Contracting out

The two grievors sought that as a result of a closure they be entitled to the benefits of paragraph 8.6.1 of Section 8 of the Work Force Adjustment directive, which deals with contract out provisions.

In respect to the first grievor the bargaining agent contends that, as a result of the base closure, the employee functions were contracted out and therefore the employee is entitled to all the benefits of Section 8 of the WFA Directive and to his option, one years pay upon resignation as specified in paragraph 8.6.1.

The department acknowledged the employee's position was abolished as a result of the base closure but maintains that the functions were not contracted out. What did occur is that the Department had, prior to the decision to close the base, a Standing Offer contract with a local contractor to provide some of the same services provided by the grievor on an as needed basis only and this contract was continued following the layoffs.

Departmental representatives did inquire verbally as to the employee's willingness to relocate and the response from the employee was in the negative. After a short period of illness the employee resigned and received a 6 month lump sum payment.

The second grievor was employed in one of three positions. Upon closure of the base, it was determined that out of the three positions remaining, only one would remain as a full time indeterminate employee, one position would be contracted out, and one position would be abolished. The department applied the reverse order of merit and the grievor came in first thus retaining full time employment status. A formal offer was made to that effect which the employee refused to accept. He subsequently retired. The second individual on the reverse order of merit list was provided with the benefits of part 8 of the WFA since the duties and responsibilities were contracted out. The third individual was laid off as a result of a lack of work due to the discontinuance of the functions and was provide with ail entitlements as per Part 1 to 7 of the WFA Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee with respect to the first grievor, in that, in this instance, the standing offer contract, to provide services on an as needed basis, did not constitute contracting out of the employee functions as per the intent of Part 8 of the WFA Directive. Therefore, the employee was laid off as a result of a lack of work due to the base closure and was treated in accordance within the intent of the directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee with respect to the second grievor, in that the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive is to secure full time indeterminate employment within the federal public service for those employees whose job might be affected by a work force reduction.

In this instance the employee was, by order of merit, offered full time indeterminate employment having been deemed the most qualified employee for the only remaining full time indeterminate electrician position. His job was not contracted out and hence the grievor is not entitled to any of the provisions of Part 8 of the WFA.

The grievances were denied.