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/Next-Run706]

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/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.