The grievor was advised that his part-time position was declared surplus to requirements – he was entitled to an eight-week marketing period and indicated that he wished to be marketed – he was provided with a list of vacancies when he was declared surplus, and the employer assessed him during the notice period for vacancies, but he was given no updates – he also requested to work during the notice period but was refused as the employer considered that he had not provided a sound business case for his request – at adjudication, the grievor did not ask to be reinstated to his former position but instead to his former surplus status so that the employer could fulfill its obligations under the Workforce Adjustment Policy – the employer violated the policy by not providing the grievor with updates and by placing the onus on him to establish a business case for being permitted to work during the notice period – the specific remedy to be granted was left to a further hearing.

Grievance allowed in part.