Federal Court dismisses claims that RCMP pension plan discriminatory
141 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Darren MacDonald
"they chose to work part-time"
That makes sense with the key word being "chose".
That makes sense with the key word being "chose".
David Raymond Amos
@Darren MacDonald Its rather
simple to me a deal is a deal is a deal. The ladies knew the scoop
before they opted to work part time. However their lawyer is getting
well paid full time all the time. You bet he wants to appeal.
Anthony Laface
".....to buy back the time
they had not worked." Huh? They expected to get a pension for time
that they had not worked? Really? Only spoiled civil servants would
even broach this sort of ludicrous entitlement.
linda romero
@Anthony Laface ..and they are entitled to full pension I believe at 55,and the pension plan is really "GOLDEN"..
David Raymond Amos
@linda romero I checked out their pension years ago and it truly is "Golden"
Jim Redmond
I don't even understand what that basis was for the claim of
discrimination. If someone willingly decides to work part-time,
obviously their pension benefits do not accumulate during the period in
which they end up working part-time. Why is that such a difficult
concept for some people to grasp?
David Raymond Amos
@Jim Redmond How can hundreds of lady cops be sexually assaulted etc for years then suddenly be offended after they retire?
Jim Redmond
@David Raymond Amos It's called taking a shot at winning the lottery.
Nick O'Reilly
Of course, it is not
discrimination, but way to take it up in court, ladies! Could you
imagine being in their chain-of-command and having to listen to them for
10 years?
Jack O Hill
@Natalie Jameson
Change is done on a going-forward basis, through negotiations.
It is NOT done retroactively through the courts.
Change is done on a going-forward basis, through negotiations.
It is NOT done retroactively through the courts.
David Raymond Amos
@Jack O Hill I would like to think that were so
Daquano Sullivan Brown
I suppose they are entitled to their entitlements.
David Raymond Amos
@Daquano Sullivan Brown Only
sneaky political lawyers such David Dingwall can say such nonsense and
get away with making us pay for his bubble gum etc.
Awistoyus Nahasthay
@Daquano Sullivan Brown
Um, if they are "entitlements" then they are, by definition, "entitled" to them. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be "entitlements".
Um, if they are "entitlements" then they are, by definition, "entitled" to them. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be "entitlements".
Awistoyus Nahasthay
@David Raymond Amos
It is NOT nonsense David, it is plain, simple, logic.
It is people speaking against the concept - that someone is entitled to their entitlements - that is pure nonsense!
It is NOT nonsense David, it is plain, simple, logic.
It is people speaking against the concept - that someone is entitled to their entitlements - that is pure nonsense!
David Cradden
@Awistoyus Nahasthay
I think the point is they aren't entitled just because they have a sense of entitlement!
I think the point is they aren't entitled just because they have a sense of entitlement!
Steve Sullivan
@Awistoyus Nahasthay Its a famous quote from a politician.
Federal Court dismisses claims that RCMP pension plan discriminatory
Lawyer says claimants are disappointed and considering appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
By Alison Crawford, CBC News Posted: Jun 08, 2017 12:14 PM ET
Retired RCMP Sgt. Joanne Fraser, right, is one of three
women who took the national police force to Federal Court to argue the
RCMP pension plan discriminates against women who work part-time to care
for young children. (Joanne Fraser)
Joanne Fraser, Allison Pilgrim and Colleen Fox decided to work part-time temporarily for the national police force after having children, in order to accommodate child-care arrangements while doing shift work.
When they returned to their full-time jobs they learned their part-time work was not considered pensionable service and they would not be permitted to make doubled-up contributions to buy back the time they had not worked.
On Thursday, Justice Catherine Kane decided the women did not lose pension benefits because they were women or parents, but because they chose to work part-time.
"They worked part-time in a job-sharing arrangement to meet the competing demands of their child-care responsibilities and their career," Kane wrote.
The judge agreed that while the majority of Mounties who work part-time are women with young children, she said they also benefited from spending more time with their children and less stress in trying to find child care.
As for the overall impact on their pensions, Kane found it would be reduced, on average, by five per cent but that "it is difficult to conclude that the impact is necessarily adverse."
The women's lawyer, Paul Champ, said today's judgment is a big disappointment for his clients, who fought the issue inside the RCMP for 10 years before turning to the courts.
"The court recognized that care for children disproportionately falls to women in Canada, including women in dual-earner families, Champ wrote in an email to CBC News.
He said his clients are reviewing the judgment and considering an appeal.
"Hopefully the federal government will take a close look at this decision and recognize that pension plans for RCMP and public service workers need to be reformed to be more equitable for parents who choose to temporarily work part-time to care for their children. This would be the right policy choice for a feminist prime minister," Champ said, in reference to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's own oft-stated description.
It is likely that Thursday's ruling, however, will be a relief to the federal government. If the Federal Court had changed the RCMP pension plan to allow people to accrue pensionable service while job sharing or working part-time, the government would likely have had to do it for all other public servants.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-pension-plan-constitutional-challenge-women-part-time-1.3898780
Pension plan discriminatory, female Mounties tell court
If judge agrees, it could affect all federal public service pensions, lawyer says
By Alison Crawford, CBC News Posted: Dec 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET
Retired RCMP Sgt. Joanne Fraser on duty in 2010. She
belongs to a group of female Mounties who are fighting for lost pension
benefits. (Joanne Fraser)
Joanne Fraser, Allison Pilgrim and Colleen Fox decided to work part time temporarily for the national police force after having children, in order to accommodate child-care arrangements while doing shift work.
Yet when they returned to work full time they learned their part-time stints were not considered pensionable service for which they could "buy back" the time they didn't work by making doubled-up contributions on behalf of themselves and the RCMP.
What really annoyed the women, though, was that RCMP employees who were suspended with or without pay, or who chose to take as much as five years off work without pay, were allowed to buy back their pension contributions.
Any decision to permit RCMP members to buy
back pension benefits should be left to Parliament, lawyers for Canada's
attorney general argue. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Documents filed on the women's behalf by Ottawa labour lawyer Paul Champ say the RCMP pension plan discriminates on the grounds of sex and family status.
"The plan perpetuates the stereotype that it is acceptable for women to fill one of two roles in society — that of caregiver or member of the labour force, but not both at the same time."
The RCMP first allowed people to work in job-share agreements in 1997. According to the RCMP's 2012 gender-based assessment, the aim was to accommodate women and others who need "maternity/parental leave."
The same year, a draft employment equity plan said the force would promote part-time work "to support women and others achieve a better balance in coping with work and family responsibilities."
'I felt as though I was excelling as a mother and as a member of the RCMP.' — Colleen Fox
Fraser was one of the first people to try out the new scheme. Like many women in Canada in the 1990s, she returned to work six months after having her first child. It was tough.
"I'm married to a member as well. We were working shift work. We had no family in Alberta, all of our family is in Quebec and Ontario," she told CBC News.
When Fraser had her second child, she decided to take a leave without pay. After three years, Fraser said, she was encouraged to try job-sharing. She worked part time for three years before resuming her full-time job.
Child-care challenges
It was then she learned that while her three years of unpaid leave were fully deemed pensionable service, she could not buy back the hours she didn't work while part-time.
Fox also described in court documents the challenge of balancing police work and life with an infant.
She had to meet her husband, who is also a Mountie, "at coffee shops and on lunch breaks while she was on patrol so she could breastfeed her son."
After having her second child in a rural community with limited child-care options before part-time work was introduced in 1997, Fox felt she had no option but to retire.
In 2000 she re-enrolled because she could job-share. "I felt as though I was excelling as a mother and as a member of the RCMP."
'The federal Public Service Superannuation Act also has this discriminating element to it.' — Lawyer Paul Champ
"The applicants all face lower pension benefits on retirement because they chose to job-share and balance their police duties with their family obligations while their children were young," Champ argues, citing statistics that show everyone who shared jobs between 2010 and 2014 was a woman.
The women hope the Federal Court will find the pension plan discriminatory and grant all Mounties who've worked reduced, job-share hours the right to buy back pensionable service.
Big changes possible
In their documents, lawyers for Canada's attorney general dispute that most of the RCMP's part-time employees are women with young children. They say any decision to permit members to buy back pension benefits "would be making a significant policy choice that is best left to Parliament."
"The aim of the RCMP pension plan is to provide retirement income and benefits for members. It is not to offset the costs associated with child care, to provide 'universal welfare benefits,' or to meet all of the needs of its beneficiaries."
What the government is likely more concerned with though, is a ripple effect, Champ said.
"If they change the RCMP pension plan to allow people to get pensionable service while working part time, they would have to do it for other public service workers because the federal Public Service Superannuation Act also has this discriminating element to it, and I think they might be concerned about costs," said Champ.
571 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Ene' Baziuk
How is this discriminatory
when fathers who take time off get treated the exact same way? Do
feminists want equality or do they want special treatment?
Jay Leno
@Ene' Baziuk
The Pension plan for Mounties is not "outdated", on the contrary, and if anything, it's too much Gold-Plated.
The Pension plan for Mounties is not "outdated", on the contrary, and if anything, it's too much Gold-Plated.
Jay Mann
@Chelle Baldwin
I would most certainly complain if employees on leave were allowed to continue to make full-time level contributions but part time employees were not.
I would most certainly complain if employees on leave were allowed to continue to make full-time level contributions but part time employees were not.
No comments:
Post a Comment