National Work Force Adjustment (WFA) Committee Meeting Record of Discussion

Workforce Adjustment Committee
National Work Force Adjustment (WFA) Committee Meeting Record of Discussion
February 21, 2017
LOCATION:  395 Terminal Avenue, 7th floor

Management

Johanne LeBlanc
Josée Lafontaine
France Sarazin
Donna Lee
Jean Stewart
Valerie Walters

Union

Bill Blair
Kent MacDonald
Cosimo Crupi
Gabriel Bourdon
Theresa Greenhough (by conference call)

Opening Remarks

Management welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Union stated that they were happy to be back at the table but displeased with the amount of time it took to book the Work Force Adjustment (WFA) Committee meeting and at the amount of information provided to them since the Service Renewal announcement. They noted that the deck provided in November was lacking information and was not the same that they were used to seeing.

They were concerned with the treatment of term employees, stating it was not in keeping with the CRA values or the long service that many had provided. The Union encouraged Management to provide referrals to the Employee Assistance Program, as all employees were entitled to receive support. They expressed hope that the Union and Management would return to open and transparent consultation, as demonstrated in previous WFA initiatives.

Updated Terms of Reference

The group confirmed that both parties agreed with the Terms of Reference that had been signed in May 2016.

Affected Employee List / Preferred Status Report

Management provided the Union with an update on the combined affected employee list / preferred status report. The Union reiterated their position that employees on sick leave should not be on the WFA list for an extended period of time. They would prefer to have individuals on sick leave be given a Reasonable Job Offer (RJO) and following that, these situations could be managed through the illness and injury process, as needed.

Management noted that, related to Service Renewal, there were 909 employees who had declined relocation. Of those, 828 received a Guarantee of a Reasonable Job Offer (GRJO), 81 employees were affected after declining relocation and 9 employees were affected without an offer of relocation. Management confirmed there were 13 Union representatives on the WFA list. The Union asked why some employees hadn’t received a GRJO and highlighted some examples. Management said they would confirm the status with the regions. The Union also stated that they were aware that some of their members had declined relocation and were not on the list provided as affected employees.

The Union stated they would like the WFA list more often due to the frequent changes as a result of Service Renewal. They asked to receive an updated list at the end of March, end of April and quarterly following that. Management agreed to send the updated reports as requested.

Update on Service Renewal

  1. Timelines/Effect on Term Employees
  2. Briefings
  3. Changes Associated with Service Renewal

The Union said that they were hoping to receive additional information to answer their questions. After the announcement, they found that misinformation was circulating. They wanted to receive additional information specific to the Service Renewal initiative, such as:

  • The number of employees that agreed to relocate, where these employees currently worked, and where they were interested in relocating to;
  • The number of term employees impacted by these changes;
  • The impact on real property;
  • When RJOs would be offered; and,
  • Any timelines.

Management said that few employees had expressed an interest in relocating. They agreed to provide a more comprehensive response to the Union by March 7, 2017.

The Union was concerned that employees were not notified of the process of moving work between offices and hoped that additional information would be provided on an ongoing basis, including the rationale behind these changes. Union-Management Relations explained that Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) representatives would be meeting the Assistant Commissioners of the Collections and Verification Branch (CVB) and Human Resources Branch (HRB), and the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Assessment, Benefit, and Service Branch (ABSB) on March 3, 2017 to discuss the Service Renewal Initiative.

Management described some of the committees in place to share information and best practices between the regions. They explained that RJOs had been issued in the Atlantic, Quebec and Prairie regions, and a process was in place to ensure that all SP-01 to SP-07 and equivalent level employees were considered for permanent opportunities in the National Capital Region.

The Union thanked Management for their efforts to secure permanent positions for employees affected by WFA. They appreciated that Management was open to providing opportunities for promotions to employees that were affected, as this could provide continuous employment. Management also noted that term employees were being marketed for other assignments, such as other governmental departments in their region. Management mentioned a database that employees could use to request a lateral transfer within CRA that had been developed in the Ontario Region. Management planned to implement the database across the Agency within a year.

Future WFA Notifications Processes

The Union had several concerns with the Service Renewal announcement and notification process followed on November 15, 2016. They noted that the WFA notification letters and presentation did not follow the typical format and structure, and felt that they did not include sufficient detail. The Union hoped that future notices would be handled differently, with additional detail and a complete Human Resources Impact Analysis (HRIA). The Union stressed the importance of sharing complete information as it would enable Management and UTE to proactively address issues that arose throughout the WFA implementation, and they could find solutions together, following a consistent approach.

The Union noted the importance of a consistent approach, particularly when proceeding with RJOs or temporary lateral moves for affected employees. They provided examples of situations where they felt that communication could have been improved by providing frequently asked questions that were specific to a group of employees and their specific situation.

In addition, UTE expected they would be advised if there were Union representatives affected by this announcement.

Closing Remarks

The Union closed by saying that they were happy to be back to consultation and they hoped that the committee could meet again in early September 2017. They hoped that significant progress on the Service Renewal initiative would have been made by that time.

Management confirmed that the next meeting would take place in September, and said that they were happy UTE had returned to consultation. They acknowledged that there had been a change in the Management representatives on the portfolio at a key moment but they were hopeful that these issues had been resolved.

 

______________________________

Josée Lafontaine on behalf of    
Johanne LeBlanc
A/Director General
Employment Programs Directorate

____________________________

Date

 

 

 

_______________________________

Cosimo Crupi
Regional Vice-President
Ontario East and North Region
Union of Taxation Employees

_______________________________

Date