Reasonable job offer and retraining

The grievor sought a reasonable job offer in accordance with Section 1.1.14 of the Work Force Adjustment directive and adequate training as provided under the Work Force Adjustment directive.

The bargaining agent representative stated that the grievor had been offered a secondment that was also a conditional job offer. The title of secondment was changed and labeled a retraining program by management. The grievor did not perform well during the training and never had agreed that he was personally suitable for the type of work and the position being offered. The grievor was forced to enroll in the retraining program under threat of lay-off. Management had set up the condition knowing the grievor would fail and would lose access to further job offers. Management should have assessed the grievor's abilities, aptitudes and profile before proposing the conditional job offer. As a consequence of management's failure to properly assess the grievor, he has been laid off unjustly.

The departmental representative stated that the grievor had a highly specialized background, a relatively high salary rate, and a specific boundary within which he would consider employment. There were a general lack of vacancies in the area the grievor wanted to work and the mobility restriction was discussed with the grievor.

In May of 1994, the grievor as well as three other surplus employees from the same work area were advised that another department was prepared to offer an indeterminate position to the employees contingent upon their successful retraining. The grievor had attendance and attitudinal problems and he was warned that failure to improve could result in his being laid off. Improvements were not made and the grievor was laid off. The grievor had been on surplus status for over 18 months. The three colleagues of the grievor who had similar backgrounds and skills successfully completed their training.

The Executive Committee considered the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee and noted that the committee had come to an impasse. The Executive Committee agreed with those members of the Work Force Adjustment Committee who concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the directive in that the grievor should have applied himself to the training, and, also that the department had tried to find alternate employment for the grievor during the 18 months he was on surplus status.

The grievances were denied.