Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0165.Policy.94-04-14Grievor and— The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer Vice- Chairperson Member Member BEFORE: IR. Verity M. Lyons C. Linton FOR THE- E. Mitchell GRIEVOR Counsel Koskie & Minsky Barristers & Solicitors FOR:THE R. Little EMPLOYER Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart & Storie Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE THIRD M. Ryan PARTY Barrister & Solicitor HEARING November 25, 1993 December 17, 1993 January 10, 1994 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE CON.TARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT ' REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNOAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE /TELEPHONE: (416) 326 -1388 180, RUE OUNOAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILE!TELECOPIE : (416) 326 -1396 165/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OLBEU (Policy Grievance) Grievor and— The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer Vice- Chairperson Member Member BEFORE: IR. Verity M. Lyons C. Linton FOR THE- E. Mitchell GRIEVOR Counsel Koskie & Minsky Barristers & Solicitors FOR:THE R. Little EMPLOYER Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart & Storie Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE THIRD M. Ryan PARTY Barrister & Solicitor HEARING November 25, 1993 December 17, 1993 January 10, 1994 2 DECISION In a policy grievance dated March 17, 1993, the union claims that the employer violated the posting provisions of Article 21 of the collective agreement by failing to fill a number of vacancies for full -tune positions of help desk analyst. at head office. The employer contends that the board lacks jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the positions in question were created as "training and development" opportunities within . the employer's exclusive authority under s.18(1)(b) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. R.S.O. 1990 c.C.50. The union contends that the positions in dispute are not training and development positions but rather legitimate vacancies for permanent positions which the employer refuses to fill contrary to Article 21 of the collective agreement. Article 21 of the relevant collective agreement reads as follows: ARTICLE 21 Assignments and Job Postings 21.1 Employees shall progress through the steps of the salary ranges of their classification in accordance with the procedures of the Employers, as established from time to time on the basis of satisfactory written recommendations and subject to the approval of the Employers. The Employers agree to permit employees to examine the said written recommendations upon their completion by the Supervisor or Department Head and will provide a copy of the Assessment Report if so requested: i 3 21.2 An employee promoted to a higher classification set out in any approved classification schedule shall be entitled to a salary increase of at least one (1) step or an increase to the minimum of the range attached to the higher classification whichever is greater and such increases will be effective upon the effective date of promotion. 213 Where the classification of a store is changed all promotions resulting there from, within,the bargaining unit, shall be posted and filled in accordance with the provisions of Article 21.4. 21.4 (a) If a new job classification within the bargaining unit is created or a permanent vacancy occurs in an existing job classification before inviting applications from persons not employed by the Employers,' the Employers will post within the geographic area as specified, notice of such new job -or vacancy for a period of ten (10) working days during which employees within such area may apply. The notice shall stipulate qualifications, classification, salary range, department and location concerned. (b) For the purpose-of Article 21.5(a), a promotion shall be deemed to include: (i) the assignment of a permanent full-time employee to another permanent full- time position in a class with a higher maximum salary rate than the class of his/her former position; or (ii) -the assignment of a permanent part-time employee to a permanent full-time position if there was no permanent full-time employee eligible and qualified for the position; or (iii) the assignment of a permanent part-time employee to another permanent part- time position with a higher weekly salary than his/her former position; or, (iv) the assignment of a casual to a permanent part -time position in accordance with the provisions of Article 31.4 (c) Where the opening of a new operation necessitates the transferring of employees to complete the required complement because of insufficient applicants under Article 21.4(a) above, then preference with regard to transferring -to the new location shall be given to the views of the more senior employees. (d) Where an employee is to be transferred, the employee shall be given two (2) weeks' notice of transfer where practicable. 21.5 (a) Where employees are being considered for promotion, seniority will be the determining factor provided the employee is qualified to perform the work. (b) Notwithstanding the provision of Article 21S(a) within any calendar year the Employers may identify a limited number of permanent part-time vacancies as vacancies to be filled by special merit promotion. In no case shall special merit promotions exceed ten percent (10 %) of all promotions within the calendar year. Special merit promotions shall be so identified on the job posting and shall be awarded to bargaining unit employees only. In filling special merit promotions the Employers agree to give consideration to the qualifications and ability of permanent part -time employees and casuals to perform the duties of a vacant permanent part-time position. Where two (2) or more such employees are'relatively equal in qualifications and abilities, the permanent part-time employee with the greatest seniority shall be awarded the position. If the employees who are deemed relatively equal are casuals, the senior casual shall be awarded the position. 4 (c) Where it is decided that it is necessary to make a temporary appointment to fill a temporary vacancy, including summer stores, which will last five (5) working days or more, or one day in the case of stores, the Employer shall appoint the most senior employee in the next lowest classification in the department, section or store involved, who is qualified and available to perform the work. 21.6 It is understood that the employees of each Employer_ will constitute a separate unit for the purpose of Articles 21.4 and 215. 21.7 Where the Employers select a candidate for a position advertised by a Job Posting Circular, from employee applicants, the successfiil candidate's name, department number and seniority shall be announced in writing within twenty (20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the Job Posting Circular. Should no person presently employed by the Employers at the time of the opening be deemed to be satisfactory to the Employers' requirements, the Employers shall so announce in writing within twenty (20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the Job Posting Circular. 21.8 (a) Other than for P- Circulars concerning positions in Metropolitan area stores inviting applications from employees, should the Employers select an employee to be the successful candidate to a P- Circular advertising a position, the Employers shall announce the name, .department number and seniority of the successful candidate within twenty (20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the circular. (b) In the case of P- Circulars advertising positions in "Metropolitan" area stores, the Employers shall announce the name, department number and seniority of a successful candidate within twenty (20) days of appointment. Note: It is recognized that unusual circumstances may prevail so as not to allow proper selection of a person to fill a vacant position within the time limits prescribed in Article 21.7 and 21.8, in which case additional time may be necessary. The Employers and the Union agree to cooperate so as to allow for proper selection of a person to fill any such vacancy. 21.9 (a) In the event an employee who has been promoted is unable to perform the requirements . of the position in a satisfactory manner within a period not exceeding three (3) months from date of appointment, the employee shall be reclassified to the employee's previous classification and assigned to the step in the salary range attained immediately prior to promotion. (b) An employee who is demoted and to whom section (a) above'does not apply shall be assigned to a step in the new salary range closest to but less than the rate he /she was receiving at the time of demotion. 21.10 Where a bargaining unit employee accepts a position with the Employer outside the bargaining - unit, his/her seniority for promotional purposes shall continue to accumulate during such.time as that employee is outside the bargaining unit only for a maximum of five (5) years. 21.11 It is agreed that vacancies in the positions of C Store Manager and A Store Assistant shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Collective Agreement. The Employer further agrees not to transfer A Store Assistants to C Store Manager positions or vice- versa. 5 It is common ground that the board has no jurisdiction to deal with legitimate questions of training "and development. This dispute involves the relationship on the one hand between s.7 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and Article 21 negotiated under it, and on the other hand s.18(1)(b) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. The .parties agree. that the matter falls to be determined under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act without regard to recent legislative changes. The relevant sections of the Act read as follows: 7. Upon being granted representation rights, the employee organization is authorized to bargainwith the employer on terms and conditions of employment, except as to matters that are exclusively the function of the employer under subsection 18(1), and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, including rates of Tremuneration, hours of work, overtime and other premium allowance for work performed, the mileage rate payable to an employee for miles travelled when he or she is required to use his or her own automobile on the employer's business, benefits pertaining to time not worked by employees including paid holidays, paid vacations, group life insurance, health insurance and long -term income protection insurance, promotions, demotions, transfers, lay -offs or reappointments of employees, the procedures applicable to the processing of grievances, the classification and job evaluation system, and the conditions applicable to leaves of absence for other than any elective public office or political activities or training and development. 18(1) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manager, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine, (b) ... training and development, ... the governing principles of which are subject to review by the employer with the bargaining unit and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of a board. The issue in the instant grievance is whether or not the matter can reasonably be characterized as training and development. 6 The facts can be briefly summarized. In 1989, the LCBO introduced a program into retail stores called "point of sales" which was a computer system to record liquor sales and monies collected. New permanent full-time positions known as help -desk analyst were created at head office to respond to a multiplicity of telephone inquiries from retail. store personnel experiencing problems with the system. The purpose of the position was to "troubleshoot" for computer problems in retail stores. In early 1990, the employer posted and filled five full-time permanent help desk analyst positions at head office classified as System Officer 1 and 2. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that there was a need for additional help desk analyst s u p p o r t The grievance arises as a result of the employer's response to that need. On July 26, 1990, the LCBO posted what it referred to as a "career development opportunity' (6 positions) available to retail staff in various districts for secondment to the position of help desk analyst at head office for an 18 month term. The relevant job posting reads as follows: LCB= 121/90 July 26, 1990 To: ALL PERMANENT FULL- -TIME EMPLOYEES AT: HEAD OFFICE, METRO TORONTO REGION AND DISTRICT'S 11 & 14 LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY Resumes may now be submitted for the secondment opportunity to the position of: Position Title: IMPACT Help Desk Analysts (6 positions) Hours: 40 Hours Per Week Department: IMPACT Help Desk 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. -Weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. - Saturday 7 Location:. Head Office Duration: Approximately 18 Months Your skills and knowledge are required to provide frontline support by using your thorough experience of retail store operations as the initial contact for IMPACT Trainer Installers and store personnel experiencing problems arising from the installation, conversion and operation of the IMPACT System. Specifically your duties will be: logging problems into the database; determining if the problem is related to hardware, software or procedural errors and following through the problem resolution procedures with the store involved; liaising with Technical Support, Retail Accounting, Category Management, Pricing Administration and Inventory Control; participating. in software acceptance /regression testing; being involved in the coordination of new software releases, user documentation distribution and contributing to the content of the Help Desk newsletter. You will play a leading role in the implementation of the LCBO's new corporate direction and gain an extensive knowledge of the end to end operations of the Board which affect all retail stores. Qualifications: thorough experience in LCBO retail store operations; superior verbal and written communications skills together with sound problem solving and conflict resolution skills; strong interpersonal and organizational skills; ability to work under pressure as a team player, meet deadlines, schedule events and handle problems with a minimum of supervision; knowledge of the IMPACT System is an asset but not mandatory as training is provided. Successful candidates will retain their permanent positions in their parent departments and be expected to return to them at the end of the assignment. Persons wishing to reply should submit a RESUME fully outlining qualifications and experiences relating to this position. Please indicate your current store or department and location. Please submit resumes in confidence to file #LCB- 121/90 before August 13,1990 to: Human Resources Services Liquor Control Board of Ontario Toronto Star Building One Yonge Street, 12th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5E 1115 Dedicated to Employment Equity On October 22, 1990, six retail employees classified as clerk 3 commenced. work pursuant to the term appointments. The employees were paid their regular salaries as clerk 3 as well as $1.20 per hour acting pay and travel allowance where applicable. Of the six original term appointments, Serge Diamanti and Robert Cummings received promotions, while Lori Root, Julie (Hopkins) Clarke and Judy Haverkort are still working in the same .. 8 position. On July 7, 1991, another "career development opportunity" was posted for secondment to the position of help desk analyst at head office for a 12 month term. Four employees commenced work on September 30, 1991 under'the 12 month term appointment. Mary Long and Mark Lamantis -received promotions while Gerrard Frosolone and Rad Kuzeljevic returned to their respective retail stores after working for approximately 18 months. It is interesting to note that despite the posting, Frosolone's individual secondment agreement was for a six month term while, in fact, he worked for 18 months. On October 3, 1991, a further "career development opportunity." was posted for secondment to the position in question for a six month term. On January 20, 1992, Sharon Strachan and David Chong commenced work as help desk analysts under six month term appointments. Both employees ended their secondments on April 1, 1992. There was no evidence as to why the secondments ended prematurely and no evidence as to what work either employee is currently performing. Some six months ,after the grievance was filed, Larry Moreau and Richard Bahwonczyk were -appointed on September 13, 1993 for six months under a career development opportunity posting on July 8, 1993. As of the final hearing day on January 10, 1994, there were five employees in the 9 .. positions in question; namely, Moreau, Baliwonczyk, and the three employees appointed on October 22, 1990 Root, Clarke and Haverkort. All seconded employees were classified as clerk 3 with the exception of Mark Lamantis who was a clerk 4. By all accounts, seconded employees on term appointments were performing essentially the same work as permanent employees. At the hearing, Lori Root, Julie Clarke and Judy Haverkort were accorded third party status. LCBO vice- president Gordon Anderson testified for the employer. He explained the, rationale for the secondment program. In his words, it was "to improve computer literacy .of those individuals so they could take it back to the retail store network" and "to share new found knowledge with peers in the store." Mr. Anderson candidly acknowledged "some degree of mismanagement on our part'- in that a number of seconded employees had overstayed their respective term appointments. He went on to explain that in 1992 the installation of new software produced by the LCBO had caused serious problems, but that there had been substantial improvement in the testing of software in the past year and a half. In his opinion, six months was a reasonable period of time for employees to acquire sufficient skills to transfer back to the retail network. He went on to testify that the goal of the LCBO was to train employees from the top 100 stores, said to represent 60% of the business. In Mr. Anderson's words, "the training is. very much peer sharing, advice and consultation." Further, he testified that there was a mentor system in place for the benefit of new secondees on the help desk. i 10 Gerrard Frosolone is a permanent full-time clerk 3 at the LCBO Eaton Centre store. His first involvement with the help desk analyst job was in August 1991' when he filled in for an employee who was then on vacation. As previously indicated, Mr. Frosolone- commenced work on September 30, 1991 on a secondment basis under a 12 month. career - development opportunity posting, and returned to the retail store on March 31, 1993 after some 18 months on the job.. According to his" evidence, he had no prior computer experience and received no training. He testified that he learned the duties of the position by working on the job, by asking questions and by reviewing" the data base. Mr. Frosolone testified that it took him "about a month" to feel comfortable. in the job, although he acknowledged that he did not learn the job within that time frame. Mr. Frosolone testified that he was unaware of any mentor program at the help desk. Julie Clarke testified on behalf of the third parties. Her evidence was to the effect that it took her "six months to a year to learn the job." She testified that she was assigned by her supervisor to train Gerrard Frosolone: She acknowledged that she never told Mr. Frosolone that fact and assumed that her supervisor had done so. Mrs. Clarke testified that she had the benefit of a number of technical training courses made available to permanent employees to enable-her to perform the job. Briefly stated, the union contends that the employer did not carry out the assignments in a bona fide manner, that there was. no real training and development within the meaning of s.18(1) of the Act and that under Article 21, the employer was obliged to 11 have posted all term restricted positions. By way of remedy, Ms. Mitchell requested a board order requiring the employer to post five further full-time positions. The panel was referred to the following authorities: Re Horton Steel Work Ltd. and United Steelworkers, .Local 3598 (1973), 3 L.A.C. (2d) 54 (Rayner); Re Polymer Corp. Ltd. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local 9-14'(1974), 5 L.A.C. (2d) 344 (Rayner); Re Air Canada and Canadian Air Line Employees' Assoc. (1975),, 8 L.A.C. (2d) 239 (Brandt); OPSEU ,(Geraldine J Brick & Leslie Rothe and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, GSB 244/829- 245/82; 326/82 (Roberts), Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 672/84 (Palmer); OPSEU '(Union Grievance,) and Ministry of Correctional Services, 534 /88 (Wright); Re International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers Local 542 and RCA Victor Co. Ltd. (1971), 22 L.A.C. 329 (Simmons); Re United Automobile Workers, Local 636 and Gardner - Denver Co. (Canada) Ltd. (1969), 20 L.A.C. 161 (Pahner); and Re Gabriel of Canada Ltd. and International Association of Machinists, Local 1295 (1978), 20 L.A.C. (2d) 168 (Kates). The employer maintains that the 'secondments were bona fide training and development opportunities under s.18(1)(b) of the Act. Mr. Little argued that the issue was not what happened in the past; but rather whether or not six month term appointments would. be appropriate for the future. Alternatively, Mr. Little contends that the employer has the authority to set qualifications for fixed -term appointments. On behalf of the third parties, Mr. Ryan argues that the positions in question were 12 permanent positions, and that since Lori Root, Julie Clarke and Judy Haverkort have been incumbents for in excess of three years, it would be inequitable that they be removed and - forced to reapply. We cannot agree that there are grounds for an estoppel. There is simply no evidence of any representation that the third parties would be guaranteed jobs, Rather, there appears to have been. a continuation of their employment in the secondment positions on a month -to -month basis' after the initial term expired. In the absence of a clear representation, there can be no detrimental reliance. In OPSEU and Minis= of Transportation and Communications, supra, Vice -Chair Palmer was faced with a, similar issue of training and development, although admittedly under a different collective agreement and different facts. At pp. 21 -22, Mr. Palmer deals with the jurisdictional issue: A resolution of this matter must start with an analysis of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O.1980, c.108 [hereinafter called "the Act"]. There, as pointed out by the Union, generally speaking, pursuant to Section 7, all matters relating to the representation of employees within the bargaining unit are subject to collective bargaining and, when a collective agreement is reached, such is deemed to cover all aspects of the employment relationship between the parties and is binding upon and enforceable upon employees within the bargaining unit. The only exception to this position is that such is subject to the limitations imposed by Section 18(1) of the Act the relevant parts of which read: Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting. the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine ... (b) ....training and development ... The governing principles of which are subject to review by the employer with the bargaining agent. and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of a board. It is trite to observe, therefore, that this Board does not have jurisdiction to deal with questions of "training and development ", even though such affects members of the bargaining unit as is argued by the Employer in the case here. No one can dispute the underlying proposition. The problem for this Board 13 is whether the present factual issues disclose that we are dealing with a case of "training and development." In our view a determination of this issue, in a positive sense, requires us to examine what the Employer was requiring these employees to do and to assess whether such can be reasonably characterized as "training and development". If it can, this Board must conclude it has no jurisdiction to deal with this grievance; if it cannot, we must - proceed to examine the question of whether these actions constitute a breach of the governing language of the collective agreement. The decision goes on to make a number of general observations which apply with equal force to the facts before this panel: First, it is our view that whether employees undertake work voluntarily is irrelevant to the present issue.. While such might affect individual relief, it cannotvalidate an otherwise obvious violation of.the collective agreement. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that some form of agreement between employers and individual employees cannot supercede the governing collective agreement: Syndicat Catholique des Employe's de Mauasins de Quebec v. CompaM a Paguet Ltee, [1959] S.C.R. 206, 18 D.L.R. (2d) 346, 59 C.L.L.C. 15,049. In short, an employee's agreement to violate the collective agreement does not justify the violation. Second, the question of whether an assignment is "temporary" is not dispositive of the present issue. While it may be the case that training assignments are, by their nature, temporary, not all temporary assignments are in the nature of training. Third, we do not accept the view that the "intent" of the Employer is conclusive of the issue. before us. Such intent is obviously relevant to issues of bona fides ... The objective facts are what determines whether a person is receiving "training" or "development "; wishing does not make it so. Vice - Chairman Palmer then addresses addresses the meaning . of the words training and development in s.18(1)(b) of the Act. We would agree with the rationale of Mr. Palmer at pp. 23 -24 where he states: What, then, is meant by the term "training and development "? The resolution of this matter is not an easy one, but it is essential to determine whether we have jurisdiction in this case. Fortunately, there are a number of areas where support if found. First, we would note the obvious: "training" must be considered as something different than "development." Norman canons of interpretation suggest that, if possible one should not find redundancy in the use of words: e.g., Re DeHavilland Aircraft, 11 L.A.C. 350, at p. 352 (Laskin, 1961). In this case, 14 the distinction is clear. "Training", in our view, relates to a process where a person is developing the skills to do a job; "development" to processes for the enhancement of existing skills. Obviously, there is a possibility that the former might be subsumed by the latter, but the conjunction of the two suggests such a result. Also the definition of the former fits easily into the well-known distinction in arbitral jurisdiction between "familiarization" and "training" periods for jobs: e.g., Re RCA Victor, 22 L.A.C. 329 (Simmons, 1971). The problem with both.these terms is that, while the former term may have a more limited connotation, in one sense the latter always exists. Jobs, it seems, are always changing. It follows that one must always be "developing" old skills and learning new ones in order to be able to adequately perform the work of an existing position. It follows, in our opinion, that for the Employer to make use of the exception of Section 18(1) of the Act one of two situations must exist: either persons must be undergoing "training" to prepare themselves for existing jobs; or they must be undertaking "development" activities in relation to or in conjunction with an existing position. On the facts of the instant grievance, we are satisfied that the employees in question were not involved in�. "training" in the sense expressed by Vice -Chair Palmer. Indeed, there was no formal training period and at best the supervision was minimal. ,It would appear that the seconded employees began performing the job of help desk analyst with a minimum .of assistance and direction. Apparently, the intent was that seconded employees were to return to the retail stores, and it cannot be said that they were learning a job that they, would assume at some later date. Rather, the objective sought to be achieved by the employer would appear to relate to "development ". In our view, the methods followed by the employer would seem inconsistentwith any reasonable characterization of the facts as development. The extensive periods of time that many of these employees remained in these positions weighs heavily against the employer's contention that they, are development positions. It is unrealistic to conclude, we think, that a true development opportunity was taking place within the meaning of s.18(1) for extended periods in excess of three years.. I i _ 0: i 15 The nature of the job performed by the seconded employees is for all intents and purposes identical to that of a permanent full-time help desk analyst. The one exception appears to be that seconded employees are prevented from acting as senior help desk analysts. The stated intent of the secondment program to return employees to the retail . network has not often been carried out in practice. Of the ten seconded employees who have worked under various term appointments from the date of the program's inception to the filing of the grievance, only three have returned to the retail stores. In addition, it would appear to us that the employer's goal of training personnel in the top 100 stores by this method of term appointment is both unrealistic and unachievable. In sum, we would agree that the positions in question are permanent positions which should have been posted under Article 21 of the collective agreement. We are satisfied that they cannot reasonably be characterized as training and development opportunities under s.18(1) of the Act. The real issue is the appropriate remedy in these unusual circumstances. In our view, the remedy granted in the Palmer decision would not be appropriate in the instant matter. There was no finding of bad faith on the facts before Mr. Palmer. On the evidence adduced in the case before us, we must conclude that the employer has made no meaningful attempt to carry out the stated intent of the secondment program, despite legitimate _ , C� 16 complaints from the union. Intent is relevant to the issue of bona fides. By Article 21 of the collective agreement, the parties have agreed upon certain .procedures to be followed where a vacancy. exists. In our view, there can be no real training and development opportunities in circumstances where Article 21 can be said to apply. In these particular circumstances,.we reluctantly conclude that the employer has circumvented the provisions of Article 21 by filling vacancies under the guise of training and development. In the result, the employer shall be required to post full-time positions of help desk analyst which have been improperly occupied by seconded employees. However, we leave to the employer the authority to determine the complement of additional full-time employees required. We shall retain jurisdiction during the implementation of this award. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 14 , day of 4 r i 1,1994. .................... R. L. VERITY, Q.C. - VICE - CHAIRPERSON . LYONS - EMBE ........................................................... ............................... C. LINTON - MEMBER