Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2554.Clipperton.88-08-29l EMPLOY.&SDEUI COURONNE OEL’ONTARIO CQMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 180 DuNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO. MO IZB- SUITEZIW 180, RUE DUNOAS 0”E.w TORONTO, ,ONTM,O, MO ,,?a - BUREAU 21w Between: Before: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD TELEPHONE/T.%&‘HONE (416, J%0888 25541 a7 OPSEU (Nancy Clipperton) Grievor and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer M.V. Watters Vice Chairman I. Freedman Member L. Turtle Member For the Grievor: R. Nelson Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers and Solicitors For the Employer: s. Patterson Solicitor Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community and Social Services Hearing: tune 14, 1988 .$ : . ? 0 DECISION This grievance was filed by Ms. Nancy Clipperton as a consequence of her unsuccessful application for the position of Income Maintenance Officer (I.M.O.) in the Stratford office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. She requested therein that she be awarded the position together with compensation retroactive to the start date. At the time of the competition, the grievor held the position of Income Maintenance Clerk-Receptionist which was classified as 0.A.G.6. She had occupied the position since December 10, 1979. This date represented the commencement of her work with the Ministry. As an Income Maintenance Clerk-Receptionist, the grievor engaged in the following activities: the provision of clerical support for the local office by answering client inquiries and relaying messages to appropriate personnel; the receipt and distribution of incoming mail and the preparation of outgoing mail for courier and Canada Post; the completion of Client Recording System documents from intake to pending stage; the set-up of Family Benefit Master files, medical files, and files for Income Maintenance Officers; the exercise of responsibility for the cheque write system, replacement, adjustment and DOE (Direct Operating Expenditures); the issuance of drug and dental cards; the preparation of vision care forms, cash receipt reports and attendance reports; and petty cash; the order of all forms and supplies; -l- the processing of all DOE invoices and the updating of office manuals; the batching of ONTAP profiles and the filing of Master Files; the typing-of memoranda and letters as directed; the opening and closing of.the office; and the securing of confidential documentation. The Board was informed that the position also entailed some computer operation. I” the period April, 1986 to March, 1987, the grievor served, in an acting capacity, as an Income Maintenance Officer. This opportunity arose by reason of the fact that several other employees in the office took maternity leaves of absence. Because of the resulting staff shortage, the grievor was assigned the responsibility for one and one-half caseloads for the first eight (8) months of the period. This encompassed approximately four hundred (400) files. Thereafter, she was.respo”sible for one (1) caseload spread across two (2) counties. While serving as an I.M.O., the grievor conducted client interviews and completed applications; updated reports; retrieved information to assess client eligibility or continued eligibility under the Family Benefits Act and Regulations; completed budget calculations for arrears and overpayment reviews; input information on O.N.T.A.P. to ensure that clients’ financial needs were met; and maintained contact with other cormsunity and government agencies with appropriate referrals being made in necessary cases. The tasks performed by the -2- grievor would appear to be consistent with those contained in the posting for the competition being considered. During the period in which she acted as an I.M.O., the grievor received two (2) performance appraisals. These were filed with this Board as Exhibits ‘6’ and ‘7’. The first of these appraisals covered the period June, 1985 to June, 1986; the Latter the period June, 1986 to April, 1987. Both were initially prepared by the grievor and then subsequently discussed with her supervisor, Ms. Marilyn Hohner. After such discussions, Ms. Hohner prepared a “face sheet” which included her comments in respect of the employee. In terms of both appraisals, the grievor rated her skills as either “distinguished” or “commendable”. While these ratings could be considered as being somewhat “self-serving”, it would seem that at the time the supervisor basically shared the assessment. The face sheets on the two appraisals read as follows: “Nancy has completed her own performance appraisal and I agree generally with her comments. Nancy is currently on a temporary assignment as an Income Maintenance Officer, carrying l-1/2 caseloads due to the maternity leaves of two I.M.O.‘s. She has managed to keep the work reasonably current and has used her knowledge of Family Benefits Legislation and ONTAP appropriately. Work has been monitored but very few errors or omissions have been noted. Nancy readily assumes responsibility delegated to her and took a lead role in training of contract clerical staff. Overall, her performance is most satisfactory.” (Exhibit ‘6’). “Nancy has completed almost 7-l/2 years with the Ministry. For the last~year she assumed the role of Income Maintenance Officer as an under fill for a maternity leave. She has completed her own performance appraisal form. I generally concur with her comments. -3- As an I.M.O., Nancy was able to perform the duties. Turn-around on applications and Present Condition Reports was good, quality generally satisfactory. Follow up on Field Review Dates could have been improved, but given the volume of paperwork and the area covered, along with the new responsibilities, performance was at the Level expected for Nancy’s level of experience as an I.M.O. Errors on files were no more frequent than any other I.M.O. with similar experience. Other areas which would require additional review as an I.M.O.: maintenance reviews; recording verification sources; budget calculations, especially those involving minimum shelter. Generally, she performed in the role in a satisfactory manner, and appeared to enjoy the opportunity. Overall, Nancy is a reliable employee, able to adapt to changes, enthusiastic and motivated. I look forward to another successful year working with her.” (Exhibit ‘7’). Educationally, the grievor has received the equivalent of Grade 12 standing through the Stratford Campus of Conestoga College. Additionally, she has received computer training at this same college and has taken advantage of various workshops offered by the Ministry. Ms. Clipperton does not possess a community college diploma. The successful applicant in the job competition was Ms. Diane Zumach. Ms. Zumach attended at the hearing and was called to present evidence on behalf of the employer. She was.also accorded the opportunity to fully participate in the proceedings as an interested party. The board was advised that she was aware of her right to be represented by separate counsel. Ms. Zumach indicated that she had declined to retain same. -4- The incumbent’s background was reviewed in her evidence and is summarised in her job application and personal resume which was filed as Exhibit ‘19’. Immediately prior to the competition, Ms. Zumach had worked on a contractual basis as an I.M.O. in the London Area Office for a period of two (2) months. Her responsibilities in this position were essentially of an “intake” nature, in that her contacts with clients were for purposes of taking an application for Family Benefits and for explaining the details of the program, if necessary. She did not have an “active caseload” while serving in this capacity. Prior to this experience, Ms. Zumach had worked for approximately nine (9) months in the same office as a Retroactive Budget Calculations Clerk. This position, which is classified as OAGE, required her to interview clients to determine the existence of either arrears or overpayments. This function necessarily demanded that she work in close cooperation with the I.M.O.‘s. Her efforts in such position were also performed pursuant to a contract. It was Ms. Zumach’s evidence that she hoped to obtain a more permanent position in the civil service. Indeed, this objective motivated her application for the I.M.O. job . currently under consideration; In the period September, 1985 to October, 1986, Ms. Zumach worked under contract as an intake worker in the Family Court Clinic in London, Ontario. This involved the conduct of intake interviews with young offenders and their families. Additionally, she served as part of an agency team which undertook psychological assessments and testing in appropriate cases. The position allowed an opportunity for research, -5- report writing, and the analysis of computer output. Placements at the Children’s Psychiatric Research Institute in 1984 and at Wycliffe-Booth House in 1985 provided Ms. Zumach with additional experience in the field of learning disabled and troubled youth. She was also involved with the Community Task Force on Alcoholism in the years 1972-1974. Ms. Zumach received a diploma in 1986 from Fanshawe College as a ‘Social Service Worker’. She had previously taken community college courses in the areas of difficult youth and accounting management. The posting for the instant vacancy reads as follows: “COMPETITION FILE #LA-AO-87-20 INCOME MAINTENANCE OFFICER 1 VACANCY OFFICE ADtiINISTRATfON 10 ‘SCHEDULE 3,7 SALARY RANGE: $13.28 - $14.91 PER HOUR OPEN COMPETITION POSTING DATE: OCTOBER. 19., 1987 CLOSING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1987 The Ministry of Community and Social Services requires an individual to manage a Family Benefits Allowance caseload including: scheduling work, interviewing clients, completing related documentation to ensure that clients receive all benefits to which they are entitled, determining clients’ eligibility and entitlement under the Family Benefits Act. To provide information, practical advice and guidance to clients regarding Family Benefits Allowance or available community resources, referring clients for specialised services where appropriate. To investigate and complete reports on assigned cases. LOCATION : STRATFORD AREA OF SEARCH: London Area Office including all Local Offices, Sprucedale, Observation 6 Detention, Probation and Resource file. QUALIFICATIONS: A mature and highly motivated individual is -6- c required and must possess a detailed knowledge of Family Benefits and related legislation. A demonstrated understanding of financial transactions such as mortgages, insurance policies, etc. Candidates will also be assessed on their ability to make decisions and to calculate, accurately, allowance entitlements. The ability to organire, prioritize and manage a large caseload. The ability to work under the pressure of various deadlines and to work both interdependently and as a member of a team. Working knowledge of community and social service agencies. Must have a proven record of exercising good and mature judgment and have the ability to deal tactfully with clients, various employees and community agencies, while utilizing discretion in dealing with matters of a confidential nature. Applicants must have proven verbal and written communication and language skills and the ability to interpret and explain legislation; proven ability to interview effectively; ability to maintain case records and demonstrated ability to prepare and write comprehensive, organized reports. Excellent interpersonal skills are required as well as sensitivity and empathy to client needs and the ability to maintain a good rapport with both clients and other staff members. The possession of a valid Ontario driver’s license. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT Please submit application/resume quoting competition file number LA-AO-87-20 to: A.R.A. Smith Administrative Co-ordinator Ministry of Communi.ty~.and Social Services 6th Floor, 495 Richmond Street London, Ontario N6A 5A9” (Exhibit ‘5’) The union did not raise any objection LO the content or sufficiency of the posting. We have reviewed and compared it vith the specifications for the I.M.O. position which were filed as Exhibit ‘15’. It is not necessary to cite the latter in its entirety in the body of this award. Our conclusion from such comparison is that the posting, in terms of the identified requirements and qualifications, is consistent with the position specifications. -7- The panel which interviewed seven (7) of the applicants on November 13, 1987 was comprised of Mr. John Wiebe; Mr. Tony Bonacourso; and Ms. Marilyn Hohner. Mr. Wiebe has been with this Ministry since 1972. He presently serves as an I.M.O. Supervisor and in such capacity has acted as the supervi,sor of Ms. Zumach in the London office. He testified that he has had extensive experience in interviewing for the I.M.O. position. Mr. Bonacourso has been a Human Resources representative in the London office for approximately six (6) years. The last member of the panel, Ms. Hohner, has been the local administrator of the Stratford office since 1978. As noted above, she had previously supervised the grievor. Ms. Hohner served as chair of the selection team. The board was informed’that she welcomed each of the candidates as they entered the interview area and that she thereafter tried to make them as comfortable and relaxed as possible. Each panel member was assigned specific questions to ask of each of the applicants. The answers given were individually scored by the panelists without there being any discussion at the’time. Each question was graded upon receipt of the response. A total of twelve (12) questions were asked from a prepared question sheet. This sheet also listed a number of “key points” representing items that should form part of a complete answer. Immediately to the right of these “key points” was a space for each interviewer to make specific comments. The question sheet also cited the possible marks for each question and provided a further space for the recording of the mark received by the candidate in question. -a- Totalling of the marks assigned to each question was delayed until the conclusion of the interview. These totals were not discussed by the team until all of the interviews were completed at the end of the day. At that time, Ms. Hohner prepared a ranking sheet for all persons interviewed. This was filed with us as Exhibit’lO’ of which more will be said below. The questions asked of the candidates in the competition were designed and, in our estimation, served to address the major requirements for the position of I.M.O. as contained in Exhibit ‘15’. The questions gave each of the interviewees an opportunity to: (i) provide information as to how their education and experience related to their perception of the position; (ii) indicate why they were attracted to the position; (iii) indicate their general knowledge of the intent and scope of the Family Benefits system; (iv) comment on their ability to use time management techniques in the context of a sizeable caseload; (VI describe in a general’ fashion what skills and techniques a good interviewer should possess and then to provide an outline of their experience with interviewing; (vi) their ability to problem-solve in a difficult situation that could confront an I.M.O. when visiting a client’s home to take an application; (vii) demonstrate an understanding of what human qualities and skills they possess that would make them effective in dealing with clients; (viii) anticipate what aspects of the position they would find the most difficult; (ix) show an awareness of the effects of errors on both the client and the Ministry; -9- (x) demonstrate their ability to reprioritize when given additional assignments; (xi) state their preferred model of supervision; and, (xii) anticipate and project the comments of their present employer vis a vis certain selected items such as attendance, punctuality, etc. The questions themselves had been previously employed in other competitions, including one involving Ms. Zumach. We find them to have been acceptable for purpose of this competition, subject to the caveat that it is usually impossible during the course of a relatively short interview to cover all areas of the job. In presenting its case, the union did not take strong objection to these questions. The numerical results of the competition, as reflected on Exhibit ‘10’ was as follows: Candidate Panelists Mark out of 82 Bonacourso Wiebe Hohner Total Diane Zumach 70 57 53 180 Celina Thomas 60 43 58 161 Nancy Parsons-Farr 51 54 56 161 Nancy Clipperton 55 50 51 156 Gibb 57 47 37 141 Ische 58 30 39 127 Chaney 44 39 37 120 The panel, for reasons not fully explained, elected to restrict any further consideration to the first three (3) candidates. As noted above, Ms. Zumach was then in a second contract position with the Ministry. Ms. Thomas and Ms. Parsons-Farr were both external candidates. -IO- Unfortunately, an error in computation was made by Mr. Bonacourso in respect of Ms. Zumach’s scores. Rather than receiving a score of seventy (70), she should have been credited with a score of sixty (60), this being the sum of all of the individual marks given for the twelve (12) questions. Accordingly, her total score was in reality one hundred and seventy (170) rather than the one hundred and eighty (180) as inserted into Exhibit ‘IO’. This mistake was not noticed until sometime after the filing of this grievance. In its deliberations, the panel therefore wrongly assumed that Ms. Zumach had received the higher score. In their evidence presented at the hearing, the individual panel members did not attach much significance to the reduced margin of difference between the grievor’and the incumbent. All thought the latter to be the preferable candidate. We can only conjecture at this juncture as to what effect, if any, would have been given to Ms. Zumach’s lower score had same been discovered prior to the disputed decision having been taken. As stated above, the panel did not consider the grievor further after determining that she stood fourth in terms of total points. Specifically, they did not feel compelled to consider her greater seniority, nor did they have regard to her performance appraisals for the period she performed in the I.M.O. position. Ms. Hohner did not volunteer any information as to the contents of the grievor’s personnel file, as she did not consider it relevant after the decision was made to consider only the top three (3) applicants. It was also her evidence that “she wasn’t -ll- aware of anything that would have raised the grievor up”. Indeed, in cross-examination, she testified that she graded the grievor solely on what was said in the interview. It is apparent from the evidence of Mr. Wiebe that mention was not made of Exhibits ‘6’ or ‘7’ within the competition. He had personal knowledge that the grievor had acted as an I.M.O. for one (1) year, but did not know that she carried one and one-half caseloads for much of the period. Mr. Bonacourso in his score sheet (Exhibit 14) noted that Ms. Zumach was currently an I.M.O. in the London office. His failure to make a similar notation on the score sheet for the grievor suggests that he may not have been aware of her prior experience as an I.M.O. He did not recall being advised that the grievor had carried one and one-half caseloads. In contrast to the treatment accorded the grievor, the panel did receive information on Ms. Zumach’s past performance. This was conveyed by Mr. Wiebe,who had previously been her supervisor. His impressions of her “favourable performance appraisal” was shared with the other members of the selection team. They did not, however, actually review such appraisals. The documentation was not filed with this board as part of the employer’s case. Much time was spent at the hearing in questioning the panel as to why they assigned the specific grades to the two (Zjcandidates. Emphasis was naturally placed on those questions where the margin was greatest. We do not intend to repeat all of the reasons provided. Our overall impression is that the panel collectively considered Ms. Zumach to be the better communicator. Her answers, in their estimation, were the more -12- , complete. From their evidence, it would seem that the grievor did not present her prior experience, or extract from it, as well as might be expected. The panel, despite some advance preparation for the interviews, did not appear to be entirely consistent in the manner in which they assigned marks for the individual questions. One member stated that a mark was given for each key point; another disputed that this method was employed. When confronted with the fourteen (14) point differential in scores between the grievor and Ms. Zumach, both Mr. Wiebe and Ms. Hohner stated that it did not amount to a situation of relative equality. The former was initially unable to clarify what difference in points would constitute relative equality. He later said “three or four points” and “three or four percent”. The latter indicated that employees are “only relatively equal if the points are identical”. The third member of the panel, Mr. Bonacourso, when confronted with the five (5) point discrepancy in his scores, stated in cross-examination that they were ‘relatively equal’. Nonetheless, he continued to hold the opinion that Ms. Zumach was the best candidate as she could verbalise better and was more knowledgeable despite what appeared to be a “slight point differential”. After the interviews had concluded, the grievor was advised by Ms. Hohner that the position was going to be offered to Ms. Zumach. Her recollection was that she was told by her supervisor that while the interview “went well”, her answers did not come out as elaborately as . -13- i expected. The grievor further stated that she was informed that Ms. Zumach got the position “based on educational qualifications alone” and that her experience in actually doing the job was not taken into consideration. After this comment, the grievor asked about how she could obtain the necessary educational qualifications. Ms. Hohner disputed this part of the grievor’s evidence. Specifically, she denied making the statement attributed to her as to why Ms. Zumach was the successful candidate. It was her recollection that Ms. Clipperton first raised the subject of education in the context of a general discussion as to how the grievor could improve her interview performance. Article 4.3 of the collective agreement is the provision relevant to the resolution of this grievance. It reads as follows: “In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration.” Numerous panels of this board have had the opportunity to interpret and apply this article. Clear standards have been established for the parties, both as to the essential elements of a competition and as to what effect should be given to greater seniority. With respect to process, the award in MacLeLlan and DeGrandis 506/81, 507/81, 690/81, 691/81 (Samuels) summarises the criteria established by which to judge a competition. The criteria were stated therein as follows: -14- * ~. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Candidates must be evaluated on all the relevant qualifications for the job as set out in the Position Specification. The various methods used to assess the candidates should address these relevant qualifications insofar as is possible. For example, interview questions and evaluation forms should cover all the qualifica- tions. Irrelevant factors should not be considered. All the members of a selection committee should review the personnel files of all the applicants. The applicants’ supervisors should be asked for their evaluations of the applicants. Information should be accumulated in a systematic way concerning all the applicants.” (pages 25-26) It is our judgment, after considering all of the evidence, that the instant panel did not satisfy items 3, 4 and 5. First, they did not review the grievor’s personnel file or performance appraisals. These were readily available and could have been reviewed or clarified by Ms. Hohner if necessary. A careful consideration of these documents was clearly required in this case, as they pertained to the grievor’s “ability to perform the required duties”. Indeed, the appraisals would have provided the panel with certain concrete insights as to how the grievor had actually performed in the position for a significant period of time. In our estimation, it was most unfair and prejudicial for the panel to ignore such information in respect of the grievor and, at the same time, to accept Mr. Wiebe’s favourable assessment of Ms. Zumach. The panel, in our opinion, should have reviewed the appraisals of both candidates. Additionally, the comments of both supervisors, each of whom were on the panel, should have -15- s been solicited and considered. The need to have regard to this type of relevant information was also discussed in Quinn, 9/78 (Prichard); Bullen, 113/82 (Samuels); and Alan, 0735/85 (Brandt). The failure to obtain and review such data in these instances significantly contributed to the decision of the respective boards to interfere with the initial management decision. The omission in this case likely led the selection team to place undue emphasis on the incumbent’s communication skills and educational achievements. While the former is relevant to the job in question, the posting and position specification do not require that an I.M.O. hold a community college diploma. As noted above, the panel restricted their consideration to the top three (31 candidates. From the perspective of the grievor, therefore, the competition was determined entirely on the basis of her interview. She was excluded from any subsequent discussion because the panel concluded that her score was not comparable to those of Ms. Zumach, Ms. Thomas or Ms. Parsons-Farr. The action taken by the panel was clearly contrary to the requirements of Article 4.3 in that it seriously limited their ability to consider the grievor’s “ability to perform the required duties”. The ultimate assessment must be made on the basis of more than just the result generated by answers to questions asked in an interview. In limiting their review and investigation, the panel in this case did not fully exercise the responsibilities imposed on them by the collective agreement. Their failure to do so in this instance could have materially affected the resul of this competition. -16- For all of these reasons, we find the competition to have been fundamentally flawed. The more difficult question as in Alam (cited above) is one of remedy. Specifically, the issue is whether this panel of the board has sufficient information before it to assess the respective qualifications and abilities of the candidates so as to be in a position to award the job to the grievor should we find her to be superior, or at least relatively equal to Ms. Zumach. The alternative, if this question cannot be answered in the affirmative, is to order a rerun of the competition with or without conditions attached. After considering all of the evidence adduced, we are not satisfied that it is sufficient to allow us to properly determine the relative status of the grievor and Ms. Zumach vi6 a vis their ability to perform the required duties of the I.M.O. position. While we think that they are both qualified and able to do the job in question, this, in and of itself, does not lead to a situation of relative equality. In our view, we lack the necessary evidence to properly assess the abilities of Ms. Zumach. While testimony was led as to her past positions in the Ministry, we were not provided with any performance appraisal other than through Mr. Wiebe’s comment that such were “favourable”. As we have been critical of the panel for acting in the absence of such information, we think it would be improper for the board to determine the issue of relative equality without first reviewing and assessing the performance appraisals and other relevant material within the respective personnel files. As we have not had this opportunity, and in view of the significant -17- flaws in the competition, we believe it more appropriate to order a second competition be held. Before turning to the conditions which we elect to attach to our order, we are compelled to state our perception that the selection panel in this case did not appear to fully understand the requirements inherent in Article 4.3. First, they conducted a competition that conflicted significantly with the standards established by this board. Second, it is our assessment that they did not have a firm or sufficient understanding as to what is meant by relative equality. Mr. Wiebe was vague in describing the significance of the concept. Ms. Hohner was clearly in error in thinking that relative equality demanded equality in score. Had we been in a position to make the comparative assessment, we would have been inclined to adopt the approach taken in Re Textile Workers Union and Lady Galt Towels Limited (19691, 20 L.A.C. 382 (Christie) subject to the modification articulated in Great Atlantic 6 Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (19791, 21 L.A.C. (2d) 444 (Weatherill). Specifically, we think the real test is to determine who is best qualified by a substantial and demonstrable margin. If the margin is less than substantial, then qualifications are relatively equal. In this case, we believe that seniority would have been determinative, if relative equality had been established. The employer in our minds did not isolate any factors or considerations which would justify ignoring the grievor’s greater seniority. Lastly, the panel did not leave us confident that they had accurately and properly assessed the candidates. As noted earlier, the marking methodology was not entirely consistent. -18- Additionally, the individual panel members did not in all cases fully record their reasons for assigning a particular grade to a specific question. In certain instances, for example a candidate’s response was simply rated as ‘good’ or ‘fair’ with a mark assigned. The lack of additional comments makes it difficult for both the interviewer or a board of arbitration to subsequently assess the validity of the grade. For all of the above reasons, it is our judgment that the competition should be re-run subject to conditions. These conditions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. It should be restricted to the grievor and Ms. Zumach; The selection panel should not include any of the three (3) individuals who conducted the process which we have found to be flawed; The process should be commenced within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this award, subject to mutual agreement as to the extension of time; A fresh set of questions should be prepared for the interviews. These questions should reflect the position specification as of the date of the last competition; The selection panel is to review the personnel files, including performance appraisals, of the candidates. Additionally, the supervisors of the grievor and Ms. Zumach are to provide their written evaluations; The selection panel is to discount the experience gained by Ms. Zumach since her appointment to the contested I.M.O. position; and, The selection panel is to develop and employ a consistent scoring methodology. The reasons for assigning particular grades to specific questions are to be recorded on the scoring sheets. -19- The grievance is accordingly allowed in part. We will retain jurisdiction to resolve any difficulties that may develop in the implementation of this award. Dated a,t Windsor, Ontario, this 29th day of August 1988. -2o- -