Workforce Adjustment Committee


Workforce Adjustment Committee
Workforce Adjustment Committee Logo


JUNE 2002

Nick Stein Item 11(h)

The committee has not met since our last meeting; however, there are items
to be reported to council.

At the March 2002 UTE Presidents’ Conference
the committee handed out WFA questionnaires. We received replies from 36
locals. The locals responded about the following possible WFA situations:
ARR and warehousing, compensation service, electronic purchasing and client
services. I am glad to report that our committee was aware of all of these
situations. This shows that the locals are advising the committee of WFA
matters and that the committee is communicating well with the locals. I
would like to THANK all of the locals that replied.

On February 20,2002 the PSSRB ruled on a
Section 99 complaint that was filed dealing with a WFA situation on the
Ottawa TC. The decision from Chairperson Henry was in favour of the Union.
This decision clears up the matter of a workforce change versus a workforce
situation. The PSSRB ruled that these are one in the same. That means
that the employer “MUST” advise
the Union of the names of “ALL” employees when it is determined
that a workforce situation occurs. Unfortunately, the employer is not complying
with the decision. UTE has contacted the PSAC on this non-compliance and
other legal options against the employer are being considered.

The London
local filed grievances on the client services matter and these replies
were issued May 7,2002. The replies were in favour of the grievors. This
will result in these members receiving “affected letters” as
per the collective agreement, specifically, the WFAA. This also means these
members will receive all rights under the WFAA that the employer would
not have given unless the grievances were filed. Once again, the employer’s
version of these grievance replies differs from ours. We will monitor this
situation very closely to ensure that these members receive the right(s)
they are entitled to. The London local and members should be congratulated
for taking this step, for without these members standing up for their rights,
the employer would continue to ignore the WFAA.

It is my opinion that even with these decisions, this employer still does
not understand that the collective agreement must be adhered to. The knowledge
of the employer on this issue is questionable at best and this is apparent
by how these matters are being handled in the field. WFA is an agenda item
at the National UMC June 6,2002, and hopefully, we will be able to convince
the employer at that meeting that our members rights must honoured.

Respectfully submitted,

Nick Stein,

Chair of the Committee

Visit often, and send us your comments to the if you have any problems.

Copyright © 2000-2013 UTE All Rights Reserved