Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHunt 12-07-04INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: ALGONQUINCOLLEGE (the"Employer") -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION,LOCAL415 (the"Union") ANDINTHEMATTEROFTHEGRIEVANCEOFJANEHUNT LouisaM.Davie-SoleArbitrator Appearances FortheUnion:WassimGarzouzi,Counsel FortheEmployer:J.D.Sharp,Counsel 2 Award ThisawarddealswiththeEmployer'spreliminarymotionthattheindividualgrievanceof JaneHunt("thegrievor")shouldnotbeheardonitsmeritsbecauseitismoot. ThegrievancebeforemewasfiledonOctober25,2010pursuanttothecollective agreementbetweenAlgonquinCollege("theEmployer")andtheOntarioPublicService Employees'Union,Local415("theUnion").Thegrievancestates IgrievethattheCollegehasviolatedspecifically,butnotexclusively Articles6,17ofthecollectiveagreementinthatithasdeniedmeaccess tomyearnedsickleavecredits. As"RemedyRequired"thegrievancerequests: ThatIbegivenaccesstomyearnedsickleavecreditsimmediately,back datedtotheappropriatetimethatIwasreleasedfromLongTerm Disabilitycoverage. TheEmployerarguesthatafterthegrievancewasfiled,anduponreceiptofappropriate medicalinformation,thegrievor'slong-termdisability(LTD)benefitswerereinstated retroactivetothedateshehadbeendeniedLTDbySunLife,theinsurancecarrier.As ofthedateofthehearingofthemotionthegrievorremainedinreceiptofLTDbenefits. ShehasbeeninreceiptofLTDbenefitsfortheentiretimeframecoveredbythe grievance.Theremedywhichthegrievorseeksthereforecan'tbegranted.Theonly remedyrequestedinthegrievance,namelyaccesstosickleavecreditsfromthetime shewasreleasedfromLTDcoverage,hasbeenrenderedmootbecausethegrievor hasinfactreceivedLTDbenefitsfortheentireperiodoftimecoveredbythegrievance. Thefactsunderlyingthegrievance,andtheEmployer'spositionthatthegrievanceis moot,arerelativelystraightforward. ThegrievorcommencedheremploymentwiththeEmployerinOctober,1994.Shewas absentfromwork,andinreceiptofshorttermdisability(STD)benefitsfromNovember 9,2009toMay4,2010.SheappliedforLTDbenefitsinatimelyfashion. Ane-mailreceivedbythegrievoronMarch17,2010indicatesthatonMay5,2010she had59daysremaininginhersickleavebank.ThegrievorwasadvisedthatifherLTD claimwasnotapproved,andshewasunabletoreturntowork,shewouldbeableto usehersickleavecreditsuntilsheeitherreturnedtoworkorthestartofthe2010 academicvacationperiod(June21-August20,2010). However,thegrievor'sLTDapplicationwasapproved.ShecommencedreceiptofLTD benefitsonMay5,2010. ThosebenefitscontinueduntilSeptember27,2010.TheLTDbenefitsceasedonthat dateasSunLifedetermineditdidnothavesufficientinformationtoindicatethatthe grievor'srestrictionsandlimitationsweresevereenoughtopreventherfromreturningto work.ThegrievordisagreedwithSunLife'sassessmentthatshewasabletoreturnto workonSeptember27,2010. InmidOctoberthegrievorinquiredaboutusingherremainingsickleavecreditswhile waitingtohearfromSunLife.TheEmployeradvisedthatasthemedicalinformation submittedtoSunLifedidnotsupportcontinueddisability,butindicatedthatthegrievor wasabletoreturntofull-timeworkonSeptember27,2010,shewasnotentitledto accesshersickleavecredits.TheEmployer'spositionisarticulatedinitsStepTwo responsenamelythat "themedicalassessmentfromtheinsureristhatyouareabletoworkand youarenotabsentfromworkduetoillnessorinjury.Thus,youwouldnot beabletousesickleavecreditswhicharetobeusedifyouareabsent fromworkduetoillnessorinjury." FromSeptember27,2010untilDecember24,2010whenherLTDbenefitswere reinstatedretroactivelythegrievorwasnotinreceiptofeitherearningsfromthe Employer,STDbenefits,orLTDbenefitsfromSunLife.Asindicatedthegrievor continuestoreceiveLTDbenefits. SubmissionsoftheParties ThesefactscausedtheEmployertoconcludeandarguethatthereisnolongeralive issueforthegrievortolitigate.Thefactsandcircumstanceswhichexistedwhenshe filedhergrievancehavechangedsignificantly.Theissueofherentitlementtoaccess sickleavecreditshasbecomeacademicbecauseshehasreceivedLTDbenefits.The remedialreliefsheseeksistousesickleavecreditswhenshewas"releasedfromlong termdisabilitycoverage."Thatdisputeisnolongeraliveissuebecausethegrievorhas notbeenreleasedfromLTDcoverage.Thegrievornolongerhasadirectinterestinthe grievanceasshecan'tgaintheremedysheseeks. TheEmployersubmitsthatthisisnotapolicygrievancewhichgenerallyraisesissues astowhen,andhow,employeescanaccesssickleavecredits.Itisanindividual grievance,dealingwithspecificfacts.TheUnion'sinsistenceonproceedingwould essentiallyconvertthisindividualgrievanceintoapolicygrievance. RelyingprincipallyuponBorowskivCanada(AttorneyGeneral),[1989]1S.C.R.342 theEmployerassertstheissueraisedinthegrievanceismootandtherearenoreasons toexercisemydiscretiontohearthegrievance.Thecircumstancesregardingan employee'saccesstosickleavecreditswillnecessarilybefactspecificsothat adjudicationofthisgrievancewil!notassistotheremployees.Totheextentthatthere are"policy"considerations,theUnioncanalwaysfileapolicygrievance.Ithaschosen nottodothatinthisinstance.Itisaneedlesswasteofeconomicresourcestolitigate thisgrievancewhenthegrievorcan'tgainabenefitfromthelitigation,andthereareno practicaleffectsforotherfuturelitigants. 5 TheEmployerreliedalsoonSt.LawrenceCollegev.OPSEU78CLAS79(McLaren), RenfrewCountyDistrictSchoolBoardv.ETFOunreported,April24,2008(Beck) andSobeys'sCapitalInc.V.UFCW109CLAS151(Abells)insupportofitsposition thatevengrantingdeclaratoryrelief(aremedynotclaimedinthegrievance)wouldnot haveanypracticaleffectsaveto"scoreadebatingpointforonesideortheother." TheUnion'sviewofthefactsandissuesindisputedifferssignificantlyfromthatofthe Employer.TheUnionarguesthegrievanceisnotmoot.Forapproximately3months thegrievorwaswithoutincomeandwithoutaccesstohersickleavecredits.This resultedindamagestothegrievor,includingtherenewalofhermortgageonless desirableterms.Althoughnotspecificallypleadedbecauseithadnotyetarisenwhen thegrievancewasfiled,thisclaimforremedialreliefisencompassedwithinthe grievanceasalosswhichmaterializedfromtheEmployer'sapplicationofthesickleave provisions.ItisclearthatthegrievancechallengestheEmployer'sinterpretationand applicationofitsManagement'sRightsandthecollectiveagreementprovisionswith respecttosickleavesothatthistypeofdamageclaimwasreasonablyforeseeable. TheUnionmaintainsthateveniftheremedyrequestedinthegrievancefiledinOctober 2010isnolongerapplicabletoday,aliveissueremainsbetweentheparties.The questionofwhetherthegrievorshouldhavebeenabletoaccesshersickleavecredits whenshewasdealingwithSunLifeanddisputingherabilitytoreturntoworkisnotan academicone.Moreover,itisevidentthattheUnioncan'tfileapolicygrievancewith respecttotheEmployer'sapplicationandinterpretationofthesickleavecredit provisions.ThecollectiveagreementstatesthataUnionpolicygrievancecan'tbefiled withrespectto "...anymatteruponwhichanemployeewouldbepersonally entitledtogrieveandtheregulargrievanceprocedureforpersonal orgroupgrievanceshallnotbeby-passedexceptwheretheUnion establishesthattheemployeehasnotgrievedanunreasonable standardthatispatentlyinviolationofthisAgreementandthat adverselyaffectstherightsofemployees." (Article32.09) HerethefactsaresuchthatitisunclearwhatpolicyorstandardtheEmployerappliedto denythegrievoraccesstohersickleavecreditssothattheexceptioncontainedwithin thearticledoesnotapply. InthealternativetheUnionsubmitsthatifIdeterminedthatthegrievancewasmoot therearesufficientreasonstoexercisemydiscretionandhearthecase.TheUnion arguedthatthereremainedanadversarialrelationshipbetweenthepartieswithrespect totheissueraisedbythegrievance.Heretheissueiswhetherthegrievorcanaccess sickleavecreditsaftershe'sbeendeniedcontinuationofLTDbenefits.Thatissueis importantnotonlytothisgriever,buttoallmembersofthebargainingunitwhomayfind themselvesinsimilarcircumstances. RelyinguponBorowski,supratheUnionmaintainedthatanarbitrateddecisioninthis casewill "...havesomepracticaleffectontherightsofthepartiesnotwithstanding thatitwillnothavetheeffectofdeterminingthecontroversywhichgave risetotheaction... Similarlyanexpenditureofjudicialresourcesisconsideredwarrantedin caseswhichalthoughmootareofarecurringnaturebutbriefduration.In ordertoensurethatanimportantquestionwhichmightindependently evadereviewbeheardbythecourt,themootnessdoctrineisnotapplied strictly...Themerefact,however,thatacaseraisingthesamepointis likelytorecurevenfrequentlyshouldnotbyitselfbeareasonforhearing anappealwhichismoot.Itispreferabletowaitanddeterminethepointin agenuineadversarialcontextunlessthecircumstancessuggestthatthe disputewillhavealwaysdisappearedbeforeitisultimatelyresolved." (SeeBorowskiatparagraphs35and36) TheUnionsubmittedthattheissueoftheabilitytousesickleavecreditswhile appealingtheinsuranceprovider'sdecisiontodiscontinueLTDbenefitsisimportantto theongoingrelationshipbetweentheEmployerandthegrievor,andbetweentheUnion andtheEmployer,andthuswarrantsadjudication.Theissueisongoingandislikelyto recurinthefuture.Inthisregarditmayinvolveotherbargainingunitmembers. However,itmayalsoinvolvethegrievor.Thegrieverwillneedtoknowifshecan accesshersickleavecreditsifherLTDbenefitsarediscontinuedwhenshereachesthe two-yearanniversaryofbenefitcoverage.Atthatpointshemustbedisabledfrom"any occupation"inordertoqualifyforcontinuedLTDbenefits.Ifsheisnottotallydisabled from"anyoccupation",yetunabletoreturntowork,shewillneedtoknowifshecan accesshersickleavecredits. ItwastheUnion'spositionthatifthecurrentgrievanceisnotlitigated,theissueraised bythisgrievanceislikelytoevadereview.Agrievanceaboutentitlementtoaccesssick leavecreditsafterLTDbenefitshavebeendiscontinuedislikelyalwaystobemoot becausebythetimeitisarbitratedthematterofcontinuedentitlementtoLTDbenefits willhavebeendeterminedbytheinsurancecarrier.FromtheUnion'sperspectivethe challengeinthisgrievanceisnottheinsurancecarrier'sdeterminationwithrespectto LTDentitlement,buttheEmployer'sapplicationofthecollectiveagreementarticle dealingwiththeuseofsickleavecredits. TheUnionarguedthatinthiscasetheEmployerhasnotacknowledgeditactedin contraventionofitsManagement'sRightsorthesickleaveprovisionsofthecollective agreementwhenitdeniedthegrievoraccesstohersickleavecredits.Neitherhasit indicatedthatitwouldactdifferentlyinthefuture.ItisnotsufficientfortheEmployerto saythatthe"LTDinsuranceschemeworkedasitshould"becausetheLTDbenefits werereinstatedretroactivelywhenthegrievorprovidedthemedicaldocumentation requiredbySunLife. Inviewofallofthecircumstances,eveniftheindividualgrievanceismootbecausethe factshavechangedandtheremedyinitiallyrequestedisnolongerapplicable,the issuesraisedbythegrievancearesignificantandwarrantadetermination.Thisis particularlytruewhentheUnioncan'tproceedwithapolicygrievancetoobtaina determinationwithrespecttotheseissues,andwhentheissuesarelikelytorecur.The UnionrelieduponBorowskisupra;LaRochev.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FC 1454;CanadianUnionofPostalWorkersv.CanadaPostCorp.,2012CF110;York Universityv.CanadianUnionofPublicEmployees,Local3903,[2010]O.L.A.A.No 505;PrinceRupertAirportAuthorityv.PublicServiceAllianceofCanada,[2009] C.L.A.DNo281;Waterloo(RegionalMunicipality)v.CanadianUnionofPublic Employees,Local1883,[2008]O.L.A.A.No150;AramarkCanadaLtd.v.Canadian Unionofpublicemployees,[2010]O.L.A.A.No.320andBrownandBeatty, CanadianLabourArbitration,FourthEditionpart2:3240. TheEmployer'sresponsetotheUnion'ssubmissionsthatthegrievanceraised"policy" issuesthatwereimportanttothebargainingunitwastwofold.First,theEmployer reiteratedthattheUnionwasattemptingtoturnanindividualgrievanceintoapolicy grievance.Itshouldnotbepermittedtodoso,butshouldberequiredtofileapolicy grievanceratherthanunnecessarilyexpandingthescopeofthisindividualgrievance. Secondly,inresponsetoboththepolicyconsiderationsraisedbytheUnion,andits submissionsthatanindividualgrievancewillalwaysbemootsothattheissuewillnever bedetermined,theEmployerarguedthatifthematterwasfundamentallyimportantto thebargainingunititshouldbeaddressedeitherbyapolicygrievanceoratthe bargainingtable.InthislatterregardtheEmployersubmittedthatthiscollective agreementexpiresAugust31,2012andtheissuecouldthenberaised.Adjudicationof thisindividual,factspecificgrievance,shouldnotintrudeuponthatnegotiatingprocess. Similarly,inreplytotheUnion'sclaimfordamages,theEmployernotedthat,aswiththe casefordeclaratoryrelief,thereisnothinginthisgrievancetosuggestthetypeofclaim fordamagesnowbeingadvancedbytheUnion.Evenapartfromquestionsof remotenessandforeseeabilitythereisalsonoevidenceordocumentsprovidedupon whichadamageclaimcanbebased.Forexamplethereisnoevidentiarybasiswith respecttotheclaimasitrelatestotheUnion'sassertionthatthegrievor'smortgagewas renewedatlessfavorabletermsbecauseshecouldnotaccesssickleavecredits. 9 TheEmployersubmittedthatifthismatterproceededitwillresultinalengthyhearing, raisinganumberofmedicalissues,aswellastheinteractionbetweenSTDandLTD. Allofthatisfactspecifictothegrievor.WiththeretroactivereinstatementofherLTD benefitsthosefactschanged,andthegrievor'sclaimforremedialreliefceased.In thesecircumstancestheEmployerurgedthedismissalofthegrievancebecausethe factsandremedyrequestedhavebecomemoot.Totheextenttheissuemayarise again,foreitherthisgrievororotherbargainingunitmembers,afreshgrievancecanbe filed.Thatgrievancecanthenbeadjudicatedwithinthecontextofthespecific,existing facts.Theissueshouldnotbedeterminedincontextoffactswhicharedifferentthan thosewhichexistedinOctober2010whenthecurrentgrievancewasfiled,andwhere, ashere,thegrievorcannolongerobtaintheremedialreliefclaimedinthegrievance. Decision Thestartingpointtoanyanalysisastowhetheragrievanceshouldbedismissed becauseitismootisBorowskisupra.TheretheSupremeCourtstated 15.Thedoctrineofmootnessisanaspectofageneralpolicyorpracticethat acourtmaydeclinetodecideacasewhichraisesmerelyahypotheticalor abstractquestion.Thegeneralprincipleapplieswhenthedecisionofthe courtwillnothavetheeffectofresolvingsomecontroversywhichaffects ormayaffecttherightsoftheparties.Ifthedecisionofthecourtwillhave nopracticaleffectonsuchrights,thecourtwilldeclinetodecidethecase. Thisessentialingredientmustbepresentnotonlywhentheactionor proceedingiscommencedbutatthetimewhenthecourtiscalleduponto reachadecision.Accordinglyif,subsequenttotheinitiationoftheaction orproceeding,eventsoccurwhichaffecttherelationshipofthepartiesso thatnopresentlivecontroversyexistswhichaffectstherightsofthe parties,thecaseissaidtobemoot.Thegeneralpolicyorpracticeis enforcedinmootcasesunlessthecourtexercisesitsdiscretiontodepart fromitspolicyorpractice.Therelevantfactorsrelatingtotheexerciseof thecourt'sdiscretionarediscussedhereinafter. 16.Theapproachinrecentcasesinvolvesatwo-stepanalysis.Firstitis necessarytodeterminewhethertherequiredtangibleandconcrete disputehasdisappearedandtheissueshavebecomeacademic.Second, iftheresponsetothefirstquestionisaffirmative,itisnecessarytodecide 10 ifthecourtshouldexerciseitsdiscretiontohearthecase.Thecasesdo notalwaysmakeitclearwhethertheterm"moot"appliestocasethatdo notpresentaconcretecontroversyorwhetherthetermappliesonlyto suchofthosecasesasthecourtdeclinestohear.Intheinterestofclarity, Iconsiderthatacaseismootifitfailstomeetthe"livecontroversy"test.A courtmaynonethelesselecttoaddressamootissueifthecircumstances warrant. Indeterminingwhethertoexercisediscretiontohearacasewheretheconcretedispute hasdisappeared,theCourtconsideredtheunderlyingrationaleofthemootness doctrine.InsodoingtheCourtfocusedonthreefactors.First,theCourtreferredtothe adversarysystem.Thus,anexistingadversarialcontextmaywarranthearingacase evenwherethelivecontroversynolongerexistsbecausethepartylitigantnolonger hasadirectinterestintheoutcome.InthisregardtheCourtreferencedthattheremay be"collateralconsequencesoftheoutcomethatwillprovidethenecessaryadversarial context."SimilarlytheCourtcitedasafactortoconsideraconcernforjudicial economy.Dothecircumstancesofthecasemakeitworthwhiletoapplyscarcejudicial resources?AsthethirdfactortheCourtnoted"theneedforthecourttodemonstratea measureofawarenessofitsproperlaw-makingfunction."TheCourtconcluded 42.Inexercisingitsdiscretioninanappealwhichismoot,theCourtshould considertheextenttowhicheachofthethreebasicrationaliafor enforcementofthemootnessdoctrineispresent.Thisisnottosuggest thatitisamechanicalprocess.Theprinciplesidentifiedabovemaynotall supportthesameconclusion.Thepresenceofoneortwoofthefactors maybeoverbornebytheabsenceofthethird,andviceversa. Inmyview,whenappliedinthelabourrelationscontext,themootnessdoctrine,andthe two-stepanalysisarticulatedbytheCourt,mustalsotakeintoaccounttheongoing natureofthecollectivebargainingrelationship.InthisregardIagreewiththosecases relieduponbytheUnionthatarbitratorsshouldbecautiouswhenexercisingtheir discretionnottohearagrievanceunderthemootnessdoctrine.Anadjudicationofa grievancewhichmayappeartobefactspecificcannonethelesshavewiderapplication totheongoingrelationshipbetweenthepartiesboundbythecollectiveagreement. 11 Ihavedeterminedthatthismatterisnotmoot.Inaddition,evenifthegrievanceismoot becausethegrievorcannolongerobtaintheremedialreliefsheinitiallyclaimed,having regardtothefactorsenunciatedinBorowskisupra,Iamoftheviewthatthisisan appropriatecaseinwhichtoexercisemydiscretiontohearthegrievance. Thegrievancebeforemehasnotbeensettled.Thepartieshavenotagreeduponthe underlyingdisputewhichgaverisetothegrievance,namely,whetherthegrievorwas entitledtoaccesssickleavecreditsinOctober2010whenshemaintainedthatshewas notabletoreturntoworkbuttheLTDbenefitsshewasreceivingwerediscontinued. Thepartiesappeartoagreethatthechangedcircumstancessincethefilingofthe grievance--theretroactivereinstatementofLTDbenefits--meansthataccesstosick leavecreditsinOctober2010isnolongeranappropriateremedialclaim.Theyhave notagreedhoweverupontheinterpretationofthecollectiveagreementarticleswhich initiallygaverisetothatremedialclaim. Itisnotnecessaryorappropriateinthisawarddealingwiththemootnessdoctrineto commentontherespectivepositionsofthepartiesregardingtheinterpretationofArticle 17.SufficeittosaythatthereisaliveissuebetweentheUnionandtheEmployerasto whether,inthecircumstancesgivingrisetothisgrievance,thegrievorcouldaccesssick leavecredits.Thatisthefundamentalessenceofthegrievor'scomplaint.Shouldshe havebeenabletoaccesshersickleavecreditsinOctober2010?DidtheEmployer properlyinterpretandapplythecollectiveagreement,andinparticularArticle17,toher circumstances? Thegrievancebeforemecanbestbecharacterizedasonethatraisesmixedquestions offactspecificapplicationofthecollectiveagreementtothegrievor'sparticular circumstances,andamoregeneralor"policy"questionoftheinterpretationofthe collectiveagreement.Althoughtheformercomponentofthegrievancehaslargely disappearedwiththeretroactivereinstatementofthegrievor'sLTDbenefits,thelatter 12 componentrevolvingaroundinterpretiveissuesremainsaliveissuebetweenthe parties.Ithasnotdisappearedmerelybecausethegrievor'sLTDbenefitswere reinstated. Thegrievanceraisesissuesofcontractinterpretationandapplication.Theparties disagreewhetherthecollectiveagreementarticlesatissueinthisgrievancerequired theEmployertograntthegrievoraccesstohersickleavecreditswhenherLTD benefitswerediscontinued.Thatinterpretiveissue,aswellastheissueofthe applicationofthearticlesindisputetothegrievor'sparticularcircumstances,remain unresolved.Theunderlyingissueofcontractinterpretation,andwhetheremployees whohavereceivedLTDareentitledtoaccesssickleavecreditswhenthoseLTD benefitsarediscontinued,remainsa"live"disputebetweentheUnionandthe Employer.Italsoremainsa"live"disputebetweentheEmployerandthegrievor, insofarasthegrievorseeksclarificationaboutherrights,andtheEmployer's obligations,intheeventherLTDbenefitsarediscontinuedinthefuture.Adjudicationof thatissuecanserveausefulpurposeasanyawardmayguidethefutureconductofthe parties. ThisnaturallybringsmetoabriefexaminationoftheUnion'salternativeposition.Even ifI'mwronginmyconclusionthatthisgrievanceisnotmoot,Iacceptthatitis appropriateinthiscasetoexercisemydiscretionandhearthegrievance.Inthisregard IdonotthinkthatthethirdfactorcitedinBorowskisupra,namely,awarenessofproper lawmakingfunction,hasmuchapplicationtolabourarbitratorswhodealwiththe interpretation,applicationandadministrationofspecificcollectiveagreementsbetween parties.Thisisparticularlytruewhenoneremembersthatstaredecisisdoesnotapply tolabourarbitrationawards. However,asisevidentfrommyanalysisastowhetherthegrievanceismoot,itisclear thatanadversarialcontextremains.Therecontinuestobeanongoingdifference betweenthepartieswithrespecttotheirdifferinginterpretationofthecollective 13 agreementwhichhascollateralconsequencestoallmembersofthebargainingunit, includingthegrievor.AlthoughIagreethatthecostofarbitrationisanimportant considerationwhen,ashere,itappearsthattheindividualgrievorcan'tbenefitdirectly fromtheadjudicationofhergrievance,thatarbitraleconomymustgivewaytothe adjudicationofissueswhichdealwiththeongoinginterpretationandapplicationofthe collectiveagreement.TheUnionandtheEmployereachhaveastakeinthe interpretationofArticle17ofthecollectiveagreement.Thatinterpretation,evenwhere itislimitedtothespecificcircumstancesofthegrievor,mayassistthepartiesintheir futureconduct. ForallofthesereasonstheEmployer'spreliminarymotionisdismissed. Ihavenotaddressedtherespectivesubmissionsofthepartiesastheyrelatetothe claimforremedialrelief.TheEmployerhasarguedthatneitherdeclaratoryreliefnor damagesareclaimedinthegrievance.Itassertsthattheseremediesarenot encompassedwithinthegrievanceandcan'tbegrantedasthatwouldbeanexpansion ofthegrievance.TheEmployersubmitsalsothatinanyeventtheclaimfordamages articulatedintheUnion'ssubmissionsduringthecourseofthismotionaretooremote andwerenotforeseeable.Inmyviewallofthosematterscanbestbeaddressedatthe conclusionofthiscase.MydismissaloftheEmployer'spreliminarymotionwithrespect tomootnessiswithoutprejudicetoitsrighttoraisethesemattersaboutremedialrelief inthefuture. DatedatMississauga,this4t"ofJuly,2012 LouisaDavie LouisaM.Davie