June 1, 1998
28.4.466
The employee grieved that he was not treated within the intent of the Directive in regard to reasonable job offer and pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period. The grievor is requesting that he be given either pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period for six months or a reasonable job offer (RJO).
The grievor was advised on December 6, 1993, that as a result of a Modernization initiative, his substantive position, was identified as being affected. The duties of his position were reallocated in part to a new Complex Case Officer position and in part to a new Team Coordinator position. The grievor acted in a Team Coordinator position from January 31 to May 27, 1994. From March 16, 1994 to June 12, 1995, the grievor was on extended sick leave. On February 19, 1996, the grievor was offered and declined, deployment to a Complex Case Officer position.
On May 2, 1996 the grievor was declared surplus, at his request and, as a surplus employee, was offered an appointment to the Complex Case Officer position. This offer which his management considered an RJO was later declined by the grievor.
At this time, the grievor's surplus period was extended to November 15, 1996. On May 12, 1996, the grievor requested PIL and this request was denied by the department on May 21, 1996 since in it's opinion the employee had refused an RJO and there continued to be work to do during the surplus period. Until his layoff on November 15, 1996, and at his own request, the grievor was assigned to a special project.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that the grievor had more than 30 years of service with the department, having been unit head for twelve years. It was added that from March 1994 until June of 1995, the grievor was on extended sick leave.
The representative stated that upon the grievor's return in June 1995, he was faced with many new changes as a result of the Modernization initiative - and most importantly the fact that his position had ceased to exist. The grievor was also assigned to a new position without training.
The representative explained to the committee that because lots of the changes to the Work Force Adjustment had occurred while the grievor was away on leave, he was uncertain as to what his rights were under the Directive. Furthermore, the grievor was embarrassed by the demotion he had to take and that in light of his medical condition, and the added stress that would have been brought on in this new position, the grievor did not find the position that was being offered to him to be reasonable.
The Bargaining Agent maintained that the Deputy Head did not consider all the factors of this case before exercising his discretionary power to refuse PIL. She further stated that the Deputy Head was solely concerned with the strict interpretation of the Work Force Adjustment Directive.
The Departmental representative stated that the department maintained that, in exercising its discretion under 7.2.2 of the WFAD, it has acted reasonably in refusing to grant PIL since the employee had refused an RJO and since there was still work for the employee to perform during the surplus period. It was also stated that the department further maintained that the indeterminate position, which is at the same group and level, in the same geographic area, and compatible with the grievor's experience and skills - constituted an RJO under the WFAD.
The Executive Committee could come to no agreement on the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive. Therefore it reached an impasse.