December 1, 1995
28.4.374
The grievors alleged that the Work Force Adjustment Directive as contained in their collective agreement has been violated.
The department terminated the Diplomatic Courier Service, gave the grievors' cash-outs under the WFA directive, and then refused to reinstate them after the department decided not to terminate the Diplomatic Courier Service. Obviously, relocation, devolution, privatization, contracting out, lack of work or discontinuance of a function do not apply. The department has violated the intent of the directive. If the grievance is allowed, they are willing to reimburse the cash-out money they received and are fully aware that the reverse order of merit will be required which might result in being declared surplus.
The department is of the opinion that, in February 1994, the decision to disband the Diplomatic Courier Service was made by management charged with that authority and was based on the given facts and circumstances at the time. The grievors were fully informed of the Work Force Adjustment Directive provisions; they were offered alternate employment training and were given the opportunity to withdraw their resignations in light of the newly created Facilitators positions. Management's decision to reconsider the operational requirements relating to courier service after the voluntary resignations of the grievors, and to create a streamlined courier service is within management's obligation to meet its mandate.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the majority report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee. The Committee agreed that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the directive as they accepted the cash-outs based on incorrect information, i.e. that the whole of the Courier Services would be eliminated when in fact this was not the case.
The Executive Committee requested that the department report to the Committee through the General Secretary on the corrective measures taken.
The grievances were upheld.