Workforce Adjustment Committee

Minutes of the National Workforce Adjustment Committee

September 24, 2012

LOCATION: 233 Gilmour Street, Suite 800, Ottawa



Peter Cenne for Claude Tremblay
Lucie Houle
France Sarazin
Geneviève Béland
John Scapillati
Bonnie Lehman
Jean Stewart

Pamela Abbott
Bill Blair
Sylvie Lahaie
Hicham Youssfi
Kent MacDonald

1. British Columbia PSTAR Update

Management stated that the situation was still being looked at with respect to other ongoing initiatives and it was mentioned that a decision would be shared in the near future. 

The Union asked for an update on the number of employees who had declined the province’s offer. Management confirmed that 11 of 57 UTE employees had declined the offer. Two of the 11 employees had provided letters stating their intention to retire. 

2. Combined Affected Employee List / Preferred Status Report

Due to a formatting issue the list will be resent to the Union.

The Union expressed concern that there were employees on the list that were offered a Permanent Lateral Move (PLM).  They reiterated that PLMs were not part of the WFA process.

Management responded that all other affected employees at that group and level in the region had been considered for the position.

The Union requested clarification on the comments regarding one employee (397) on the Affected list. 

Management would look into the request and get back to UTE.

3. Retention Exercises

The Union requested confirmation that the national guidelines on retention had been distributed. Management confirmed that the Retention Process- Overview, final version had been posted on the Change Management Portal.

The Union asked if local Management were having conversations with their affected employees to know who wanted to participate in the retention process, prior to conducting retention exercises to determine if the retention exercise was required. UTE expressed their concern that the role of the local or regional Union-Management WFA committees was being overlooked during retention. 

Management responded that communication had been challenging at some times, because of the cabinet confidentiality requirements prior to the announcements and the many players involved.  In most situations, Management would be encouraged to complete the retention exercise in a timely manner to reduce uncertainty for the affected employees. 

The Union also asked for clarification around the statement in the retention process -  overview that made reference to “the manager’s current and future business requirements”.  They wanted to know if the future business requirements were specific to the role, or were they intended to be applied at a larger organizational level.

Management appreciated UTE’s feedback and stated that the intent was that the future business requirements would be specific to the position for which the retention exercise was being conducted, due to the business transformation. 

4. WFA Volunteers

The Union explained that there seemed to be reluctance from local Management to approach their employees for discussions around volunteering to participate in retention exercises.

Management thanked UTE for raising these concerns and stated that the Agency encouraged open communication between local Management and their employees.  However, they cautioned that Management may not be in the position to provide employees with clarity around the decision to offer a GRJO or access to the options as the decision to offer options requires the approval of the Commissioner. 


Both parties appreciated the good discussions on the issues and looked forward to the next meeting.

Original signed by
Peter Cenne for Claude P. Tremblay
Director General
Workplace Relations and
Compensation Directorate

March 7, 2013

Original signed by
Pamela Abbott
Union of Taxation
Regional Vice-President
Pacific Region

March 5, 2013