Reasonable job offer

The employee grieved that he was not treated within the intent of the Directive in regard to a reasonable job offer.

The grievor was occupying an indeterminate position at Department (A). The employee grieved that he was not treated within the intent of the Directive in regard to reasonable job offer and was declared surplus by that same department. During his surplus period, the grievor was seconded to Department (B). The day after he was laid off by Department (A), he was hired as a term employee by Department (B). Department (B) did not renew his term and the grievor submitted a grievance with Department (B) for not making him a reasonable job offer.

The Bargaining Agent representative referred to section 1.1.23 of the Directive and stated that the grievor accepted a secondment to Department (B) in January 1993 and worked there until the end of September 1995. He was advised by Department (A) that he would be laid off effective June 30, 1994 unless he was appointed to another position. He did not grieve the lay off letter because the grievor believed that it did not apply to him since one cannot be laid off if one is still working which he was. The day after he was laid off by Department (A), he was appointed as a term employee by Department (B) which became the new home department.

The Bargaining Agent representative also referred to section 1.1 24 of the Directive and stated that Department (B) had the obligation to protect the indeterminate status of the grievor. He claimed that Management did not have the right to change the grievor's indeterminate status to that of term and consequently terminate him without offering him another position. In addition to not being treated within the intent of the Directive as outlined above, it should be noted that at no time was the grievor given a reasonable job offer in writing. In conclusion, for all the aforementioned reasons, the recommendation should be to allow the grievance.

The Departmental representative stated the grievor was officially advised that his position would be declared surplus at Department (A). A copy of the Work Force Adjustment Directive (WFAD) was attached to the letter and was provided with the name of his WFA counselor. Furthermore, he was advised of his rights under the WFAD. At the time, the grievor indicated that his mobility was restricted to 4 cities. He was advised that any restriction to his area of mobility could seriously limit job opportunities with the Federal Government.

After being declared surplus at Department (A), the grievor was seconded to Department (B) until the day he was laid off by Department (A). The next day he was hired by Department (B) as a Term employee. Department (B) did not renew his term and submitted his grievance thereafter. During his surplus status, the grievor was considered for 7 indeterminate job opportunities and 5 term positions. Two of the indeterminate job opportunities were canceled by the departments and the remaining five were not in the grievor's area of mobility. With regards to the 5 term referrals, he indicated to the PSC that he was not interested in two of the other positions as they were not in his area of mobility and the remaining two as he was already on a term appointment. Based on the job offers that were made to the grievor, the grievance should be denied.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Work Force Adjustment Committee report which concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with this grievance given that at the time the grievance was filed the grievor was a term employee and therefore not subject to the WFAD.