Priority Status

The parties agreed that the above grievances would be heard together as one package.

Grievances 28.4.560/564/567

The employee grieved the fact that her surplus status was coming to an end without having received a reasonable job offer (RJO) from her Department; she also grieved the fact that omissions and inaccuracies in her file at the Public Service Commission (PSC) caused delays which were a further detriment to her finding employment.

The employee requested an extension of her surplus period until such time as she receives an RJO from her home Department or failing this until the resolution of her grievances.

Grievances 28.4.561/565/570/571

The employee grieved that sections 1.1.13 and 1.1.33 of the Work Force Adjustment Directive had not been applied to her situation and that management had not treated her equitably and respectfully; she also grieved that she was removed from her position while employees were hired on a contract basis.

The employee requested that her paid surplus status be extended and that an investigation be conducted into the priority system in the Department, the region and the Public Service Commission. She also requested that she be given the opportunity to be hired under contract and that managers and Human Resources officers involved with her situation be made aware of their responsibilities.

Grievances 28.4.563/566

The employee grieved the fact that she was not referred to at least 3 positions during her surplus period.

The employee requested that her paid surplus status be extended to allow sufficient time to receive a Reasonable Job Offer.

Grievances 28.4.568/569

The employee grieved the fact that her Department pressured her to accept a position (she had identified) or lose her priority status; she also grieved that information relevant to her situation was passed to other parties without her knowledge.

The employee requested that the above-mentioned positions not be considered RJO's and that she be provided with a copy of all information and correspondence relating to her circumstances.

The grievor was an indeterminate employee until her position was declared surplus on October 31, 1997. Her surplus period was to end on April 30, 1998. She was offered and refused an Early Departure Incentive package. The grievor asked to be registered with the Public Service Commission (PSC) as able to meet 10 classifications in the priority data system and as willing to be retrained or to accept a lower classified position.

The Bargaining Agent representative began his presentation by stating that throughout her affected period and her six-month surplus period, the grievor was treated by incompetent, neglectful and often untrustworthy employer representatives. Furthermore, management had resorted to intimidation and harassment in dealing with the grievor.

The representative explained that the grievor lost two (2) months of her priority surplus period, from November 1997 to January 1998, due to the fact a priority officer at the PSC regional office had entered the wrong codes in the computer and omitted some important information. He added that approval of travel expenses for interviews had been refused or only approved at the last minute.

The Bargaining Agent representative informed the committee that April 30, 1998 had been identified as the grievor's last day on paid surplus, and that at that time she still had not received her 30-day notice of the end of employment from the Department. He stated that this was done at the last minute, the Department having no choice but to extend the grievor's surplus period by one month.

In closing, the representative argued that the Department did not give the grievor a copy of the Work Force Adjustment Directive, adding that management was not familiar with the Directive, the grievor having had to indicate to them the different items that were particular to her case. The representative added that management had objected to the Department's time and money being spent on job interview's by the grievor and when she was successful, tried to take credit for jobs the grievor had found and applied for herself by designating them RJO's. He also stated that the grievor's Human Resources officer and those at the PSC provided little or no help and were reluctant to assist her.

The Departmental representative confirmed that the grievor did in fact receive her surplus notice on October 31, 1997. He stated that in February 1998, the grievor received verbal offers for 3 positions in the National Capital Region, a region for which she declared herself mobile. On April 20, 1998, the grievor received formal offers for 2 of these positions. The representative indicated that on May 1, 1998, the grievor was provided with a 30-day notice period of her lay off, which would become effective on May 31, 1998. On May 13, 1998 the grievor received a formal offer for a position on the East Coast. The representative explained that the grievor would only accept the offer conditional to the Department being responsible for the sale of her residence. Given that the grievor's principal residence was on the East Coast, the Department was not prepared to accept this condition. On May 31, 1998 the grievor was laid-off on the basis that she had received and refused an RJO.

The Departmental representative explained to the committee that although the grievor argued that she has a right to a Guaranteed Reasonable Job Offer and that the RJO must be within DFO, the budget implementation Act of 1995 effectively suspended certain section of the WFAD for Most affected Departments. He also added that the intent of the WFAD was not to place the onus of a RJO on one single Department, but rather onto the larger Public Service. Furthermore, although the job offers received were obtained through the grievor's own efforts, he submitted that she acted in a manner consistent with the WFAD.

In regard to the issue of the PSC's referral system, the representative stated that the grievor's name was entered into the PSC priority system based on her classification as of November 6,1997. He added that some difficulty and delay occurred in entering the skill information for the grievor, but referrals were still made on classification information. The representative explained that the Department had no evidence that this was detrimental to the grievor's efforts to find employment and submitted that the Department did not feel it had jurisdiction in matters which concern the PSC.

In response to the allegation that the Department provided inadequate support to the grievor, the representative maintained that the Department did in fact provide ample support. The Department maximized the notice period for this employee, made efforts to find an "alternate" to exchange positions with the grievor, and provided her with a WFA kit (although he could not confirm if a copy of the Directive was included). In addition, Human resources had numerous telephone conversations with the grievor and provided advice, guidance and interpretations to her. Trips were provided to the grievor to search for employment, and training programs were approved without hesitation.

The Departmental representative went on to explain the use of contract employees at the grievor's work place. He stated that the Department decided in November 1997 that it could not continue to operate certain training programs and since the unit had not been fully occupied for some time, it was decided that training would be provided to other Departments, free of charge. This training program was to end on March 31, 1998. On November 1, 1998, the training program was handed over to another agency that estimated the work required only 1.5 FTY to complete and a secondment agreement was completed for this period. A contact employee was hired to cover the remaining .5 FTY.

In closing, the Departmental representative stated that the grievor did receive several reasonable job offers throughout her paid surplus period and had two job offers prior to her filing the subject grievances. He added that the Department acknowledges that the situation was highly stressful for the grievor, however the system did not fail her. Although the grievor was laid off, she is now employed again within her Department.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee, which concluded that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Work Force Adjustment Directive.

The grievances were denied.