Contracting out

The grievors sought the benefits of Part 8 of the Work Force Adjustment directive.

The trainees performed duties at a specific work location, and when the work location was closed the trainees were declared surplus by local management. The duties performed at the work location were contracted out.

In question was whether the duties of the grievors were contracted out. The grievors were doing the same work as other employees at the work site and that by declaring the trainees surplus along with other workers the department had confirmed that they were part of the specific work location affected. Had the trainees belonged to a headquarters pool of workers, as claimed by the department, they could have continued to work or could have been reassigned to another location. The department advised that at the end of the program the trainees were expected to compete for indeterminate positions within the department, and not exclusively at the specific work location where their training occurred. The training of employees was not contracted out, and with so many locations being closed, the requirement for qualified trained employees was diminished. It was for this reason that the grievors were declared surplus.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Work Force Adjustment Committee in that the grievors were not treated within the intent of the directive. The trainees were treated as if they were employees at the location that was closing. Local management of the affected work location treated the grievors and communicated with the grievors in the same manner as other employees. It was agreed that the trainees were declared surplus primarily due to the fact that their work site was being closed and the work that they had been doing was going to be contracted out.

The grievances were upheld.