Surplus status

The employees grieved management's refusal to declare their positions surplus in contravention of article 1.1.7 of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The employees requested that they immediately be declared surplus and that they be entitled to all resultant benefits existing at the date of filing of the grievances, including an offer of the Early Departure Incentive (EDI).

The Bargaining Agent representative reminded the committee that the subject grievances fell under the 1996 WFAD. He explained that the grievors' Department had been designated as most affected in 1995 and while there were a large number of employees declared surplus at that time, there were no involuntary departures. The representative stated that the grievors met with their Regional Director General who explained that requirements could change in their region and that their positions were in jeopardy at best.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that according to article 1.1.7 of the WFAD a Department shall declare surplus, upon request, any affected employee who can demonstrate that his or her job has already ceased to exist. In this instance, the grievors felt affected given that it was suggested that some services in their location would no longer be required. The representative therefore submitted that if the grievors are deemed to be affected, they are also subject to the provisions of the WFAD.

In closing the representative submitted that the Regional Director has argued that there are over two hundred (200) contracts to be let within the grievors' region. However, the grievors dispute this fact, given that one hundred and eighty (180) of these are simple renewals. The representative reiterated that the grievors have demonstrated that they are affected employees by definition, and as such are subject to the provisions of the WFAD. They have demonstrated that their positions have ceased to exist and therefore the requested corrective action must be granted.

The Departmental representative stated that all affected employees are notified in writing of their status by the delegated authority; in this instance, the Regional Director General. However, such notice was never given to either of the grievors because there was and is no lack of work or discontinuance of a function, which affects their work. She added that the grievors made requests, verbally and in writing, to be declared surplus to requirements and after having been advised of the continuing requirement for their jobs, registered in the Departmental Alternates program.

The Departmental representative explained that there were reductions made in the grievors' offices between October 1995 and April 1998. However, in the grievors' group, these were limited to the elimination of a managerial position and a vacant supervisor position. All remaining positions from former service groups are now consolidated under one Director. The grievors' positions were established prior to the staff reduction, were not affected by the reduction, and continue to be required today.

The representative further asserted that the work performed by the grievors is ongoing and their jobs are required. While it can be argued that the work load has fluctuated, and decreased between the 1994/95 and the 1997/98 fiscal years, the mean average dollar value of the contracts administered, has increased over the same period of time. The representative contended that this could be an indication of a higher level of complexity involved in the work. She added that based on data currently available, the current workload may equal or exceed that of the previous year.

The Departmental representative explained that the grievors had jointly requested Leave with Income Averaging, a reduced work week and job sharing. These requests have been considered carefully by management and have been denied because of operational requirements. She submitted that had a workload requirement not existed, management could have realized the economic benefit of these arrangements.

The Departmental representative closed by reiterating that the grievors are not and have never been affected employees in their current positions. Accordingly, they have no claim to entitlements under the WFAD, and consequently, their grievances do not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Joint Council (NJC) grievance procedure.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee report which concluded that the grievors were treated within the intent of the Directive given that it was not demonstrated that their positions had ceased to exist.

The grievances were denied.