The following policy grievances reflect this work in action:

Policy Grievances on the Return to the Office mandates  

The Employer unilaterally imposed the Directive on Prescribed Presence, mandating return to offices without meaningful consultation.  

In January 2023, the AJC filed its first policy grievance concerning the Employer’s return to the workplace directive, followed by a second policy grievance on the revised mandate in 2024. On January 2, 2025, the Employer issued their final-level grievance response, denying the grievance. The AJC referred the matter to adjudication at the FPSLREB, and a mediation took place on October 7, 2025. The parties were unable to resolve the matter and the matter is proceeding before the Board.    

To support this work, the AJC surveyed members in mid-2025 on their current experiences and concerns related to the return-to-office direction. Members have raised health and safety concerns, office space and ensuring confidentiality concerns as well as discriminatory impacts with the return to the office mandate.

Update: the ER raised a preliminary objection on the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. We proceed with written submission on jurisdictional question early in 2026 and we are waiting on decision from the Board

Return to office 4 (RTO4) 

On February 5, 2026, AJC members received an email advising that the required in-office presence would increase to four days per week as of July 6, 2026. This announcement was issued without any prior notice to the AJC and without meaningful consultation, despite clear obligations under the LP Collective Agreement.

The LP Collective Agreement requires meaningful consultation on workplace changes that affect members’ working conditions, including issues related to workplace presence and office space. These obligations exist for a reason. Lawyers working in the federal public service carry professional responsibilities, including strict obligations related to confidentiality, information protection, and the handling of privileged materials. Any increase in onsite presence must be accompanied by proper planning, consultation, and a clear assessment of whether departments have the infrastructure and workspace required to support these obligations.

In March and June 2026, the AJC filed a policy grievance challenging the Employer’s announcement that LPs will be required to be physically present in the workplace four days per week beginning July 6, 2026.

The AJC also filed two unfair labour practice complaints regarding the statutory freeze, the first in April 2026 and the second in July 2026.

CHRC complaint on Anti-Black Racism

The Employer continues to uphold systems of racial oppression by how it has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Black members of the AJC in its employment and staffing practices, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Black AJC members in the federal public service face persistent and ongoing discrimination and harassment including racist comments, microaggressions, disparate treatment and demeaning conduct in the workplace on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, and colour.  

The AJC filed a CHRC complaint in November 2025 in response to the Employer’s ongoing discriminatory behaviors and actions.The Canadian Human Rights Commission has since referred the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for inquiry. This is a significant step toward an independent, public examination of the discrimination raised in the complaint.

Policy Grievance concerning the Pause of the LP-01 Training and Development Program  

The Employer unfairly and unreasonably paused the Department of Justice LP-01 Training and Development Program in mid-2025, without any prior consultation with the AJC. Many AJC members met the program requirements and were instead arbitrarily denied the promotions they had earned. The AJC filed a policy grievance on September 4, 2025. Union members have filed more than 250 individual grievances.

The AJC also filed an unfair labour practice (ULP) complaint concerning the pause. Both the policy grievance and the ULP complaint were resolved through a settlement reached in April 2026. The settlement provided a path to promotion for eligible members affected by the pause, with retroactive pay, and a commitment to relaunch the program by April 2027. The AJC continues to engage with the Employer on the program’s restart and improvements that better support LP-01 members.

Policy Grievance and Canadian Human Rights Complaint concerning the LP-01 Training and Development Program  

Lawyers in the LP-01 Training and Development Program who have taken a protected leave, including, but not limited to, maternity or parental leave, have had their experience systematically discounted by the Employer because of how the Employer chose to enact, interpret, and implement the LP-01 Development Program Policy.  

In response, the AJC filed a policy grievance on April 8, 2025, challenging the discrimination on the basis of sex and family status in the LP-01 Training and Development Program. The AJC grieved that the Employer has acted unreasonably and in violation of the Collective Agreement, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in how it chose to proceed with the LP-01 Development Program Policy.

In addition, in May 2025, the AJC filed a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint regarding the LP-01 program, alleging discrimination against members in promotion decisions by implementing the LP-01 Development Program in a manner that systemically disadvantages lawyers on the basis of sex and family status. The complaint is being held in abeyance while the policy grievance proceeds.

The grievance was presented to the Employer in mid-2025, and the Employer denied it. The policy grievance was subsequently referred to adjudication at the FPSLREB and heard in summer 2026. A decision is pending.

Policy Grievances and Unfair Labour Practice complaint regarding the implementation of the Collective Agreement  

When the 2024 Collective Agreement came into effect, the Employer failed to implement lump sum payments, retroactive pay, and salary or step adjustments in a timely manner, as set out in the Collective Agreement. Additionally, the Employer failed to consult with the AJC on implementation as required by the Collective Agreement. 

The AJC filed two policy grievances: one in 2024 concerning the implementation of the Collective Agreement and another concerning the Employer’s failure to issue retroactive payments within the required 180-day period. The AJC also filed an unfair labour practice (ULP) complaint concerning pay implementation.

In addition, the AJC has filed both group and individual grievances on behalf of members who have not received their salary adjustment, retroactive pay, or both.

The ULP complaint and policy grievances are currently before the Board at the mediation stage, with settlement discussions ongoing.

Policy Grievance on maternity and parental leave allowances  

The Employer interpreted and applied maternity and parental leave provisions in a discriminatory way that disproportionately harmed women with children. This policy grievance challenges the interpretation and application of Articles 19.04(f) and (i) (maternity allowance) and Articles 19.07(f)(i)(o) and (r) (parental allowance) of the LP Collective Agreement which is inconsistent with principles of modern interpretation.  

The policy grievance was heard by the FPSLREB on August 19 and 20, 2024 and we are currently waiting for a decision.

Policy Grievances on the Return to the Office mandates  

The Employer unilaterally imposed the Directive on Prescribed Presence, mandating return to offices without meaningful consultation.  

In January 2023, the AJC filed its first policy grievance concerning the Employer’s return to the workplace directive, followed by a second policy grievance on the revised mandate in 2024. On January 2, 2025, the Employer issued their final-level grievance response, denying the grievance. The AJC referred the matter to adjudication at the FPSLREB, and a mediation took place on October 7, 2025. The parties were unable to resolve the matter and the matter is proceeding before the Board.    

To support this work, the AJC surveyed members in mid-2025 on their current experiences and concerns related to the return-to-office direction. Members have raised health and safety concerns, office space and ensuring confidentiality concerns as well as discriminatory impacts with the return to the office mandate.

Policy Grievance on DOJ privacy breach  

In 2023, the Employer failed to secure member information and responded inadequately to a serious privacy breach in the same year. The AJC filed a policy grievance in 2023 and it was referred to adjudication in January 2025. 

The Employer raised a jurisdictional question, which was addressed through written submissions. Submissions closed in September 2026, and a decision on jurisdiction is pending.

Policy Grievance on DOJ management leave  

In 2022, the Department of Justice failed to comply with the AJC and Treasury Board Memorandum of Understanding’s commitment to work in good faith to co-develop directives on management leave and flexibility in work hours. The department also failed to engage in meaningful consultation and provide the necessary data to support informed discussions.

The AJC filed a policy grievance on the issue and also cited DOJ’s unreasonable, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the co-development process.  

As a result of the policy grievance, the parties agreed to the development of departmental management leave directives. The AJC was consulted and provided feedback on the development of the Direction on Management Leave for Employees in the LP group.  

While the consultation process represented a positive step, the AJC continues to receive reports from members about the Employer’s ongoing non-compliance with the Directive. The AJC continues to hold the DOJ accountable and advocates for consistent application of the Directive.  

Policy Grievance on unreasonable performance pay at the Commissioner of Canada Elections and other Departments and Agencies

In 2022, several departments and agencies, including the Commissioner of Canada Elections, applied unreasonably low performance pay rates to some LPs. The AJC filed a policy grievance in response. The grievance remains in abeyance pending the Board’s decision on the unreasonable performance pay policy grievance at the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada.  

Policy Grievance on unreasonable recovery of Overpayments  

The Employer has been unreasonable and unfair in its recovery of Phoenix overpayments. In 2022, the AJC filed a policy grievance challenging the Employer’s practices.  

The AJC grievance challenges the Employer’s October 2021 overpayment recovery policy and the Employer’s implementation of it. The AJC grievance challenges amongst other things, the Employer’s related practices of recovering statute-barred debts, of failing to provide sufficient information to establish a debt is owed and then requiring employees to establish the accuracy of the alleged overpayment, and otherwise of coercing employees to acknowledge the overpayment through these practices.

The grievance was heard by the FPSLREB in January 2025, and closing submissions were provided in March 2025. We are currently awaiting the Board’s decision.

Policy Grievance on unreasonable performance pay at the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada  

In 2021, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs unfairly applied low performance award amounts to LPs who had reached the top of the applicable salary scale without proper justification and reasons. The AJC filed a policy grievance to support affected members.

The matter is currently before the FPSLREB. The hearing was originally scheduled for late July 2025, but the Board subsequently ordered that it proceed by written submissions. Written submissions were completed in October 2026, and a decision is pending.

Policy Grievance on Code 699 Leave for pandemic-related leave  

In 2020, Code 699 was used for pandemic-related leave. Although the Employer committed to consulting with the AJC on this matter, it unilaterally imposed an approach that significantly impacted employees.  

During 2020, the Employer communicated that, with the re-opening of schools and daycares, employees would be expected to return to the workplace. Concurrently, the Employer developed internal guidelines regarding the use of Code 699 for employees in regions where schools and daycares had reopened.  

The AJC filed a policy grievance challenging both the Employer’s decision concerning COVID-19 leave provisions and its application of the Code 699 during this period.

Policy Grievance in relation to discrimination at the Canadian Human Rights Commission  

Black  federal public servants at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have been negatively impacted by policies, procedures, practices and attitudes that served as barriers to their advancement, health, safety, and overall well-being. In 2020, the AJC, along with other bargaining agents (PSAC and CAPE), filed a policy grievance challenging discriminatory practices at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  

The AJC represented members at over 16 mediation sessions. The matter was resolved in September 2026.