Vacation Leave

The employee grieved that management violated his six (6) months paid surplus period under the Work Force Adjustment Directive thus forcing the grievor to liquidate his leave benefits under the collective agreement between the dates of November 24, 1997 to January 2, 1998. The grievor requested that management's decision be rescinded and the leave taken be fully reinstated.

Due to the proposed closure of the grievor's workplace, the grievor was provided a surplus letter on July 1997. On August 14, 1997, the grievor signed the EDI Request and opted for EDI. His departure date was established by management to be effective on January 3, 1998. In preparation for closure, management attempted to reduce the excessive vacation leave accumulation throughout the workplace. For the most part, management's request for employees to voluntarily take leave reduced excessive accumulations throughout the workplace, except for the grievor's section. As of November 1997, the grievor had 160.5 hours of leave which he wished to have cashed out.

The new Leave Management Policy was implemented on November 17, 1997, to deal with the high number of unused vacation leave prior to the closure of the workplace, which was scheduled for March 1998. At that point the grievor had already accepted EDI and was to depart on January 2, 1998. Since he was unwilling to voluntarily take some leave, management scheduled 80 hours of leave during Christmas season from December 10, 1997 to December 31, 1997, for a total of 10 days. As for the remaining 80.5 hours, management paid these out to the grievor.

The Bargaining Agent representative believed that management violated sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of the Work Force Adjustment Directive by failing to meet their role and responsibility of ensuring fair ”effective human resource planning to minimize the impact on an indeterminate employee ” which was not carried nor respected in this case. The grievor should have been afforded the option of cashing his leave credits, such as the surplus employees under section 7.9.1, even though he did not have the opportunity of transferring to another employer.

Working until the end of his surplus period would have provided the grievor with financial assistance following his lay-off with no future employment within the Public Service. The grievor was entitled to complete his surplus period and commitment to the workplace, as the supervisor of several employees during the surplus period up to closure of the workplace, thus, another reason for not wanting to take his annual leave.

The Bargaining Agent representative does not consider management's actions in this situation to be the definition of ”fair - equitable and effective human resource planning” nor did management attempt to minimize the impact on this indeterminate employee.

For these reasons, the Bargaining Agent representative requests that the NJC Committee review these pointed with due consideration on behalf of the grievor, in order to determine his rights of his annual leave entitlements at the end of his surplus period.

The Departmental representative believed that once the grievor opted for EDI, he waived his right to the automatic and full six-month paid surplus period, since management could have determined that his departure date was sooner than 6 months. The possibility of shortening the status period by opting for EDI, clearly points to the different nature of this surplus period, given the EDI is to support the employee making a transition outside the Public Service. Therefore, the employer does not believe that the scheduling of leave has negatively affected the intent of the grievor's surplus period.

The fact that the employee was requested to take 10 days of annual leave prior to his departure date affects in no way the EDI process and definitely does not affect his paid surplus period. Therefore, the fact of taking leave during the Christmas season within his paid surplus period is not an issue, since many employees voluntarily took leave during their surplus period prior to the workplace closure.

In conclusion, the Departmental representative stated that the Work Force Adjustment Directive does not preclude management from managing and scheduling the leave of an employee who is in paid surplus period, and has accepted EDI. Therefore, the Departmental representative believed that management was not in violation of the Work Force adjustment Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee's report which concluded that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the WFA Directive. As the employee had chosen the EDI situation, management had the right to determine the end date of employment. In these circumstances the scheduling of leave under the collective agreement is outside the jurisdiction of the WFA Committee as are all provisions of the EDI program. Therefore, the grievance was denied.