Pay in lieu

The grievor maintained that she was unreasonably denied pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period, although she offered to resign before the end of her surplus period.

The bargaining agent representative stated that the grievor was offered the Civilian Retirement program (CRP) which she declined. A possible departure date of July 28, 1995 had been identified by the department. However, the actual departure date still needed to be confirmed by the manager. The grievor accepted the Early Retirement Insentive (ERI) instead. The grievor was informed of her surplus status on June 14, 1995 and was granted the status of surplus employee from June 15, 1995 to December 15, 1995. It is maintained that it was the employer's obligation and responsibility to confirm to the grievor that she would be retained in her position until December 15, 1995. Therefore, by not advising the grievor differently the department should not have denied Pay in lieu (PIL) under the ERI. The department officially informed the grievor that they could not approve the PIL because of her hasty departure on June 17, 1995, the department incurred costs to clear the grievor's work backlog.

The bargaining agent representative did not agree with the department on this issue as it has been standard practice by the department since 1982 to hire summer students to cover for summer vacations and therefore it is maintained there were no additional cost incurred by the department to deal specifically with the grievor's backlog as the

summer students were already on site to perform other work. The representative believed that it was unreasonable to deny the grievor six months of PIL when the backlog was in fact completed by July 31, 1995. The representative maintained that the grievor's request for the PIL should have been approved at least from the date the backlog was completed, that is July 31,1995 to December 15, 1995 and that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive.

The departmental representative stated that the grievor was informed by memo of her surplus status on June 14, 1995. It indicated that in accordance with the WFAD, she was granted surplus status from June 15, 1995 to December 15, 1995. On June 15,1995, the grievor submitted a memo accepting the ERI offer and stated that she wanted to resign as of that same day in order to benefit from 15 week separation payment before the implementation of the WFAD legislation that became effective July 15,1995. The grievor was informed that in view of her hasty departure and the work backlog, it could not approve her request for PIL as additional costs were incurred after the grievor's departure. The department had to assign other personnel and pay overtime to clear the grievor's backlog. Approval of the PIL under these circumstances would have been contrary to the intent of the WFAD. Accordingly, the department maintained that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive.

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 the employee left knowing the conditions of her departure. There was still work to be performed and additional costs were incurred.

The grievance was denied.