Workforce Adjustment Committee

Minutes of the Workforce Adjustment Committee

September 24, 2006
IN ATTENDANCE: Nick Stein Chair
John Kosiba TC Representative
Doug Gaetz  TSO Representative
Pierre Mulvihill  Technical Officer

AGENDA:

  1. Workforce Adjustment (WFA) lists of affected employees.
  2. Permanent Lateral Moves (PLMs) vs. Reasonable Job Offers (RJOs).
  3. Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) decision and resulting Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
  4. Guaranteed Reasonable Job Offers (GRJOs).
  5. CRA process for getting approval for RJOs and Surplus letters.
  6. Draft Bulletin from Committee on CRA WFA approach / guidelines.
  7. Questions from the President’s Conference.
  8. Normal commuting distance definition
  9. Globe and Mail article
  10. Employer’s agenda
  11. De-affected letters
  12. Preferred status

HOURS OF SESSION:

September 24 - 9h00 to 17h00

ISSUE

ACTION

Workforce Adjustment (WFA) lists of affected employees

The UTE lists will be updated for all regions and compared to the employer’s lists

Brother Stein

Permanent Lateral Moves (PLMs) vs. Reasonable Job Offers (RJOs)

The Commissioner’s letter of response to Local president Barb Stewart will be tabled at the next National Joint WFA Committee (NJWFAC) meeting.  We will enquire if what Mr. Dorais is stating is in fact occurring.  As well, the employer stated that if an affected employee refuses a PLM they will "immediately” be offered a RJO for the same job.

The Committee

Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) decision and resulting Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

The Committee discussed the MOA and that the employer was pushing PLMs to lower level position in some offices.

Guaranteed Reasonable Job Offers (GRJOs)

GRJO is an offer of continued employment within the CRA but not to a specific job while an RJO is an offer to a specific job. The Committee discussed the employer’s position that to get a GRJO an employee had to be declared surplus and the consensus was that we do not agree with this interpretation.

CRA process for getting approval for RJOs and Surplus letters

The Committee reviewed the employer’s “Request for approval of a Guarantee of a reasonable Job Offer or Access to the Options” form.  The committee concluded that for situations were there was no RJO available this was appropriate but in all other cases all this form did was dissuade managers from offering RJOs and pushing PLMs.  As well, Brother Stein will discuss with Sister Bannon about initiating discussions with HQ about lowering the delegation to the director level at a meeting with either the Commissioner or the A/C of HR .

The Committee
Brother Stein

Draft Bulletin from Committee on CRA WFA approach / guidelines

The Committee reviewed Brother Stein's draft and the bulletin will be sent out.

Brother Stein

Questions from the President’s Conference

There was the issue of pressure by managers on members to take PLMs even before the WFA situation was declared without any face to face meetings with the Local union representatives.  The Committee decided to reissue the information on PLMs vs. RJOs in the above noted bulletin.

Brother Stein

Normal commuting distance definition

Brother Stein advised the Committee that this issue had come up in the Ontario Region.  This subject is found in the WFA Annex of the Collective Agreement when dealing with the relocation of a work unit.

Globe and Mail article

Brother Stein spoke about a recent article in the Globe and Mail that spoke about a new wave of government cut backs.  We will Bring it to the attention of the employer at the next NJWFAC.

The Committee

Employer’s agenda

The committee reviewed the employer’s agenda items for the next NJWFAC meeting

De-affected letters

The committee reviewed examples of de-affected letters and will recommend that these are used when appropriate by the employer.

The Committee

Preferred Status

Brother Mulvihill identified a case he had worked on where a member with Preferred Status for two years had to find his own position.  The member was a PM-01 in the NCR who had two years of Preferred Status and was referred to a total of seven positions during that time.  Of the seven positions, he himself found five of them for the HR advisor.  He was not selected for any of the seven positions and the HR advisor did nothing else but refer the member to Staffing Policy.  This concern over the administration of the Preferred Status members will be brought up at the next NJWFAC meeting.

The Committee