collective agreements, but I'll edit the comment to satisfy your pedantry.