Retraining

The grievor alleged that the Work Force Adjustment Directive was misapplied with respect to retraining.

The grievor, a surplus employee was offered and accepted a position in another department. The offer of employment was not a conditional offer, i.e. it was not conditional upon the grievor's successful completion of a retraining plan before appointment to the position. The bargaining agent indicated that in reference to article 4.1.1 of the directive, the grievor was entitled to retraining which she was not provided with either by the host or home department. A retraining plan should have been developed with the employee prior to her appointment. In view of the above, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive.

The department argues that at no period in time was the grievor considered to be on retraining in accordance with the directive. The grievor was appointed to an indeterminate position and it was not a conditional offer of appointment upon successful completion of retraining. It is very distinct from the concept of the conditional retraining, as specified in the directive. For those reasons we submit that the grievance should be denied.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the majority report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee. The Executive Committee agreed that in this case retraining was not required and therefore the grievor was treated within the intent of the directive. Retraining under WFAD is intended for individuals to acquire new skills in order to meet the qualifications for appointment to positions being sought. In this case the grievor was deemed to meet the qualifications for appointment without retraining.

The grievance was denied.