Retention payment

The grievor sought all benefits under part VII of the Work Force Adjustment directive be applied.

The employee grieved that management had not met its responsibilities under the Work Force Adjustment Directive by failing to provide the employee all the necessary information required to make a proper decision.

The bargaining agent representative explained that there were a number of similarities with this grievance and grievance number 28.4.326. The representative claimed that the grievor was told that she would have to resign in order to get the six-month cash out and that management would turn it down because she was needed until closure. The grievor also maintained that she was told that she would have to compete for a lower level position at the new location.

The departmental representative claimed that the employee had declared very early on that she was not mobile and that she wished to retire. The employee received very detailed briefings and was given a copy of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The representative added that the employee would not have had to compete for a position in the new work location if she had wanted one. The representative concluded by stating that the circumstances for a retention payment are not present in this case.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee in that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The Executive Committee noted that members of the Work Force Adjustment Committee were of the opinion that there was enough evidence to show that the griever had been consulted properly and was not asked by management to stay at work until the closure of the facility.

The Executive Committee further noted that the Work Force Adjustment Committee concluded that the employee had, in good faith, made the decision to retire.

The grievance was denied.