October 12, 2016
28.4.632
Background
The grievor is an employee with Department A. On May 17, 2012, the grievor was affected by the Work Force Adjustment Directive (Directive) and was informed that the place of work (Location A) would be shut down and that the grievor’s services may no longer be required. The Department identified employment opportunities in its other locations and the grievor had the choice to either be relocated to another location and therefore, no longer be affected, or be considered for Transition Support Measures (TSM) under option b or c of the Directive.
The grievor chose to be relocated as the initial information was that Location A would be closed before the grievor’s retirement date, which was in approximately 2 years. However, the closure date of Location A was changed to a later date which would have allowed the grievor to stay at the same location until retirement, thus being eligible to receive the TSM.
Grievance
The employee is grieving that the Employer violated subsection 1.1.6 of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
It is the Bargaining Agent’s position that the grievor was advised that the closure date of Location A was firm and as such, the grievor was forced to apply for a position that would have been unacceptable had the grievor known the actual closure date was in March of 2015. The representative noted that grievor made that decision under duress and based on the Employer’s decision to close Location A on a specific date.
The representative explained that when the other offer was accepted, the grievor was not advised immediately that the grievor’s affected status was rescinded. The reporting date of the new location was changed many times to accommodate the late closure of Lieu A and the grievor was diligent with the Employer’s requests. As such, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the Employer acted in an arbitrary manner in selectively ignoring the grievor’s request to be returned to an affected state under the Directive. It was further noted that the grievor should have been given due consideration for returning to the opting status as the closure date was uncertain.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor indicated interest in relocating to another location and accepted the offer. The letter of offer clearly stipulated that should the offer be accepted, the grievor would no longer be identified as an employee who may be laid off and that the affected status would be rescinded. In addition, the representative submitted that the grievor agreed to continue working, needing two and half more years of service to retire without penalty. As such, the representative argued that the grievor did not express an interest to become opting, wanting to complete the years of service needed to receive full pension. It is the Departmental representative’s position that the grievor is seeking personal gain from the former WFA situation based on the delay of the workplace closure.
The Departmental representative further noted that the consolidation of work locations, circumstances and opportunities inevitably changed depending on the resolution of the employee’s WFA situations and the fulfillment of vacant positions. It was explained that the Department acted in good faith and made genuine efforts to resolve WFA situations based on the circumstances known at the time. The representative maintained that the grievor’s request to receive a WFA opting letter after the relocation is in violation of the intent of the Directive and that the grievor was provided with an opportunity to work until the desired retirement date.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Workforce Adjustment Committee which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. The Committee noted that the grievor made a personal decision in accepting the offer and that the Employer followed the Directive when the affected status was rescinded upon acceptance of such offer. As such, the grievance is denied.