Reasonable job Offer

The grievor requested to be declared surplus under the provisions of the Work Force Adjustment Directive as it existed in April 1995 and sought payment of separation benefit accordingly.

The Bargaining Agent representative stated that in February 1995, the employer identified an incumbent of another EN-ENG-05 who purportedly wished to avail himself of the WFAD cash-out provisions. The employer proposed to alternate this individual with the grievor. The employer indicated that if the grievor refused the exchange, it would nullify the provisions under the WFAD, i.e. in this instance the right to the separation benefit. The Department, for reasons of its own, considered the so called exchange a reasonable job offer. However, it could not produce any supporting documents to this effect. At the second level hearing, the Bargaining Agent's position was clearly that the Department grant the separation benefit and Early Retirement Incentive (ERI). The Departmental Liaison Officer's (DLO) response was to make a job offer to the grievor, which the grievor refused. The job offer required him to switch positions with an individual who had not committed himself in leaving his position. The DLO subsequently concluded that the job offer the grievor had received could not be deemed to be a reasonable job offer in accordance with the provision of the Work Force Adjustment directive. In light of the above-mentioned, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive.

The Departmental representative stated that the grievor was offered a position at the EN-ENG-05 under Section 7.2.6 of the Directive. The incumbent of the identified position had volunteered to leave in place of the grievor with pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period. At the time, management had deemed the offer to be a reasonable job offer (RJO) under the Work Force Adjustment Directive. Even though the grievor had been advised that his refusal of the offer could result in his lay-off, he did not reply to the offer. He was consequently laid-off on February 23, 1996. The Departmental representative stated, that it was determined that the volunteer whose position the grievor was offered, had not firmly committed to leaving his position. Therefore, the previous job offer made to the grievor could no longer be deemed to be a RJO under the WFA directive and the rationale to lay-off the grievor no longer existed. The Public Service Commission (PSC), advised that a lay-off cannot be rescinded and that consequently, to annul the grievor's lay-off, the department had to offer him a position. The Department explained to the grievor that, while the grievance was allowed in that the initial job offer could not be deemed to be a RJO, it could not grant the requested corrective action in light of the interpretation received from the PSC. The Department subsequently offered the grievor another EN-ENG-05 to reinstate him in the Public Service. In light of the second offer made to the grievor, the Department believed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the WFA directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive. It was determined that the first job offer the grievor received could not be deemed to be a reasonable job offer.

The grievance was upheld.