April 1, 1996

28.4.394

The grievor is contesting that the action by management to declare him surplus was not properly conducted as the program the grievor was working on was not discontinued, but was continued under a new region.

The grievor was declared surplus and maintains that contrary to what he was led to believe by the department, the program was not eliminated but reduced. He also stated that the work performed at the new location was the same as the one he used to perform at the old location. ln conclusion, it is the grievor's opinion that he was unfairly singled out in the reductions.

The department undertook a national program review and a similar exercise was undertaken in the region where the grievor was working. All provisions of the Workforce Adjustment Directive were applied in a proper fashion to advise the grievor of his affected status and surplus status in granting EDI as per his request. Furthermore, attempts were made to find employment for the grievor through the PSC and the department Inventory list. However, there were no possibilities of employment in the grievor's field of research or in similar research in any region since the whole department had gone through downsizing of its resources.

The Executive Committee considered the Work Force Adjustment Committee report. The Executive Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the directive as per article 1.1.4. However, there was some concern raised by the Employer Side on the issue of jurisdiction in regard to process.

The grievance was denied.