Minutes of the National Workforce Adjustment Committee

Workforce Adjustment Committee
Minutes of the National Workforce Adjustment Committee
October 2, 2013

LOCATION: 233 Gilmour Street, Suite 800, Ottawa

Management

Union

Claude P. Tremblay
Lucie Houle
France Sarazin
Leanne Given

Bill Blair
Robert Hume
Sylvie Lahaie
Hicham Youssfi
Annette Melanson

 

1. National Updates Combined Affected Employee List / Preferred Status Report

Management stated that the Agency had issued 934 affected letters as a result of Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP) initiatives and 280 affected letters in relation to Targeted Review (TR) initiatives tied to Budget 2013. The absorption rate was at 83% for DRAP, TR, regular business, and cost containment initiatives. In addition, the vacancy/risk management of attrition was tracking at 73%. With regard to UTE, 86 employees were affected by the announcements in September 2013.

Since June 2012:

  • 1195 UTE members had received an affected letter.
  • 80% (957) had been resolved, leaving 238 unresolved situations.
  • 58 employees had yet to decide if they would accept an offer to relocate.
  • 11 affected employees had refused a Reasonable Job Offer (RJO) and were added to the laid-off preferred status list.

On September 5, 2013:

  • 67 options letters had been distributed to employees who had been deemed affected as a result of the Records initiative (53) and the Modernization of Guard Services (14).
  • 180 non-EC employees were affected as a result of reductions in internal services; 86 were represented by UTE and 94 were in the HR group.

The Targeted Review was more focused on internal services and therefore, impacted the Finance and Administration Branch, the Human Resources Branch, and the Information Technology Branch. There was no impact to the services to Canadians and, as always, the WFA provisions of the collective agreement would be respected. Management continued to work hard to find placements for those employees on the affected list.

Management stated that, in terms of demographics, the Agency’s population was continuing to age. Specifically, 22.9% of employees were aged 55 or over and the average age was 47.6. In each of the last three years, 1300 employees retired. As of April 1, 2013, 10.6% of the Agency’s permanent employees were eligible to retire without penalty.

2. Combined Affected Employee List / Preferred Status Report

The Union asked Management to explain the comment, “Does not want to be referred” as it pertained to employees on the list.

Management stated employees had specific reasons for not wanting to be referred. Only in cases where the employee had stated, in writing, that they did not wish to be referred at that time, was it indicated on the list.

The Union commented on the number of people on the list who were on sick leave and asked Management to provide context to the situation. They stated that sick leave should not be used to postpone a retention exercise. Until an employee informed the Agency of their intent to take medical retirement, they were still employees and should be considered for RJOs.

Management responded that affected employees on sick leave were dealt with in the same manner as any other employee. Management still respected the Injury and Illness process for these employees. Moreover, employees were affected because of a change in work they did and not because of an illness. When it cames to offering a RJO to an employee on sick leave, it was important that management consider each individual’s circumstances before determining whether timing was appropriate to offer a RJO. Communication between the employee and management was extremely important in these cases.

Management clarified that if options letters were being issued, all affected employees, including those on sick leave, would be issued a letter at the same time. Only in cases where a RJO was going to be offered, could management defer the timing of the RJO depending on the specifics of the sick leave. In certain cases of sick leave an employee might not be ready to return to work and would not want the Agency imposing a RJO upon them given the gravity of their illness. Management stressed the importance of having discussions of these specific cases at the local WFA committee meetings.

The unresolved affected and preferred status lists were verified on a quarterly basis with the regions in order to ensure that there was no change in the situation for employees on sick leave, and that management was treating the employees on sick leave in a fair manner. Medical retirement, termination, or resignation options packages for return to work would still continue to be issued at the two-year point.

Management stated that affected employees were referred only after retention exercises had been completed, and a list of the remaining affected employees was created for the referals. 

The Union asked Management to consider different wording for those employees on sick leave.

Management suggested the wording, “Employee requesting not to be referred at this time due to medical issues”. All agreed with this suggestion.

The Union asked Management why there were no RJOs offered yet to employees who were on leave without pay other than sick leave.

Management would look into the matter and provide a response to the Union.

The Union noted that there were approximately 10 employees for which the comments indicated that retention exercises were in progress and asked for an update.

Management would look into the matter and provide a response to the Union.
Management stated that the National Capital Region Change Management Committee was looking at all employees in attempting to find placements for them. As an example, many branches were vying to offer RJOs to the SP-08s on the affected list.

The Union asked about the status of the affected SP-01s.

Management replied that some had been given a Guarantee of a Reasonable Job Offer (GRJO) and were waiting for a RJO. The Prairie region was expected to have most cases resolved within the next month or two. On the other hand, the Quebec region had offered options letters. Management added a final update to the list, noting that one employee in the Atlantic region had opted out of retention and accepted option C(i) as per the Work Force Adjustment Appendix of the collective agreement.

CLOSING REMARKS

The committee welcomed UTE representative, Robert Hume to the committee.
Both parties expressed their appreciation for the positive discussions and looked forward to the next meeting.

_____________________________
Claude P. Tremblay
Director General
Workplace Relations and
Compensation Directorate

______________________________
Date

 

_______________________________
Bill Blair
Union of Taxation Employees
Regional Vice-President
National Capital Region

_______________________________
Date