February 8, 2017
28.4.633
Background
The grievor is employed as an RO-03. On May 17, 2012, the grievor was declared affected as per Work Force Adjustment Directive (WFAD) and informed in writing that the grievor’s work location would be shut down and that the grievor’s services may no longer be required based on the 2012 Economic Action Plan. Consolidation of some of the work locations was initiated as part of the deficit reduction decisions. The grievor worked at the City A site, which, along with the City B site, was consolidated into the City C location.
The City A site officially closed on May 10, 2016. From the time of the initial 2012 announcement to the time of the City A site closure, the grievor was declared affected due to lack of work and/or a discontinuance of a work function; the grievor received two affected status confirmation letters (May 16, 2013 and May 16, 2014); and received a letter of offer (April 4, 2013) at the RO-03 level to the City C location based on the grievor’s success in a selection process. The grievor did not accept the offer and remained in affected status until March 18, 2015 when an opting letter was received. The grievor chose option (a) – (i) twelve month surplus priority period effective July 17, 2015. The WFA situation was resolved when a Reasonable Job Offer (RJO) to the City C location was received, effective July 16, 2016.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the employer’s violation of subsections 1.1.38, 1.1.39, 1.1.2, 3.1 and any related sections of the Directive.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
It is the Bargaining Agent’s position that the staffing decision was made too far in advance (4 years) and locked employees into choices based on their current circumstances. It did not take into account that their family situation could change or other offers of employment could be received. For employees in this situation, they would have the advantage of applying for the vacancy with priority entitlement rights as a result of work force adjustment (WFA). The grievor was being asked to make a decision without a firm closing date and the dates given continued to change.
The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the employer violated subsections 1.1.38, 1.1.39 and Part 5 of the WFAD by continuing to inform the grievor that the affected status had been extended when it had indeed been rescinded. The employer did not inform the grievor that the affected status had been rescinded.
Furthermore, the Bargaining Agent representative argued that the employer violated subsection 1.1.2 of the WFAD by failing to carry out effective HR planning to minimize the impact of WFA on indeterminate employees. This is evidenced by the sheer number of Officers that left the Department from the City A site at the site closure in May 2016. The grievor never had a discussion with anyone in management as to identifying a “WFA –strategy that would minimize the impact” and the grievor was not aware of any other affected members in the Western Region who engaged in a similar discussions. The evidence presented indicates that there was never any strategy set in place or, if there was, that it was made-up as it went along to the detriment of the grievor as witnessed by the changes in staffing strategy through the process.
Finally, the Bargaining Agent representative contended that the employer violated Section 3.1 of the WFAD by misinterpreting this WFA situation as a lack of work or discontinuance of a function when it was actually a relocation of a Work Unit to City C. The Bargaining Agent explained that the same service, covering the same geographic area with the same number of Officers using the same position numbers is a clear indication, that this was a work unit relocation and not a WFA exercise. The workload had not decreased; in fact it has increased for the 7 employees that remained with the Department due to being short-staffed and the requirement for excessive overtime.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative explained that management was transparent and remained in regular communication with employees throughout the site consolidation project. There was no willful attempt by management to delay site closures and as per the WFAD objectives, management remained focused on finding alternative employment opportunities for employees. Although closure dates had changed, management still enforced the WFAD correctly, in good faith and at no time did they contravene subsection 1.1.2 of the WFAD.
In regards to the aggrieved Section 3.1 Part III of the WFAD, the Department considered the site consolidation project a lack of work and a discontinuance of work function and not a relocation of a work unit. Management complied with all sections of the WFAD in this regard to ensure they met their responsibility of treating affected employees fairly and equitably.
It is the Department’s contention that the site consolidation project resulted in the reduction in work sites with the closure of three out of five sites in the region. Although the two remaining consolidated locations inevitably would be larger, given the required deficit reductions, the sites would not be able to accommodate retraining all positions in the region. Consequently a reduction in the overall number of positions would occur. Given management’s knowledge that few employees would be open to relocating to the other locations, they offered employees a choice of being matched to consolidated site positions, on a case by case basis, should they be interested in that option to resolve their WFA situation. The selection process run that was conducted was meant to aid in placing employees at their desired locations. In addition, because of the required reductions, management offered employees the option of being deemed surplus employees with options.
The Department took steps to facilitate employment opportunities for employees. Management declared the employees as “affected” as the consolidation project was in a stage where it was known that the employee’s jobs would be affected by WFA situations. To resolve these situations and in keeping with the comprehensive human resources planning efforts, management provided alternative employment options.
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 Directive. As such, the grievance is denied.