Surplus Status

The employee grieved that she had not been treated equitably under the Work Force Adjustment Directive (WFAD). She also added that the Early Departure Incentive (EDI) should have been offered to her and that there were opportunities to make this happen as discussed with her management. The grievor sought to receive an affected or surplus letter by June 22, 1998, thereby entitling her to receive EDI.

The grievor accepted a deployment at the AS-04 level effective April 1, 1997. In May of 1998, the grievor approached management with a request that her position be declared surplus to requirements. Management's investigation concluded that there was an on-going requirement for her position and that no suitable "affected" employees were available for alternation with the grievor. Her request was therefore denied. On June 12, 1998, the grievor filed the subject grievance.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that his objective was to demonstrate that the grievor is an "affected" and surplus employee. He submitted the intended objective would be met be examining written correspondence related to the grievor's status.

The representative stated that it was important to note that the principal allegation in this case was that the grievor had not been "treated equitably" under the WFAD. Her main objective under corrective action is to be granted "affected" status. While he recognized the Committee might not be able to grant all of the "specific" corrective action, he requested the Committee inform the grievor's Department that she is a surplus employee.

The representative noted the grievor's husband was relocated to the UK, which as a result further compounded the issue at hand. In order to mitigate her situation, the grievor asked for LWOP to begin after May 26, 1998.

In early 1998, the grievor was an active participant in numerous reorganization meetings. Through her work in these reorganization proceedings, the representative submitted the grievor was led to believe, by management, that her position would disappear (given there was an increased push to automate her work place). She therefore considered herself to be an "affected" employee at that time. The representative submitted that none of the grievor's requests to be declared "affected" had however been replied to directly.

In a July memorandum to the Deputy Minister, it was indicated that the Regional Director General and Directors had been briefed in the study in declining workloads in the responsible sites. It was further stated that during the week of July 13, 1998 the affected regional employees and the unions "would be briefed" on the study at the next steps. The representative indicated that the grievor had been invited to attend these meetings.

The Bargaining Agent representative asked the Committee to consider the grievor's job description dated April 1, 1997. He submitted that certain statements therein were added and in fact indicated a change in the type of work the grievor was doing. Further, he noted that the words "Relocation of Spouse" had been added to the upper portion of the Transfer Value Information requested by the grievor. He therefore alleged the Department had used the relocation to avoid having to declare another employee surplus.

Moreover, the job description received by the Bargaining Agent on September 29, 1998 denoted the same information as the one previous, save for the title, which had been modified. The representative also submitted an organizational chart dated June 1, 1999, which no longer included the grievor's position – and thereby it could be concluded that her position was now surplus.

In closing, the Bargaining Agent representative stated that the documents that were presented (i.e. official requests to be declared surplus, job descriptions, memo to the Deputy Minister) all indicated that this was a Work Force Adjustment situation. The Employer did not prevent or minimize the impact on the grievor, the Department chose rather, to use the "Relocation of Spouse" provisions to close the books on the grievor.

The Departmental representative stated that workloads in the responsible regional sites providing operational support had been decreasing for the past several years. Studies had also confirmed the decline in workload and concluded that it would continue.

In order to address these findings, a proposal was made to create an integrated product management and operational support organization. The implementation of this proposal would result in operations being discontinued in the grievor's work location. The representative unions and staff were advised of this in February 1999. Since that time, all regional managers had taken steps to ensure that employees were being considered for current and anticipated vacancies.

In order to minimize the impact of reductions, key positions had been identified in the responsible sites, which must be staffed by knowledgeable and experienced people until the work ceases to be performed. The grievor's position was one of those identified.

The Departmental representative stated that the grievor requested affected status in order to receive immediate surplus status and eligibility for the EDI. She noted however, that in June 1998, no line employees had been identified as affected. The grievor's position was not surplus at that time nor had her job ceased to exist.

The representative submitted that the grievor left her position on September 30, 1998. She was on vacation leave until her Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for the temporary relocation of her spouse commenced on October 31, 1998 for a period of five years. The position was staffed on an acting basis from October 1, 1998 to February 16, 1999, during which time a competitive process to staff the position was conducted, resulting in an appointment on February 17, 1999.

At the time of the grievor's departure on LWOP, management determined an on-going requirement for her position. The position was identified as key to the organization until the work ceased to be performed at her work site, which is not expected to occur until April 2001. The incumbent of the position, may be declared surplus to requirements with a guaranteed reasonable job offer in October 2000.

In summary, the representative stated the grievor could not reasonably be declared affected in June 1998. The position she occupied was not surplus to requirements at that time. The position was and is presently critical to operations.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee report which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the WFAD, given that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrated that the grievor was not an "affected" or "surplus" employee and that her position had not ceased to exist.

The grievance was denied.