Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about the process surrounding the potential job reductions in our public service. I want to restate the disbelief on the part of my constituents who got notices and then approached me, having to be told I had no idea their jobs were potentially affected — people who had worked, many of them, for the GNWT for over 20 years. It was bewildering to have to tell them I did not know their jobs were impacted.
The normal process for any job loss in a Member’s riding would be a letter from the relevant Minister giving the name, job title and reasons why the position was being eliminated. After employees had received their notification, it took three weeks for the GNWT to respond to Members, giving them a list of the positions affected in their constituencies. Naturally, then came the request for some kind of explanation why things were handled the way they were.
I want to provide some examples of some very valid concerns that have been raised with me and for which I did not have an answer. If there are four people working in one shop, all doing relatively the same function, why would the GNWT tell them they’re all affected employees and then conduct a competition to fill three of the positions? Would it not have been better to canvass the four employees to see if anyone wanted voluntary separation or early retirement? Early retirement might cost the government if they were offering retirement without any penalty to pension benefits, but how would that cost compare to the severance they would be paying to the employee who was being eliminated? Those are answers we don’t have.
What grounds would be used to decide the three successful candidates? If they were all equal, would it be based on merit? Would it be based on seniority? If it was based on seniority, potentially you’d be losing employees with fewer years of service and soon thereafter losing the employee who had the seniority, perhaps even six to 12 months later. All this while we say we are struggling to recruit and retain workers and keep some status as an employer of choice.
Let me provide another curious scenario. An employee receives notification of being affected. They have the credentials to provide a service that’s similar to a lot of other people who work in the same shop. They are in the prime of their career. Another employee with similar experience and qualifications comes forward and asks for voluntary separation, assuming that the affected employee would then be able to fill that position. In my mind, that would solve a problem for two employees: the one who wanted to leave and the one who wanted to stay. But the employee requesting voluntary separation is denied the request. Then the question arises: what was the motivation for the position-eliminating in the first place? Was it cost savings, or were the reductions a licence to remove employees no longer wanted for some other reason?
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I’ve asked before and have not got an answer, what recourse does the affected employee have? In fact, the government could be cited for wrongful dismissal. How many employees without the benefit of the protection and the advocacy of their union in this instance would have the resources to seek a legal opinion and take the GNWT on? What kind of unbearable work environment would that create for them going forward?
These are real cases. They are questions I don’t have answers for. I’ve tried to pursue some answers from the Minister of Human Resources, but I have not had satisfactory responses. Again, today, I will try to get some clear indication about the process by which these affected positions were identified.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
