Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
McEachran 08-06-13
1NTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN TheOntarioPublicServiceEmployees Union("theUnion"or"OPSEU") AND CentennialCollegeofAppliedArtsand Technology("theCollege"o1""theEmployer") AndinthematterofthegrievancesofSandraMcEachran("theGrievor"), whocontendsthatshewasnotgiventwoleavesofabsence"withP_.a2"to whichsheisentitledunderthetermsofthecollectiveagreement. BEFORE:R,O.MacDowell AnnBurke SherrilMurray (Chair) (CollegeNominee) (UnionNominee) APPEARANCES: FortheUnion:HilaryCook(Counsel) LarryGoldin LarryFarr SandraMcEachran FortheCollege:JasonGreen GtadysWatson JanTallon CarolynReid (Counsel) AhearinginthismaterwasheldinToronto,Ontario,onFebruary11,2008 andMarch24,2008. AWARD I-Whatthiscaseisabout ThisarbitrationproceedingarisesfromtwogrievancesfiledbySandra McEachren("theGrievor"),onApril5,2007.Ineachcase,Ms.McEachrancomplains thattheCollegehasimproperlydeniedherrequestfortimeoff,,toattenda doctor'sappointment.TheGrievormissedonehour'sworkonFebruary28,2007,and 1½hour'sworkonApril11,2007.Sheseekspaymentforthislostworktime. ThereisnoissueabouttheGrievor'sabilitytotaketimeofffromworkto visitherdoctor.Ms.McEachranwasgiventhe"leaves"thatsherequested.Theonly questionforustodecideiswhethertheGrievorshouldhavebeenaforherlostwork time-thatis,whethersheshouldhavereceivedleaveandnotjust"leave" II-SomeMechanicsandthecontractualframework AhearinginthismatterwasheldinToronto,Ontario,onFebruary!1, 2008andMarch24,2008.Thepartieswereagreedthatthisboardofarbitrationhasbeen properlyconstitutedunderthetermsofthecollectiveagreement,andthatthepanelhas jttrisdictiontohearanddeterminethemattersindisputebetweenthem.Thepartieswere furtheragreedthatifwefindthattheCollegehasimproperlydeniedtheGrievorher "raidtimeoff',(i.e.notjust"timeoff')thenwehavejurisdictiontofashionan appropriateremedy. 2 ThecollectiveagreementdistinguishesbetweenLeaveWithPa__qy=and LeaveWithoutPay.Therelevantprovisionsoftheagreementreadasfollows(emphasis added): 12LEAVES 12.1PersonalLeaveWithoutPay LeaveofabsencewithoutpaymaybegrantedbytheCollegefor legitimatepersonalreasons. 12.2PersonalLeaveWithPay Recognizingtheoverridingresponsibilitytothestudents,leaveof absencewillbescheduledwherepossibletoensureaminimumof disruptiontotheeducationalprogramsandservicesofthe college.ReasonablenoticeshallbegiventotheSupervisor concerned. Aleaveofabsenceforpersonalreasons,religiousleaveand specialleaveinextenuatingpersonalcircumstancesmaybe grantedatthediscretionoftheCollegewithoutlossofpayand suchrequestshallnotbeunreasonablydenied. Aswillbeseen,thereisnonegotiated"right"totimeoff"with3292". Rather,theCollegehaswhatmightbedescribedasa"qualifieddiscretion"withrespect tosuehleavewithpayrequests,which"may"begranted"atthediscretion"ofthe employer.Moreover,inthelastcoupleofyears,therehavebeenquiteanumberof grievancesatCentennialCollegedealingwiththeexerciseofthatdiscretion. Someofthosegrievancesproceededtoarbitrationandresultedin decisionsbyboardsofarbitration(seeforexample:CentennialCollege&OPSEU (ColleenPurchasegrievance)decisionreleasedFebruary14,2007(Simmons)and 3 CentennialCollege&OPSEU(YvonneGlennvillegq'ievance),decisionreleasedMay14, 2007(Bendel).However,anumberofothergrievancesweresettled,(interalia)onthe basisofthefollowing"MemorandumofUnderstanding",thatwastogovernthewayin whichthepartiesaddressedsuch"leavewithpayissues"(emphasisadded): 1.Thisistoconfirmtheparties'understandingthat"extenuating circumstances"differentiateleaverequestsunderArticle12.2 fromleaverequestsunderArticle12.1.Hence"extenuating personalcircumstances"aspresentedbytheemployeeatthe timeoftherequestmustexistinordertoinvokeleave pursuanttoArticle12.2. 2.Thepartiesagreethat"extemtatingpersonalcircumstances" hasbeeninterpretedtomeansituationsinvolving extraordinary,compellingorunforeseennecessitydirectly affectingtheemployee.(See:FanshaweO'Neil:Fanshawe CollegeandOPSEU(Watt)dee'ndatedFeb.15,22004 (O'Neil)) o Theemployerhasanobligationandarighttoconsidereach requestunderArticle12.2unanindividualizedbasisonthe factspresentedatthetimeoftherequest,andtheemployee's requestwillnotbeunreasonablydenied. 4.Theemployee'srequestforleaveunderArticle12.2mustbe legitimateandbonafide. ThisMemorandumwassignedofftowardstheendofMarch2007,and recordstheparties'sharedunderstandingofhowArticle12.2shouldbeinterpretedand appliedwhenanemployeerequestsaleaveofabsencewithjLo.y_.Wewillreturntothat documentlater,inconjunctionwithourdiscussionofthearbitrationdecisionsmentioned above.However,beforedoingthat,wethinkitmaybeusefidtobrieflysketchinsomeof backgroundtothepresentgrievances:whytheGrievorwantedtimeoffduringworking hours,andhowtheCollegerespondedtoherrequest.Mostofthesefactsarenotdisputed. III-Background TheGrievorworksinthelibraryatCentennialCollege.Sheisoneofa numberoffull-timeandpart-timeemployeeswhoworkinthatlocation.TheGrievor's immediatesupervisorisGladysWatson,theDirectoroftheLearningCenter;however, theGrievoralsointeractsfromtimetotimewithJanTallon,theManageroftheLearning ResourceCenter. FromAugust2006untilDecember2006theGrievorwasoffworkon "stressleave".ShebeganagraduatedreturntoworkinJanuary2007.Theideawasthat overanumberofweeksormonths,theGrievorwouldgraduallyincreaseherworking hoursuntilshewasworkingfulltimehoursagain.Inthemeantime,shewouldbe workingshorterhoursandinblocksoftimethatbalancedhermedicalneedsandthe operationalneedsoftheCollege.Forexample,inJanuary2007shebegantoworkhalf days(fourhoursperday),threedaysaweek. TheGrievor'saccommodationand"backtoworkconcems"arenot directlybeforeus.Nordoweneedtoevaluatethehighlyspecificinstructionsthatthe Grievor'sdoctorgavetotheemployer:stipulatingnotonlythenumberofhoursthatthe Grievorwastoworkeachday,butalsowhichhoursduringtheday,andonu,hichdays durhgtheweek.Wedidnothearfromthedoctor;sowecannotsaywhetherthese detailedprescriptionsweremedicallysupportable.Whatcanbesaidisthatfromtimeto timetheGrievorneededtogobacktoherdoctorinordertoreviewthesituation;andit 5 wastwosuchinstanceswhichgaverisetothe"leavewithpay"requeststhatarebeforeus inthisproceeding. ItisnotdisputedthattheinformationthattheGrievorneededfromher doctor,isinformationthattheCollegewanted,inrespectoftheGrievor'sgraduated returntowork.TheGfievorwantedtoworksomeadditionalworkhours,andtheCollege saidthatitwantedinputfromherphysicianaboutthatchange.ThatiswhytheGrievor wenttoseeherdoctor. OnFebruary28,2007andonApril11,2007,theGrievorwenttoher doctortogetdocumentationtosupportachangetoherworkschedule,increasingher workinghours.Inbothcasesshescheduledthedoctor'sappointmentforatimethat overlappedwithherscheduledworkinghours(i.e.theonesthatthedoctorhimselfhad endorsed).Andbecauseshehadexhaustedhersickleavebank,therewasno "indemnification"forthetimeoffworktoattendthesedoctor'sappointments.Forthe Grievor,takingthisparticulartimeoffworkmeantlostworktimeandlostpay. TheGrievornowclaimsthislostpayunderArticle12.2ofthecollective agreement.Shesaysthatsheshouldhavebeengiventimeoff,withDay,toattendthese doctor'sappointments-inessence,relyingonArticle12.2to"fillinthegap"causedby herdepletedsickleavebank. 6 TheGrievor'srequestforleavetogototheFebruary28thdoctor's appointment,tooktheformofane-mailtoGladysWatsonthatisdatedFebruary19, 2008-whichistosay:9daysbeforethescheduleddoctor'sappointment.Thatemail readsasfollows: IhavebookedtoseemyDronFebruary28,2007, regardingtherequestedassessment.Thelatestappointment hehadwas11.15AM.1thereforeneedtoleaveworkat 11am.Iamrequestingthetimeunderarticle12.2. Althoughthisemailwasframedasa"request"fortimeoff,the appointmenthadalreadybeenbooked.TheGrievordidnotdiscussthetimingofthe appointmentwithhersupervisor.Rather,shebookedtheappointmentthenshe subsequentlysought"leavewithpay"underArticle12.2,tocoverboththeleavethatshe hadrequested,andtheanticipatedlossofonehour'sworkandonehour'spay. Thereisnothingonthefaceofthise-mailtoflaganyparticularmedical urgency.Norwasthereany.Nordoestheemailaddressthedoetor'savailabilityor unavailability;and,inparticular,itdoesnotstipulatethatthedoctorcanonlyseethe GrievoronWednesdaymornings(whichiswhatwassaidinthisproceeding).Andthe emaildoesnotsuggestthattheGrievorgaveanyconsiderationatalltoanappointment thatwouldnotcollidewithher(thenlimited)workschedule-eitherbyvaryingthetime oftheappointment,orbyvaryingtheworkschedule.Itwasjustanannouncementthat theappointmenthadbeenmade,togetherwitharequestthattheGrievorbegrantedtime off,,underArticle12.2. AtthetimethatGrievormadethisrequestforleavewithpay,shewas workingfourhoursperday,from8a.m.to12p.m.,threedaysperweek:Monday, WednesdayandFriday.ShewasnotworkingonTuesdayoronThursday,orduringthe afternoons. Thereisnoreliableevidenceconfirmingthatitwasmedicallynecessaryto workonWednesday,ratherthanonThursdayorTuesday,ortowork8-12-andonly8 12-ratherthananyotherworkhoursduringtheday.Nordoestheevidenceestablishthat itwouldbeinjurioustotheGrievor'shealthtovaryherworkhoursinsomeotherwayto coveroffthe"lostcoupleofhours"(recallthattheGrievorwantedtoworkextrahours). Accordingly,theinference-superficiallyatleast-isthattheGrievorhadconsiderable flexibilitytomakeamedicalappointmentthatwouldnotoccasionanylossofpay-orat leasttoconsiderthatpossibility.Moreover,itdoesnotseemtobedisputedthatthe Grievordid,infaet,makeupthelostwages,byworkinganextra21/2hourslateron; andfurtherthatinJanuary2007,theGrievormodifiedherownworkschedule,inorderto makeupforlostworkhours,duetoasnowstorm.Soinpractice,herworkhourswere not"writinstone". TheGrievortestifiedthatshehadnodiscussionwithMs.Watsoneither beforeoraftermakingtheFebruary28thdoctor'sappointment.TheinformationthatMs. Watsonhad,wastheinformationprovidedintheemail.Therewasnoconsiderationor discussionofalternatives;andtorepeat,theemaildidnotidentifyanyrestrictionsonthe doctor'savailabilityorflexibility. 8 TheGrievortestifiedthatforanumberofyears,sheandherparentshad allseenthesamedoctor:Dr.Moran.However,accordingtotheGrievor,sinceaboutthe year2000,Dr.Moranhaswounddownhispracticesothathecouldspendmoretime withhisfamilyandcouldworkintheemergencyroomsofvarioushospitals.Doctor Moran'savailabilitywassignificantlydiminished,withtheresultthattheGrievor's parentswerereferredtoanotherphysician. However,theGrievordecidedtostickwithDr.Moran,eventhoughhe wasnotreadilyavailable;TheGrievorsaidthatherparentsneededreadyaccesstoa physician,butthatshedidnot.DoctorMoran'slimitedavailabilitywasnotaproblem. TheGrievortestifiedthat(assiteunderstoodit)bythespringof2007,Dr. Moranwasonlyseeingpatientsforfourhoursperweek-typicallyonWednesdays.She testifiedthatDr.MorandidnotusuallyworkonThtu'sdays,althoughonatleastone occasion,inNovember2006,theGrievordidhaveaThursdayappointment.That appointmentwasoriginallyscheduledforWednesday,butwaslatermovedtoThursday. TheGrievoralsotestifiedthattheCollegehadexpressedconcernsabout herchoiceofdoctorandhisavailabilitytoassistherinatimelyway;becausein2006, Dr.Moranhad(intheCollege'sview),beenratherlateinrespondingtorequeststofill outsomedocuments.TheCollegehadtoprodthedoctortodothat;andtheCollegetold theGrievoraboutthisdifficulty.However,theGrievordidnotseethisasaproblem,nor didshetakeanystepstoswitchtoanyoneelse. 9 Wehaveusedthephrase"assheunderstood#"inapreviousparagraph, becausethereisnodirectevidenceaboutthedoctor'savailabilityorhisflexibilityfor appointments;and,withrespecttothetwoappointmentshereunderreview(oneon February28andanotheronApril11,2007)thereisnoevidencethattheGrievoreither considered,oraskedherdoctorabout,whetherhewouldbeavailableatatimeothertitan Wednesdays,oratatimethatdidnotconflictwiththeGrievor'sexistingworkhours-on anotherday,oranhourortwolater,forexample.NordidtheGrievorconsiderorhave anyconversationwithanymemberofmanagementaboutwhetheranalternativework schedulingarrangementwouldpermithertoattendthedoctor'sappointmentwithoutloss ofworkandpay.TheonlycommunicationwithrespecttotheFebruary28thappointment wasthee-mailreproducedabove. JanTallontoldtheGrievorthatshecouldgotothedoctor'sappointment onFebruary28.TheGrievorhadpermissiontoleaveworkearlyonthatday.However, Ms.TallonadvisedtheGrievorthatshe(Ms.Tallon)didnotknowwhatclausetheleave wouldfallunder,madthuswhethertheGrievorwouldbegettinga"leave".That wasamatterthatwasbeingconsideredbyMs.Watson,theGrievor'simmediate supervisor;andMs.Tallonwasnotinvolvedwiththatdecision. Itwasclear,therefore,thatalthoughtheGrievorwasbeinggiventimeoff worktoseeherdoctor,therewasnoundertakingfromtheCollegethatitwouldpayfor timenotworked;andtheGrievorknewthat,priortotheFebruaryappointment.However, l0 theGrievordidnotpursuethatquestionfurther-withanyone.Shesimplywenttothe appointmentonFebruary28,leavingworkanhourearlyinordertodoso.Soshemissed onehour'sworkonFebruary28. TheGrievor'ssecond"leavewithpay"requestwasalsomadeviaane mailtoMs.Watson.ThatemailisdatedMarch13,2007,andreadsthisway: Asperourdiscussionyesterday,IcontactedmyDoctorfor anappointment.Ihavehisfirstappointmentat8.30AM, WednesdayApril1I.IamrequestingthetimeunderArticle 12.2. Asbefore,thisdoctor'sappointmentwasmadewithoutany communicationorconsultationwithmanagementaboutthetimingoftheappointmentor itscongruencewiththeGrievor'sworkinghours;andthereisnothingonthefaceofthe e-mailtoflagthedoctor'slimitedavailability.Nor,ontheevidence,didtheGrievor consideranyalternativeforherselforforthedoctor.Andbythattime,theGrievorknew (oroughttohaveknown)thattimeoff,withpay,wasnotaforegoneconclusion. TheCollegewasnotquarrellingwiththeGfievor'srequestfortimeoffto seeherdoctor.ButtherewasnoundertakingthattheCollegewouldpaytheGfievorfor timenotworked. Itappearsthat,asofApril1l,theGrievorwasworkingfivedaysper week,"halfdays",from8a.m.to12p.m. I! Threedayslater,onMarch16,2007,Ms.Watsonrespondedtothetwo "leavewithpay"requeststhatshehadreceived.TheresponsetooktheformofP,vo separatee-mails,bothofwhicharedatedMarch16,2007: [RespectingtheFebruary28appointment] "Thisisinresponsetoyourrequestforleaveunderarticle12.2 foradoctor'sappointmentwhichyouattendedonFebruary28, 2007whichrequiredyoutoleaveworkat11.00a.m.Leaveunder article12.2ofthecollectiveagreementisdeniedsincethe appointmentwasscheduledwellinadvanceanditwaspossibleto adjustyourschedule. Leaveisgrantedaccordingtoarticle12.tofthecollective agreementwhichistheappropriatearticleinthesecircumstances. Sinceyouareworking4-hoursperdayonagraduatedreturnto workbasis,theleaveyourequestedforFebruary28isatotalof onehour. Pleaseadvisewhetheryouwouldprefertotakethehourwithout payorworkanadditionalhourtomakeupthetime. [RespectingtheApril11appointment] Thisisinresponsetoyourrequestforleaveunderarticle12.2for adoctor'sappointmenton8:30a.m.onWednesday,April11, 2007.Leaveunderarticle12.2ofthecollectiveagreementis deniedsincetheappointmentisscheduledwellinadvance. Leaveisgrantedaccordingtoarticle12.1ofthecollective agreementwhichistheappropriatearticleforthecircumstances andmaybetakenasvacation,aslieutimetobemadeup,oras leavewithoutpay.Sinceyouarecurrentlyworkingfourhours perdayonagraduatedreturntoworkbasis,itwouldbepossiblefor youtoadjustyourshiftonApril11ttostartatalatertime. Thiswouldallowyoutoattendyourmedicalappointment. Pleaseadvisehowyouwouldliketotakethe12.1leaveand confirmwithJeanHolmes. ByMarch16t,ofcourse,theGrievorhadalreadyattendedtheFebruary28thdoctor's appointment;howevertheApril1llhappointmentwasstillalmostamonthaway. 12 DespitethereferenceinMs.Watson'sMarch16emailsto"adjustingyour schedule",theGrievormadenoefforttoexplorethepossibilityofreschedulingherhours sothatshecouldattendtheupcomingdoctor'sappointmentinApril,withoutlosingwork timeorpay.Indeed,thereisnoevidencethatsheeverconsideredchangingthat appointmentorherworkschedule,orthatsheeverraisedthesepossibilitieswithher doctor,orwithanymemberofmanagement.Nordidsheprovideanyfurtherinformation totheCollegetosupplementwhatwassaidinhertwoemails.Instead,onApril5,2007, shefiledthetwogrievancesthatarenowbeforeus. TheGrievortestifiedthatshedidnotthinkthatitwasnecessaryforherto haveanyfurthercommunicationwiththeCollegeaboutherproposedappointments;and inthecourseofcross-examlnation,shedidnotwelcometheideaofchangingherwork schedule,sothatshecouldgotothedoctorwithoutlosingworktimeorpay.She testifiedthatwhilethatmighthavebeenconvenientfortheCollege,itwasn'tnecessarily convenientforher.Butasnoted:therewasnofollowupwithanyone. Therewassomewhatcontradictoryevidenceaboutwhattheemployer "knew"aboutDr.Moran'savailability.However,wearesatisfiedthatwhiletheCollege knewthatitmightbehardfortheGrievortobookanappointment,theCollegedidnot know_thatthedoctorwasonlyseeingpatientsforfourhoursperweek,andonlyon Wednesdaymornings[leavingasidefornow,howflexiblethedoctormighthavebeen,if hehadbeenaskedtoconsideratimewhentheGrievorwouldnotrisklosingpay]. 3 Ms.TallontestifiedthatsheknewthattheGrieverhadhadsomedifficulty makingdoctor'sappointments,butshedidnotknowthedetails;andherunderstanding (supportedbyExhibit14andtheGrievor'sowntestimony),wasthatDr.Moranhadseen theGrievoronWednesdaysandThursdaysatleast.Exhibit14documentsasituationin whichaWednesdaydoctor'sappointmentwasswitchedfromWednesdaytoThursday. ButMs.Tatlondidnotknowhowflexiblethedoctorwas,orcouldbe. Ms.WatsonalsoknewthatitmightbedifficultfortheGrievorto scheduleadoctor'sappointment;Butshedidnotknowthedetailsofanylimitations;none wereidentifiedinthetwoemailsthatshehadreceived;andshetestifiedthatevenifthat issuehadbeenspecificallyflagged,shewouldhavediscussedthesituationwiththe Grievor,inordertoseewhetherherhourscouldbevaried,alittle,sothattheGrievor couldmakethedoctor'sappointmentandstillputinthefourhoursthatshecustomarily workedeachday.Ms.Watsonwasconfidentthatinalibrarysetting,thiscouldhavebeen donewithoutanygreatinconvenience-fortheGrievororfortheCollege. Ms.Watsonexplainedthatthelibrarywasopenfromearlyinthemoming untillateintheevening,andthatfulltimelibraryemployeesworkedtwodifferentshifts, andthatpart-timersworkedinvarioustimeslotsfrom8.00inthemorninguntil10.00 p.m.atnight.Ms.MeEaehranwasnottheonlypersonworkinginthelibraryduringthe timethatitwasopen,northeonlypersonaroundtosharetheavailablework. Accordingly,inMs.Watson'sopinion,therewasquiteabitofschedulingflexibility, whichcouldhavebeenexploredintheGrievor'sease-particularlysince,inboth t4 FebruaryandApril,therewasnoparticularurgencyabouttheappointment,andthe appointmentswerescheduledsomedaysorweeksinadvance. InMs.Watson'sopinion,therewaslotsoftimetoexplorealternative worktasksorschedulingarrangements,sothattheGrievorcouldmakeupthetimelost, orcouldattendthedoctor'sappointmentwithoutlosinganyworktimeatall. Ms.WatsontestifiedthatsheconsideredtheGrievor'srequests,ontheir merits;andshedeniedtherequestsforthereasonsthatwereoutlinedinhertwoemails, andthatwereelaboratedattheheating.Shedidnotfollowanyrigidpolicy.Shesaidthat therewasnoproblemgrantingtimeoff,butshethoughtthatleavewithpaywasnot warrantedinthecircumstances.Nooneelsemadethatdecision.AndMs.Watson repeatedthatshewasunawarethatthedoctorwas(ostensibly)onlyworkingfourhoursa week,onadaywhenMs.MeEachranwasscheduledtowork. AidaHarounisaHumanResourcesconsultantwhohashadsome involvementwiththeGrievor'sreturntoworkafterherstressleave.Ms.Harounhad heardatsomepointfromanassistantinthedoctor'sofficethatthedoctorwasnot workingfulltime,andthathewasonlyworkingonedayperweek.Butshedidnothear thisfromthedoctor,norwasshesureofthedetails.Ms.Harounthoughtthatthedoctor wasavailableonWednesdaysorThursdays,butshecouldnotreallyrecall.Norisitelear whenthisconversationtookplace.Ms.HaroundidnotanswertheGrievor'sleavewith payrequest.ThatwasMs.Watson'sdecision. 15 IV-Thepositionoftheparties TheUnionpointsoutthattheGrievor'sneedtoseeherdoctorarose becauseoftheCollege'sownreq.estforinformation;andintheUnion'ssubmission,itis nottheGrievor'sfaultthatherdoctorhaslimitedworkinghours.TheUnionarguesthat thesefactors,togetherwiththeGrievor'sstraitenedeconomiccircumstances(becauseshe hadexhaustedhersickleavebank),makethecircumstances"extenuating"withinthe meaningofArticle12.2. TheUnionfurtherarguesthattheCollegehasimproperlylimitedits discretionbyreferringtotheamountoftimebetweentherequestforleaveandthe doctor'sappointment,andbytheunwarrantedassumptionthatbecauseofthelonglead time,theGrievorcouldhavemadealternativearrangements,Likewiseitwasimproper forMs.Watsontoconsiderhowthedoctor'sappointmentcouldbesquaredwiththe Grievor'sestablishedworkday,ortoexpecttheGrievortoconsideralternativework times. TheUnionassertsthattheGrievorintiffscasehadnoobligationtospell outthedetailsofherneedfortimeoff;and,asUnioncounselputit,theCollegebearsthe responsibilityforitsownignorance,TheUnionsubmitsthatiftherewasinformationthat Ms.Watsonneededinordertomakeherdecision,thensheshouldhaveaskedforit.The onuswasonthemanagertoapproachtheGrievor,nottheotherwayaround, 16 TheUnionfurtherassertsthat,attheveryleast,theCollegeknewthatthe Grievor'sabilitytogetappointmentswithherdoctorwasquitelimited;and,inthe Union'ssubmission,theGrievorhadtoldtheCollegeonatleastoneoccasionthatshe couldonlygetadoctor'sappointmentonWednesday[althoughwefindontheevidence beforeus,thatthisactuallyoccurredsomemonthslater]. TheUnionreiteratesthatiftheemployerwantedtoconsideralternative workingarrangements,thenitoughttohaveapproachedtheGrievoraboutthoseissues; moreover,intheUnion'ssubmission,itisdisingenuoustosuggestare-scheduling arrangementinrespectoftheFebruar28appointment,inane-maildatedMarchI6, twoweekslater.Nor,accordingtotheUnion,wastheGrievorrequiredtodiscussthe upcomingApril11appointmentwithhermanager,afterbeingtoldthatherApril11 "leavewithpay"wasdenied.Shedidnothavetoexplorealternatives.Shecouldsimply fileagrievance-asshedid. 1¢ TheCollegeconcedesthatithadreasonablenoticeoftheGrievor's intendedabsences;andtheCollegeacknowledgesthatitmustfairlyconsidereachleave request,onitsownmerits.NordoestheCollegequestionthe"legitimacy"ofthe Grievor'stworequestsfortimeoff.HowevertheCollegeemphasizesthatthereisa dlstinetionbetweentimeofffor"legitimatepersonalreasons"inArticle12.1,andtime off"withunderArticle12.2;andinrespectofanArticle12.2"leavewithoar" request,therearemuchmorestriugentrequirements,whichtheemployeeisobligedto identifyatthetimethattherequestforleaveismade.Andifs!hedoesnotdoso,then 17 s/herunstheriskthattheleavemaybedenied,orthatitmaybegrantedbutwithout reimbursementforlostworktime-ashappenedhere. CounselpointsoutthatArticle12.2involvesadiscretion-notan entitlement-andthatitisuptotheemployeetoexplainandjustifytheleavewithap_o_E.It isnotenoughtohaveavalidreasonforrequestingtimeoff.Theremustbesomething more,thatjustifieswhytheemployershouldexerciseitsdiscretioninfavourofpaying fortimenotworked.Indeed,thatisthedifferencebetweenArticle12.1andArticle12.2 TheCollegesaysthattheonusisontheGrievortobringherselfsquarely withintheparametersofArticle12.2andtocommunicatewhatever"extenuating personalcircumstances"theremaybeinherparticularease;moreover,evenifshebrings herselfwithinthoseparameters,theoutcomeisstillsubjecttotheexerciseofdiscretion as,cotmselsubmits,arbitratorO'NeilfoundintheFanshmveCollegecase(ReOPSEU& Fanshtn,eCollege(LouiseWattgrievance)decisionreleasedDeeember15,2005).That exereiseofdiscretionisinformedbywhattheemployeetellstheemployer;butitisa discretionaryexercisenevertheless.Andincounsel'ssubmission,therewasnothing unreasonableabouttheconclusionthatMs.Watsonreachedinthisease. TheCollegesubmitsthattheGrievordidnotfullysetouthersituationin thetwoe-mailsmentionedabove,nordidsheengageinaprocessofdialogueinwhich theinterestsofthepartiescouldhavebeenfullyidentified,consideredandbalanced;and 18 havingfailedtobringherselfwithintheclause,theGrievorcannotnowcomplainthat "leavewithpay"wasnotgranted. Counselsubmitsthatthereisnoreliableevidencethatthedoctorwould onlyworkonWednesdaymornings,orthattheGrievor'sneedscouldnothavebeenmet withrelativelyminoradjustmentstoherworkschedule(withoutaddingadditional hours);andthattherewasnoeffortonMs.MeEaehran'sparttoconsiderthese possibilities,eveninrespectofthesecondrequestfortimeoff-where,counselnotes, Ms:Watsonhadspecificallymentionedthepossibilityofachangeinworkschedule, sincetheappointmentwasstillalmostamonthaway.Counselfurtherpointsoutthat thereisnoevidencethattheGrievoreversoughtanyalternativearrangementwithher doctor,orthatthedoctorcouldnothaveseenheronsomeotherdayortime(ashehad doneonatleastoneoccasionbefore).Thereisnodirectevidenceaboutthedoctor's availabilityorhisflexibilityinthisinstance;and,intheevidence,theGrievorneither considered-northoughtthatshehadtoconsider-anychangesonherpart.Shesimply madethe"request"fortimeoffwithpayfortheperiodsinquestion,andseemstohave expectedthatitwouldbegrantedmoreorlessautomatically. TheCollegesubmitsthattheGrievorhasnotestablishedabreachof Article12.2,andthathergrievancesshouldthereforebedismissed.TheCollege reiteratesthat"leavewithpay"isanexceptionalanddiscretionarybenefit-notan automaticentitlement;andintheCollege'ssubmission,theGrievorhasneithermetthe prerequisitesofArtiele12.2,norhastheCollegebreachedthatprovision. 19 V-Discussion Theclause WemightbeginbyobservingthatArticle12.2isoneofanumberof provisionsthatdealwithtimeoffwork,leavesofabsence,orindemnificationforlost worktime.Someofthoseclausesareunqualifiedandprovideforfullindemnification. Othersareconditionalordonotfullyreimbursetheemployeeforthelostincome.And someclauses-likeArticle12:2-involvebothpreconditionsandtheexerciseofemployer discretion.Thepreciseformulavariesfi'omsituationtosituation(unionleave, educationalleave,parental/pregnancyleave,STD,LTD,etc.). Eachclausepresumablyreflectsthegiveandtakeofcollectivebargaining, andtheimportancethatthebargainingpartieshavegiventothevariousscenariosin whichtimeofffromworkmightbenecessary-nodoubtinformedbythefactthatmany employeeshaveastatutoryrighttotimeoffwithoutpay,todealwithvariouspersonalor familyresponsibilities(see,thePersonalEmergencyLeaveandFamilyMedicalLeave provisionsoftheEmploymentStandardsAcO.Andofcourse,whiletheseleave provisionscreateafinancialorpersonalbenefitfortheemployee,theycanproducean operationalandeconomicimpactontheemployer.Forexample:ifanemployeeis grantedtimeoffwithpay,theemployermaynotonlyhavetopayfortimenotworked, andbutmayalsohaveto"backfill"withovertime,orbycallinginaparttimertodothe workoftheabsentemployee. 2O Leavewithoutpay,isnot"costless"fromtheemployer'sperspectiveand leavewithpaymerelyincreasesthatcost;sotheprecisecontractualformula,ineachcase, hasbeenworkedoutincollectivebargainingjustlikeanyotherbenefitorcostitem(like the"floatingdaysoff"thatonesometimesseesincollectiveagreementstocoverthis kindofthing). ThepersonalleaveofabsenceprovisionsinArticle12arenotamodelof linguisticprecision;but,wethinkthattheirthrustcanbegleunedfromcomparingthe wayinwhichAxtiele12.1andArtiele12;2fittogether.Forwhilebothclausesenvisage theexerciseofemployerdiscretion,wethinkitisfairtosaythatthereisadistinction betweengettingtimeoffworktoattendtopersonalconcerns,ontheonehand,and havingtheemployerpayforit,ontheother;moreover,giventhewayinwhichthe clausesareframed,itappearstousthatitisfarmoredifficulttoget"timeoff" underArticle12.2,thansimply"timeoff'underArticle12.1.Becauseitisclearthatthe "legitimatepersonalreasons"forleaveunderArticle12.1,willnotnecessarilyconstitute "extenuatingpersonalcircumstances",underArticle12.2;ortoputthematteranother way:"leave"and"leavewithpay",arenotthesaanething,andneitherofthemarean absolute"entitlement". Aswehavealreadynoted,underArticle12.1theCollegegranttime off,providedthattheemployeehas"legitimatepersonalreasons"forhis/herproposed leaveofabsence.Therearenonegotiatedcriteriatoguidetheexerciseofthisdiscretion, norarethereanystipulatedhurdlesthattheemployeemustmeet,otherthanhaving 21 "legitimatepersonalreasons"forseekingtimeoff.Theclauseitselfdoesnotelaborate whatmightbeencompassedbythatphrase.Thus,thelengthofleave,thereasonsforthe leave,thetiming,andtheoperatlonalimpactarealljust"factors"(amongothers)thatthe employermayhavetoconsiderintheexerciseofitsdiscretionunderArticle12.1. Bycontrast,Article12.2requiresmorethanjust"legitimatepersonal reasons"fortherequestedleave.Thereisanobligationontheapplicantemployeeto makeallreasonableefforts(i.e."...willbescheduledwherepossible..")toschedulethe timeoffinawaythatwillnotcollidewithhis/herworkresponsibilities;andthereisalso arequirementtogive"reasonablenotice"tothesupervisorconcerned.Bothofthese requirementsputanonusontheemployeetoconsidertheneedsoftheCollege;andasa practicalmatter,theymayalsorequiretheemployeetoengageinadialoguewithhishler supervisorinordertoexplorethepossibilities-whichistosay:withrespecttonotice, scheduling,minimizingdisrnption,andsoon. Obviously,theneedfortimeoffmayarisetotallyunexpectedlyandina waythatisbeyondtheemployee'scontrol.Thatiswhytheclauseusesthephrase"where possible"anddoesnotstipulateanysetamountofadvaneenotice-just"reasonable notice"inthecircumstances.However,itseemstousthattheopeningtwosentencesof Article12.2contemplateaprocessofdeliberation(wherepossible),andaneffortto considerandbalancethecompetingneedsoftheemployerandtheemployee. 22 Article12.2thengoesontodescribethekindsofcircumstanceswhich mustbepresentinordertotriggerthespecialdiscretionary"leavewithpay"thatisthere described:notjusttimeofftoattendtopersonalbusiness,butalsoindemnificationfor anylostwages. Religiousleaveaside,thelanguageoftheagreementsuggeststhatleave u,ith1L,willbejustifiedonlyforsomethingunusual,orspecial,orunforeseen,or(to usethewordsoftheclauseitself)"inextenuatingpersonalcircumstances".Theuseof theword"extenuating"seemstobeanattempttocapturesomethingthatisextraordinary, orunforeseeable,orbeyondtheindividual'spersonalcontrol.Indeed,thatisthesense thatthesepartieshaveendorsed,whentheyagreedthatleavesunderArticle12.2areto bedistinguishedfromleavesunderArticle12.1,asfollows(emphasisadded): 1.Thisistoconfirmtheparties'understandingthat "extenuatingcircumstances"differentiateleaverequests underArticle12.2fromleaverequestsunderArticle12.1. Hence"extenuatingpersonalcircumstances"aspresented bytheemployeeatthetimeoftherequestmustexistin ordertoinvokeleavepursuanttoArticle12.2. 1 Thepartiesagreethat"extenuatingpersonal circumstances"hasbeeninterpretedtomeansituations involvingextraordinary,compellingorwforeseennecessity directlyaffectingtheemployee.(See:FanshaweO'Neil: FanshaweCollegeandOPSEU(Watt)dee'ndatedFeb.15, 22004(O'Neil)) 3 Theemployerhasanobligationandarighttoconsidereach requestunderArticle12.2onanindividualizedbasisonthe factspresentedatthetimeoftherequest,andthe employee'srequestwillnotbeunreasonablydenied. 4.Theemployee'srequestforleaveunderArticle12.2must belegitimateandbonafide. 23 Thisdocumentalsoconfirmstheparties'sharedunderstandingthatthe onusisontheemployeetoidentifythebasisforhis/herclaimatthetimethats/hemakes therequestfortimeoff-eitherintherequestitself,or(moresensiblyinourview),in discussionswithmanagement.Article12.2doesnotrequirethattherequestforleavebe putinwriting.However,whetherornotawrittenrequestismade,itisopentothe employee(andprobablywise),toexplainthebackgroundtohis/hersupervisor,sothat s/hecanbefullyinformedofthesituation,andsothattheycanconsidertheoptions together. Thisisnottosaythatthereabsolutelymustbedialogue;butonlythatit maybeasensiblewaytoteaseoutthecircumstancesthatmayberelevanttotheopen endeddiscretionunderArticle12-which,itmightbenoted,ostensiblycoversleavesfor allmannerofpersonalreasons,andembracestimeofffromworkforanhour,oraweek, oramonth,orevenlonger.Article12is(onitsfaceatleast)unlimitedandopen-endedin tiffsregard;andalittledialoguemaygoalongwaytoclarifythesituation. Article12,2thengoesontosay,thatifanemployeehasdonewhatis contemplatedinthefirsttwosentencesoftheclause,andifthesituationcomeswithinthe parametersofthethirdsentence,thentheCollege"m_m_...initsdiscretion"granttheleave withoutlossofpay.Thepennlssive"may"isfollowedbytheconfirmatory"inits discretion";andinourview,therepetitionemphasizesthediscretionarynatureofthe exercise.Thentheclausestipulatesthattheemployee'srequestshallnotbe "umeasonablydenied". 2,1 Accordingly,apartaltogetherfromwhattheemployeemustdo(i.e.s/he musttrytominimizetheoperationalconsequences,ands/hemustgivereasonablenotice) thereisanacknowledgedexerciseofdiscretionontheCollege'spart,togetherwitha dutytoact"reasonably".Thatiswhywehavedescribedtheprocessasa"qualified exerciseofdiscretion".Becausethewayinwhichtheclauseisframed,meansthatevenif theemployeecanpointto"extenuatingpersonalcircumstances",theemployerstillhasa discretiontograntorrefusetheleave,providedthatitactsreasonably. Moreover,wehaveemphasizedthewords"withpay",becausethatisthekeydistinction betweentheleavesgrantedundericle12AandleavesgrantedunderArticle12.22And inourview,oneofthefactorsthatgoesintothe"reasonablenesscalculus"isthefactthat theemployeeisalreadygettingthetimeofftoattendtopersonalbusiness,leavingitfor theCollegetoconsiderwhetheritisalso"reasonable"toindemnifytheemployeeforall orpartofthetimenotworked. Insummarythen,Article12.1givestheemployeeaccesstotimeoff worktoattendtohis/herpersonalinterests,evenifthatabsenceimpactsontheCollegeor his/herco-workers(whomayhaveto"backfliP'fortheirabsentcolleague).However, underArticle12.1,s/heisnotreimbursedforanylostwages("paidfornotworking",as theemployerseesit).Bycontrast,underArticle12.2,theemployeeisnotonlygiven timeofftoattendtohis/herpersonalaffairs,buts/heisalsoindemnifiedbytheemployer, forallorpartofanylostincome.[Wesay'part"because,aswillbeseenfromsomeof thecasesbelow,reimbttrsementisnotanallornothingthing;anditmaybereasonable fortheemployertosubsidizesomepartoftheemployee'sleave,butnotallofit]. 25 Finally,itisclearthatArticle12doesnotcreateanabsolute"entitlement" toaleaveofabsence,ortoaleaveofabsence"withpay";and,inrespectofleaves"with pay"underArticle12.2,thereisamoredetailedobligationonbothpartiestoconsider, andseektobalance,theirpotentiallycompetinginterests.Orputdifferently:theoverall "reasonableness"oftheemployer'sresponse,maydependupontheoverall "reasonableness"oftheemployee'sclaim,aswellasthecircumstancesinwhichitis made-arguablyincludingsuchthingsas:thelengthofleave;thereasonfortheleave;the operationalimpact;whethertherewasaneffortontheemployee'sparttoschedulethe timeoffinawaythatminimizesdismptio,lorincomeloss;theextentofsuchdisruption and/orwagelosses;whetheritcouldbeavoidedorminimizedinsomewaybythe employerortheemployee;whethertherearecompellingcompassionateconsiderations; andsoon, Theclauseprovidesaframeworkforconsideration,withoutspellingout thedetails;andinourview,itrequiresbothpartiestoactreasonably.Andasdrafted,it mayrequiretheemployeetorevealthepersonalreasonforthetimeoff,togetherwith whateveritisthatmakesit"extenuating". Someeases Thepartiesdidnotundertakeacompletereviewofthemanycases decidedunderArticle12-easeswhich,itwaspointedout,tendtoberootedinthe particularfactsofeachcase,andtothatextent,aredistinguishable.Howevertheeases 26 thatwereputbeforeus,doillustratethekindsofsituationsinwhichArticle12.2might apply,togetherwiththeCollege'sobligationsunderthatclause. Allofthecasesacknowledgetheelasticityoftheclause,andthewide rangeofpossiblecircumstancestowhichitmightapply.InReSt.ClairCollegeand OPSEU(May1985)ArbitratorBrentputitthisway: Whenthelanguageof[Article12.2]isexamined,itisclear thatitwouldbeaformidableifnotimpossibletasktotryto catalogueallofthosecircumstanceswhichcouldpossibly qualifyasbeingeither"personalreasons"or"extenuating :personalcircmnstaJlces".Tilepartiesnodoubtusedthose broadgeneralphrasestoreflecttherealitythitthereareas many"personalreasons"and"extenuatingpersonal circuynstances"astherearegrainsofsandonthebeach. Theintentoftheprovisionmustsurelybetogivethe employeetherighttohavehis/hersituationexaminedfully beforeadeterminationismadewhetherornottogranta requestforleavewithpay. ThissentimentwasechoedinReOPSEU&FanshaweCollege(Skinnergrievance),a decisionthatwasreleasedinSeptember1992(MacDowell): Theclauseisbroadlydraftedandthereisalegitimate concernforconsistentapplication,butanindividualis neverthelessentitledtoafairexaminationoftherequest tmfetteredbyunreasonablepre-judgment. Giventhatthecauselaeksnegotiatederiteriatoguidetheexerciseof discretion(otherthananobligationtobe"reasonable"),eachoftheeasesfocuses,to somedegree,ontheprocesswhichtheemployerisobligedtofollow;moreover,the adjudicatorshavesometimesusedlanguagethatisreminiscentoftheapproachtakenby theCourtswhenreviewingtheexerciseofdiscretionbyastatutorydecisionmaker. 27 Thus,itissaidthattheemployermustactingoodfaith;andthattheemployermusttake intoaccountallrelevantconsiderationsandeschewirrelevantones;andthattheremust beagenuineconsiderationoftheindividualclaim,withoutbeingundulyblinkeredby pastpracticeorpre-establishedpolicy.ThepanelinFanshawesupraputitthisway (emphasisadded): Iftheagreementhasnonegotiatedcriteriafortheexemise ofdiscretionandtheultimatedecisionmustneverthelessbe "reasonable",couldtheCollegepolicybethecontrolling factorwhich[thesupervisor]madeit.Inourviewitcould not.Withoutnecessm'ilyimportingadministrativelaw conceptsintotheinterpretationofthecollectiveagreement, wethinthattheobligationtobereasonableencompassesa .dutytofairlyconsidereachclaimonitsparticularmerits, withoutregm'dtosomerigidorpre-establishedpolicy...The employercannotadheretoapolicywhichunreasonably fettersitsdiscretionunderArticle12.2orsuperimposesa limitationthatthepartieshavenotnegotiated;fortodothat wouldbetantamounttounilaterallyamendingthe agreement.Anypurportedpolicymustleaveroomforan honestassessmentofeachcase,andmustitselfeffecta reasonabledispositionofaclassofcasesforwhichitwas devised.Apolicywhichreflectstheaccumulated experienceofreasonablyexerciseddiscretionmaybe perfectlyproperbutitcannotprecludeconsiderationof differentorspecialcases,andmustbereasonablyrelatedto thecircumstancesunderreview--'ifonlybyanalogy. substitutefor "reasonable"; agreement. Wedonotdisagreewiththese"nroeessconcerns".A"policy"isnota thought.NoristheemployerentitledtoUnilaterallyprescribewhatis forastheboardnotedinFanshmt,ethatmightamounttoamendingthe Howeveritisimportanttoappreciatethattheconsiderationofa"policy" or"pastpractice"isnotipsofactoimproper,providedthatitdoesnotpreventagenuine 28 considerationoftheactualclaim,orforeclosetheopportunitytoadvancereasonsfor departingfromwhathasbeendonebefore.Historycaninformtheunderstandingofwhat is"reasonable"incontext;andsocandeterminations,judgments,orthereasoningofpast managerialdecisionmakerswhohavefacedthesameproblems(whichiswhatinfuses staredecisisafterall)-whilerecognizingthatfactualdifferencesmaymatter,andthat pastpracticeisnotastraightjacket. Ifa"policy"isrootedinareasonablepracticeinlikesituations,thereis nothingwrongwithreferringtoorrelyinguponsuchpolicy-whileleavingopenthe possibilityofexceptions;anymorethanitwouldbe"unreasonable"foranarbitratortobe guidedbywhatotherarbitratorshavedonebeforeinlikesituations.Becauseoneofthe waysinwhichanorganizationavoidsdifferentialtreatmentoflikecases-whichmight itselfprovidesgroundsforanassertionof"un-reasonableness"or"favouritism"or "discrimination"-isbyhavinga"policy"toguidetheexerciseofdiscretion;andiffuat policyisobjectivelyreasonableand/orreflectsanaccumulationofpracticewhichis objectivelyreasonable,thenitiscompletelyartificialtofaulttheemployerfor consistency.Moreover,clarity,simplicity,andeaseofadministrationarealllegitimate operationalconsiderationsthatanemployermaysensiblytakeintoaccountwhengauging itsapproachtotheexerciseofdiscretion.Indeed,artorganizationfaeedwithalarge volumeofdiscretionarydecisionsispracticallyboundtohaveridesofthumbor guidelinesforsubordinatemanagerstofollow;andinourview,thereisnothingwrong withthat. 29 Knowingtherulesandhavingclearrulesisimportantformanagementand employeesalike.Theytellprospectiveclaimantswheretheystand,andtheyserveas benchmarksthatthepotentialclaimantsthemselvesmaywishtotakeintoaccount.They alsoprotectagainstallegationsoffavotu'itismordiscrimination-whichisobviouslyan importantvalueinanyworkplace.Conversely,havingatestof"italldepends"canlead touncertaintyandinconsistencyandlitigation,eventhoughitmaypermitamore nuancedconsiderationofparticularcases. .Accordingly,whilethephrase"fetteringyourdiscretion"hasanice "administrativelaw"ringtoit,andnicelycapturestheimportanceof"process",itis importantnottotakethatconcepttoofar.Forofcourse,statutorytribunals,exercising quasi-judicialfunctions,typicallydohave"policies"(andoftenquiterigidones)which theyareinclinedtofollowunlesstherearedistinguishingorcompellingcountervailing considerations;andfollowingthosepoliciesisnotimproper.NorhavetheCourtsbeen intrusiveinthisarea,ifthepolicyitselfis"reasonable".Likewisereferencestopast practicecanprovideanindicationofwhatisreasonable,ratherthanthereverse.And quitefranklythereissomethingvaguelytroublinginthesuggestion,ontheonehand,that "youarefetteringyourdiscretionandactingimproperly,ifyoufollowanestablished policy"and,ontheotherhand,"youareactingunreasonablyandimproperlyifyoudon't treatalllikecasesinexactlythesameway".Thissubmissionhastheflavourofa"Catch 22"aboutit. 30 Ontheotherhand,whenthepartieshavemadetheemployer's determinationsubjecttoreviewona"reasonablenessbasis",theyhaveprovidedforan. individualizedanalysisandreview,inordertodetermifiewhetherthedecisionwasbased uponreasonablyjustifiedcriteria,havingregardtowhatevercountervailing considerationsareevidentinthatparticularcase. Bethatasitmay,whilethearbitrationcasesdealingwithArticle12reveal agenuineconcernthateachemployeeclaimmustbefairlyandindividuallyconsidered, arbitratorshavebeenfarlessintrusiveinrespectofwhatismeantby"extenuating circumstances"orwithrespecttohowtheemployerultimatelyexercisesitsdiscretion, oncetheemployerhasascertainedtherelevantconsiderations.Indeed,ifthedecision makerhasfairlyturnedhis/hermindtotheclaimant'spositionandhasfairlyconsidered thesituation,manyarbitratorshaveshollittleappetiteto"secondguess"theoutcome, unlessthedecisionismanifestlyanddemonstrablyunreasonable. TheonusofestablishingabreachoftheagreementliesupontheUnion; and,arbitratorshaverecognizedthattheremaybea'rangeofreasonableness',and potentiallydifferentreasonableanswerstothequestionofwhetheranemployeeshould notonlygettimeoff,butalsogettimeoff"withpay"(i.e.thattheemployermustnot onlyfacilitatetileemployee'sabilitytoaddresshis/herprivateconcerns,butalso subsidizethatendeavour).Moreover,eveninthejudicialrealmfromwhichthe administrativelawtestsaredrawn,ithasbeenrecognizedthattheconceptof 31 "reasonableness"involvessomepermissiblevariability9fprocessandresult.(Seethe observationsoftheCourtinMinottv.O'ShanterDevelopmentsCo.(1999),42O.R.(3d) 321(O.C.A.)andcompareRyanv.LcnvSociety(NewBrunswick)[2003]1S.C.R.247 (S.C.C.)where,indifferentcontexts,theCourtshaveheldthatatestof"reasonableness" permitsarangeofoutcomes,anddemandsadegreeofdeferencetothechoiceofthe decisionmaker). Thesearethekindsofconsiderationsthatemergeinsomeofthecasesto whichwewerereferred. InFanshawe(Skinner)supra,theemployeewasseekingtimeofftoattend totheneedsaspousewhohadhadadifficultbirth,andthepanelobserved: Thereisnoevidencebeforetheboardofanyother situationsinwhichtheCollegehasgrantedordeniedpaid leaveunderArticle12.2.Thereis,therefore,nobackground withwhichtheGrievor'ssituationcanbecompared,or whichwouldhelpustoassesswhethercircumstanceslike hiswereusual,orunusual,frequentorinfrequent.Asfaras [thesupervisor]wasconcernedtheOrievor'sdilemmawas unprecedented;butthatistheonlyevidencethatwehave.... Thisisnottosaythattheemployer'spracticeinother situationswouldnecessarilygovemtheresultinthisone; buttotheextentthat'the"reasonableness"ofitsdecisionis underreview,thattermmighttakeitseolourfromthe broadercontextofleaverequests.Wordslike"special"or "extenuating"suggestsomethingoutoftheordinary,and thedegreetowhichtheGrlevor'ssituationis,indeed, extraordinarymightassistusinmeasuringthe "reasonableness"oftheemployer'sresponse.Lookingafter asickspouse/childwouldnotseemonthesurfacetobeso unusualbutintheabsenceofanyevidenceofcontext,we arelefttoweightheGrievor'ssituationinisolation. 32 HoweverinthatcasetheCollegehadaninflexiblepolicythatanemployeehadtouseup his/hervacationcreditsbefores/heanyleaverequestunderArticle12.2wouldbe considered;andaccordingtothesupervisorinthatcase,thatmeantthattherequestwas rejectedwithoutanyconsiderationatallofthelanguageoftheclause,ortheemployee's personalsituation.Thearbitrationboarddescribedtheemployer'sstancethisway: Thereflexivereferenceto"establishedpractice"precluded anygenuineconsiderationoftheGriever'ssituationandled totheerroneousconclusioneither:thattheGrievor's 'circumstanceswhilepressing,serious,unprecedentedand beyondhiscontrolwerenot"extenuating";orthatprecisely -becausetheywerepressing,butunprecedented,theydidnot fitwithinestablished"policy"soastojustify"special" leave. Intheend,thedecisioninFanshmveturnedonafailurebythesupervisor tofollowtheproper,ortofairlyconsidertheactualfactsbeforeher.Itwasa "process"defectofthekinddiscussedabove.Nevertheless,thelanguageusedbythe panelinrespectofArticle12.2,suggeststhattheremustbesomethingexceptionalabout thesituationbeforeanemployee,whohasalreadybeengrantedaleaveofabsencetodeal withhis/herpersonalsituation,shouldalsobeindemnifiedforanywagelossoccasioned bymissingwork.Payfortimenotworkedistheexception,ratherthantherule;andto I comewithinthatexception,theemployeemustnotonlydemonstratethatthereare extenuatingorspecialpersonalcirctunstances,butalsothatitwouldbeunreasonablefor theemployernottosubsidizetheleaveinallthecircumstances,includingthoseidentified bytheemployee. 33 Notsurprisingly,anumberofthecasesdealwithsituationswherethere wasaclauseinthecollectiveagreementthataddressedcircumstancessimilartothoseof theemployee-applicant,butthatdidnotcoverhls/herprecisesituation-eitherbecause shedidnotfallsquarelywithinthesubjectmattertowhichtheclausewasdirected,or becausetheemployeedidnotmeetallofthenegotiatedeondltionsfortheapplicationof thatclause.SotheemployeesoughtleaveunderArticle12.2to"fillthegap",sotospeak: togetleaveunderthegeneralprovisioninArticle12,whichwouldnothavebeen avaiiabiedersomeotherspecificprovision(bereavementleave,sickleave,etc.). Forexample,inLoyalistCollege(September16,1996,Brown),the Grievorwasnotentitledtotimeoffunderthebereavementleaveelanse;soshesought personalleavewithpayinordertoattendthefuneralofthebrotherofher80-year-old fatheratlaw.Shesaidthatshewasveryclosetoherfatherinlaw,andthaiheneeded supportwhentravelingtothefuneralofhisbrother(theclaimant's"unele",asshe describedhim)-althoughthesituationwascomplicatedbythefactthatcertainassertions madebytheclaimantwerenotsubstantiatedintheevidence.Andintheend,thepanel wasnotpreparedtosaythattheemployer'sdeterminationwasunreasonable.Arbitrator Browncommented: TheissueisnotwhethertheBoardwouldhavedeelded differentlybutwhethertheEmployerhadtherelevant informationsubmittedhisupportoftherequestand exerciseditsdiscretionproperlyandinaccordancewith Article12.2 34 TheboardinLoyalistfoundnobreachofArticle12.2;moreoverArbitratorBrownnoted withapproval,thefollowingpassagefromReCameronandTreasuryBoard(Department ofTransporO(1979)22L.A.C.(2nd)(Joliffe)[emphasisadded]: [Theissueis]whetherinallthecircumstancesspecialleave was"unreasonablywithheld".Theinterpretationor applicationofthosewordshasbeenconsideredinanumber ofwell-knowncases.Sufficeittosaythattwotestsare consistentlyrecognizedbyadjudicators:(a)wasittJossible o1"appropriateforotheratv'angementstobemadebythe applicantforspecialleave?(b)wereallrelevant considerationstakenintoaccotmtbyawell-informed managementinrejectingtheapplication?Eachcasemust beassessedbyreferencetothosecriteria. Eachcaseofthiskindmustbedecidedonitsownfacts, Adjudicatorshaveoftensaidthatitisnotquestionofwhat anadjudicatorwoulddohimselfinthecircumstances;the questioniswhethertheemployer'sdecisionwasarrivedat reasonablyorunreasonably. Whatthearbitratorsaresuggestinghere,isthatitisimportanttotryto decidetheseeasesobjectively,andnottorelyundulyontheadjudicator'ssubjective senseoftheequitiesofthesituation;becausewithoutclearerguidanceinthecollective agreement,anarbitratorshouldbereluctanttostepintotheshoesofmanagement,orto (notionally)"usurp"thediscretionthathasbeensoclearlygiventotheemployer.The questionisnotwhetherthearbitratorwouldhavebeeninclinedtogranttheleave requested,butratherwhetherthemanagerialdeterminationisclearlyandobjectively unreasonable. AnarbitrationboardreachedasimilarconclusioninCentennialCollege& OPSEU(Colleen_Purchase),decisionreleasedFebruary14,2007(Simmons). 35 IntheColleenPurchaseease,theGrievorsoughtleavewithpaytoattend atthefuneralofaclosefriend;however,thearbitratorwasnotpersuadedthatthis,in itself,wasasufficientbasisforgivingherleavewithpay(ortobemoreaccurate:thatthe eniployer'srefusaltogranttimeoffwork,plusindemnifieatlonforlostwages,wasa contraventionofArticle12.2).Interestingly,ArbitratorSimmonsdoesnotseemtohave beenundulytroubledbytheCollege'sviewthatpersonalleaveshouldnotnormallybe usedtoexpandentitlementsthatarespecificallycoveredbyotherarticlesofthe collectiveagreement(therethe"bereavementleaveclause").Thepanelobserved: GiventheinformationcontainedintheGrievor'srequest thatsherequestedleavetoattendthefuneralofaveryclose friend,itwasonlynaturalforMr.Chalmerstofirstthinkin termsofbereavementleave.Butthatclearlywasnotwhat wasbeingsought.Whatwasbeingrequestedwaspersonal leavewithpay.Ifthedeceasedhadbeenoneofthe enumeratedpersonslistedinart.12.5thenshewouldhave beenentitledtoleavewithoutlossofpay,inaccordance withthatarticle.Withtheinformationprovidedinher requestforleave,itisunderstandablethatMr.Chalmers mighthavethoughtthatshewassimplyattemptingto expandthebereavementleaveentitlement.Butofcoursethe Gdevorknewthatshewasnotentitledtothebereavement leaveandhenceherreasonforresortingtoart.12.2. However,asMr.Chalmersstatedinhisevidence,deathis aneverydayoccurrence.Inordertohavehopedtosucceed inherrequestshewouldhavehadtosetoutinherrequest whysheconsideredthisleaveofabsencetofallwithinthe "extenuatingpersonalcireumstauces"assetoutinart12.2. Shefailedtodoso. Intheresult,theboardintheColleenPurchasecase,wasnotpersuaded thatthesituationamountedtoextenuatingpersonalcircumstances,orthatitwas unreasonablefortheemployertorefusetopaythelostwagesofanindividualwhowas giventimeofftoattendthefuneralofsomeonewhowasaclosefriend,butwhose 35 relationshiptotheemployee-applicantwasnotonecapturedbythebereavementleave clause.Theboardwasnotinclinedtorequiretheemployertosubsidizethatleave,even thoughtheboardacceptedthattherewasalegitimaterequestfortimeofftoattendthe funeralofafriend. InOPSEU&FanshaweCollege(Wattgrievance),decisiondated December15,2005(O'Neil)thearbitrationpanelreachedthesameconelusionas arbitratorSimmonsdid.InthatcasetheGrievorsoughtleavewithpaytoattendher cousin'sfuneral;andtheCollegeconcludedthatwhiletherewerelegitimatepersonaland compassionatereasonsforgrantingtimeoff,theCollegewasnotobligedtopaythe employeeforthetimenotworked,Theemployernotedthatemployee'spresencewas notimperative,norwassheanintegralpartofthefuneralservice;andintheend, ArbitratorO'Neilwroteasfollows(emphasisadded): Unioncounselurgesafindingthattheemployer's discretioningrantingpaidleavedoesnotextendto interpretingtheterm"extenuatingcircumstances",thatthis ispurelyafactualquestion.Thissuggestsa"correctness" test,whichwouldinviteafindingthatoneofMs.Watt[the Orievor]orMs.Glavin[themanager]werewronginher viewofwhetherthefactsamounttoextenuating circumstances.Iftherewereafixedpointfromwhichto measurewhatisobjectivelyextenuatingandwhatisnot, thisargumentwouldhavemoreappeal,asitwould contributetocertaintyandpredictabilityfortheparties.As itis,thereisnosuchfixedstandardandthereforeno adequatebasisfordeclaringoneviewof"extenuating circumstances"rightandtheotherwrongonthefactsbefore me,wherebothMs.WattandMs.Glavinhadsincerely held,defensiblereasonsfortheirviewofthematter.There maybecaseswherethefactsaresoclearlyextenuatingor notthatitwtl!befairtodeclareoneviewrightorwrong. Nonetheless,onthefactsofthtscase,todeclareoneview correctandtheotherincorrectwouMbetogiveanauraof 37 precisionthatthefactsdonotsuppm'tandthelawdoesnot require.Ms.Wart'sreasonsforwantingtobeofffortwo dayswereentirelylegitimateandimportantaseveryone concernedaccepted.Inherviewtheywereextenuating enoughtowarrantpaybecauseshefeltshehadan obligationtogo,thatitwasnotamatterofchoice.From [thesupervisor]Ms.Glavin'spointofview,thereasons werelegitimateandthereforewarrantedtheleave,butthe Griever'sattendancewasnotsonecessaryastowarrantthe termextenuating.Extenuatingandnecessaryarenot synonymous.Nonetheless,inthecontextoftheclauseand theprovisionsofthebereavementleaveelausewhichdoes notauthorizepayforfirstcousins'funerals,askingwhether thereisanecessityinvolvedisagoodstartingplace. Extraordinary,compellingorunforeseennecessity,areall termsthatdescribethecircumstancesinsuccessful grievancesunderArticle12.2. Thequestiontobedecidedbecomeswhether[the supervisor]Ms.Glavin'sdecision,basedasitwasonher conclusionthatthecircumstancesdidnotwarranttheterm "extenuating"offendthecollectiveagreementrequirement thattheGriever'srequestnotbeum'easonablydenied.In theend,theBoardisnotconvincedthatitdoes.Although theGriever'sfeltnecessitywasobviouslygenuine,the necessityofbeingtherewascoveredbythetimeoff,and thecircumstancesarenotsocompellingthatitisclearthat thepaidleavewastheonlyreasonableemployerresponse. ToparaphraseArbitratorVerity'scriteria(fromtheabove notedCrowninRightofOntariocase)[unreported,April9, 1988]formeasuringreasonability,whichserveasauseful toolforthenecessaryanalysis,thereisnoevidencethat therewasanythingdiscriminatoryorinbadfaithaboutthe decision.FromMs.Glavin'sevidenceitappearedtobea genuineexerciseofdlseretion,andtherewasnorigid adherencetopolicy..oSheclearlygaveconsiderationtothe meritsoftheGrlevor'srequestandtookintoaccountallthe factspresentedtoheraswellastheadvicefromHmnan Resources.TheBoardisnotpersuadedthatMs.Glavin basedthedecisionuponirrelevantconsiderations...Ftu'ther, evenconsideringallthefactsavailableatthehearing,some ofwhichwerelikelynotarticulatedinthesamedetailatthe timeoftherequest,theevidencedoesnotjustifyafinding thatMs.Glavin'sassessmentwasunreasonable.Thecase boilsdowntoonewhereothersmighthavegrantedthepay 38 andbeenconsideredtohavemadeareasonable,more generousdecision,butthattheevidenceisnotpersuasiveto thattheoppositedecisionwasunreasonableforbeingless generous. Onceagain,therewasadisinclinationtosupplementspecifically negotiatedbenefits,throughthevehicleofArticle12.2;and,therewasalsoadistinct disinclinationonthepartoftheboardto"secondguess"thedecisionoftheCollege,orto dispense"palmtreejustice",ortosubstituteitsownviewforthatofthemanager.The boardsaidthatadifferenceofopinionbetweenmanagersorbetweenthearbitration boardandamanagerdoesnot,byitself,groundabreachofArtiele12.2.An "ungenerous"decisionisnotnecessarily"unreasonable".Andthefactthatreasonable personsmightdiffer,doesnotamounttoabreachofthecollectiveagreement. Bycontrast,inGeorgianCollege&OPSEU(PeacockGrievance)(April 2001),ArbitratorSaltmanthoughtthataclaimant'srequestforsubsidizedleave, occasionedbytheillnessofachildwarrantedtimeoff,withpay,becausetheclaimant hadmadesignificantbutunsuccessfuleffortstoarrangeforchildcare.Thatiswhatmade hersituation"extenuating".Ms.SaltmanheldthattheOrievorshouldbesubsidizedfor thosedayswhenshemadesuchefforts,butnotfortheotherdaysthatshehadoff,where shecouldnotdemonstrateanextraordinaryefforttomakealternativechildcare arrangements,lnLoyalistCollege(1990)9L.A.C.(4th)116ArbitratorKrugerheldthat theGrievorwasentitledtobepaidforoneofthetwonightsthathewasoffworktending tohiswife,whohadalonganddifficultlabourandultimatelyrequiredsnrgery. 39 Inbothofthesecasesthearbitratorwasmoresympathetictothe employee'sdilemmathantheemployerwas;andheldthattheCollegeshould makeuptheemployee'slestwages:Apparently,attendingtotheneedsoflivefamily memberswasconsideredmorecompellingthanattendingthefuneralsofdeadones;but eventhen,therewasnotacompletesubsidyforallofthetimeofftakenforthatpurpose. InbothLoyalistandGeorgian,theadjudicatorthoughtthatitwasreasonableto"splitthe difference",asitwere.Theydidnotdirect'fullindemnification. TheCasethatiseiosesttothepresentoneis,interestinglyenough,both veryrecentandalsofromCentennialCollege[OPSEU&CentennialCollege(Yvonne Glenvillegrievance),decisionreleasedMay14,2007,(Bendel)]. IntheYvonneGlenvillecase,theGrievorrequestedpermissiontoleave workearlysinceshewasinconsiderablepainfi'omatooththatshehadfi'acturedthe previousevening,andshewantedtogotothedentisttoattendtothatsituationrightway -thatveryafternoon.TheCollegegrantedleavewithpayforthatdaybutdeniedthe Grievor'slaterrequestforleavewithpaytoattendascheduleddentalappointmenttodo somefollow-uprepairs.Thearbitrationboardsaidthis:. Thequestionwehavetoexamineinthiscasethereforeis whethertheGrievor'srequestforleave[tohavesome dentalworkdone]underArticle12.2,ascommunicatedto theemployer,referredtocircumstancesthatwouldjustify suchaleave. Inourviewthatquestioncanonlybeansweredinthe negative.Onitsface,theGrievor'srequestwasnothing morethanrequestforleavetoattendascheduleddental appointment.Wedonotdismissthepossibilitythatifthere 40 issomeurgencytoamedicalordentalappointmentorifan employeecannotarrangeanappointmentforoutside workinghoursaleaveunderArticle12.2mightbe appropriate.However,thegeneralunderstandinginour society,inourexperience,isthatemployeescannotexpect, anddonotexpect,theiremployerstopaytheirwagesfor timenotworkedasaresultofattendingallsuch appointments.SincetheGrievorprovidednoinformationto theemployertosuggestthatthereisanyurgencytoher appointmentorthattheappointmentcouldnotbearranged outsideofworkinghoursorthattherewasanythingelseout oftheordinaryaboutherappointment,toallowthis grievancewouldrequireustoholdemployeesareroutinely entitledtopaidleaveunderArticle12.2whenevertheyask fortimeoffworktoattendamedicalordentalappointment. Weareawareofnoproperbasisforanysuchconclusion. Intheboard'sview,employeesshouldnotnormallyexpecttobepaidfor timenotworked,nordoesArticle12.2requirethatsubsidy;sothatinordertomakea successfulclaimunderArticle12.2,therehadtobesomethingextra-ordinaryaboutthe situation.Employeesdonotgettimeoffwithpaytoattendtodoctors'ordentists'or similarappointments,eventhoughtheymaybegranted"timeoff'togotothem. Centennial(YvonneGlenville)isalsooneoftheseveralcasesthat emphasizehowimportantitisfortheemployeetocommunicatealloftherelevant circumstancestotheemployer,sothattheCollegecanfairlyassessthesituation.That waswhatArbitratorBendelwasgettingatintheitalicizedportionoftheabovepassage; anditisinterestingtonotethatArbitratorSimmonsmadesimilarcommentsIntheother Centennialcasethatwasputbeforeusforconsideration(theColleenPurchasecase- decisionissuedFebruary14,2007).ArbitratorSimmonsobserved 41 Itseemstousthatinorderforhertoqualifyforpaidleaveshe wasobligedtoexplainwhat,inherview,werethe extenuatingpersonalcircumstances.Hadsheprovidedthe informationtoMr.Chalmersthatshetestifiedtointhese proceedingsabouthavingtobeatthefimeralforthewifeof thedeceased,andhadMr.Chalmersnotconsideredthis informationinhisdecisionothereonslderationsmighthaveapplied....,inorderfortheGrievortohavehopedtosucceed inherrequestshewouldhavehadtosetoutinherrequest whysheconsideredthisleaveofabsencetofallwithinthe "extenuatingpersonalcircumstances"assetoutinarticle 12.2toreachadealtodoso. ArbitratorSimmonsandArbitratorBendelDIDNOTSAYthatamore fulsomeexplanationwouldnecessarilyhaveledtoadifferentresult;butthepanelsDID SAYthatiftheemployeedidnotfullyinformtheCollegeofrelevantcircumstances,the Collegecouldnotbefaultedfordecidingonthebasisofwhatitknew.ArbitratorBrown madethesamepointintheLoyalistCollegeease(supra): Materialfactswhichwerenotbroughttotheattentionofthe Employeratthetimehisdecisionwasmadecannot subsequentlybeusedtodisputethatdecisionwhichresulted fromaproperconsiderationoftheinformationsuppliedbythe Grtevor Ifthemisnodialoguewiththeemployer,inwhichtheemployee's situationandoptionsarefullyexplored,thenanemployeemayfindthats/heisableto justify"leave"ofabsence,butmaynotbeabletojustify"leave".Similarly,if theemployeedoesnotfullyidentifyandjustifywhys/heneedsindemnification,andnot ,thenhis/herclaimmayfail.Andineitherease,inordertocomewithinthe ambitofArticle12.2,theremustbesomeunusualsetoffacts,beyondtheemployee's control,andnotcommonlyassociatedwiththevagariesandtravailsofordinarylife. 42 Insummarythen,thecasesestablishthatArticle12.2isnotanautomatic entitlementnorareadilyavailable"topup"whenothernegotiatedbenefitsare inapplicableorexhausted;andasArbitratorsBendelanO'Neillhavesuggested,therehas tobesomethingextraordinaryandcompellingaboutthesituation,beforetheemployer canberequiredtopayfortimenotworked(whichisalsowhatisfoundintheparties' ownmemorandmnofunderstanding,reproducedabove).Itisnotsufficientthatthe arbitratormighthaveexercisedthediscretiondifferently;and,theremaya"rangeof reasonableness"inthesesituations-aspectrum,wheretherecouldbegoodfaith differenceofopinion.Andsolongasthemanager'sdeterminationiswithinthat "reasonablerange",anarbitratorwillnot"secondguess"thedecisionoftheemployer,or substitutehis/herdecisionforthatoftheemployer. VI-Disposition Wehaveconsideredtheevidenceandrepresentationsofthepartiesinthis case,andwearenotpersuadedthattherehasbeenanybreachofArticle12.2. Firstofall,wedonotthinkthatthemwasany"processbreach"onMs. Watson'spart.Ms.WatsonfairlyconsideredtheGrievor'srequestonthebasisthatshe outlinedinhere-mailstotheOrievorinMarch2007;andMs.Watsonmadeher determinationonthebasisofthematerialthattheGrievorhadsubmittedinherown, rathersparse,emails.Inourview,Ms.Watson'smindwasnotclosedor"fettered"by someinappropriateconsiderationoremployerpolicy.Sheansweredtherequestthathad 43 beentheputtoher,onthebasisthatitwasputtoher;andwedonotthinkthatsheacted unfairly,orunreasonably,orfailedtorumhermindtotheGrievor'sactualsituation. ThefactthatMs.Watsonmighthavegiventimeoffwithpay,(asopposed tojusttimeoff)doesnotmeanthatarefusaltoexerciseherdiscretioninthatway; constitutesabreachofthecollectiveagreement-whichistosay,thatshewasacting "unreasonably"orthatshedidnotgivehonestconsiderationtothesituationthatwasput beforeher. Furthermore,(onthe"substantive"sideofthings),therewas,inour opinion,nothingcompellingorextraordinaryor"extemiatlng"abouttheGrievor's requestfortimeoffinthesecircumstances-timeofftoattendadoctor'sappointment thatwasscheduleddaysorweeksaway;andinourview,thefactthattheGrievorfaced theprospeetoflosingatotalof21/2hoursworkand2½hourspay(whichshelater madeup)doesnotmakethesituationextraordinaryorcompellingor"extenuating".Nor doesthefactthatsheneededthedoctor'snoteforanemploymentpurpose,makethe situation"extenuating"withinthemeaningoftheclause. Inourview,thiscasesimplydoesnotfitwithintheparametersthatareset outinArticle12.2,andthatarediscussedinthearbitraljurisprudence,andthatare confirmedintheparties'ownMemorandumofUndemtanding. ,14 Inouropinion,thesituationheredoesnotdemonstrate"extraordinary compellingorunforeseennecessity"-toquotethewordsusedbyArbitratorO'Neiland referredtoatparagraph2oftheparties'settlementdocument.Nor,inourview,isit significant,inthiscase,thattheGrievorhadexhaustedhersickleavecredits.Thisdoes notprecludeherfromseekinganexerciseofdiscretionunderArticle12.2,butneither doesitmateriallychangethecharacterofherclaim.Andinthisease,thereisno compelling"comPassionatereason"for"timeoffwithoav"either. Thiseaseisnotliketheonewheretheemployeehadtodealwiththe immediatepainofacrackedtooth,orthepressingneedtolookafterasickch!ld(where, itwillberecalled,ArbitratorSaltmanwasimpressedbytheextraordinaryeffortsthathad beenmadebytheemployeetomakealternativechildcarearrangements).Thetin,rent needfortimeoffisnotofthesamepressingor"extenuating"nature;andevenassuming thatArbitratorSaltman'sviewisthecorrectone,thereisnoevidencethattheGrieverin thiseasemadeanysimilareffortstoavoidorminimizeherlostworktime.ForasMs. Watsonnotedinhertestimony:theGrievormightwellhavebeenabletoschedulethis relativelysmallamountoftimeoffinawaythatwouldhaveavoidedanyeconomicloss atall--ifshehadhadanyappetitetodothat,orhadthoughtthatshehadanyobligation todoso. Itappearstousthatthiswascertainlypossible(andisnotanunreasonable consideration)-especiallyinrespectoftheAprildoctor'sappointment,whichwassome weeksway;andtheevidencebeforeusdoesnotestablishtheGrievor'sinability(as 45 opposedtounwillingness)toworkonanyotherday,orwithslightlydifferenthours,just asitisnotclearhowflexiblethedoctormighthavebeen,hadhebeenasked.Fornotonly weretheGrievor'scircumstanceshere"notextenuating"withinthemeaningofthe clause,buttheGrievorshowednowillingnesstoconsideranythingwhichmighthave changedthesituation. ItisalsosignificantthatintheGrievor'srequestfortimeoff,withpay,she didnotidentifytiledoctor'sallegedlimitedavailabilityuponwhichshenowreliesasan allegedly"extenuatingcircumstance";becauseasArbitratorsBrownandSimmonshave suggested:amanagercannotbefaultedforfailingtotakeintoaccountfactorsofwhich shewasunaware.Itisnecessaryfortheclaimanttoclearlybringherselfunderthe umbrellaoftheclause.Andontheevidencebeforeus,wecazmotevensaywith assurancethatthedoctorwasunavailable,orthathecouldnothavebeenavailableat anothertime(perhapsanhourortwolater);becausethefactis,the'Grievornever consideredorexploredthatpossibility-justassheneverconsideredchangingherwork schedule,toseeifsomevariationinhourscouldbalanceherneedsaswellasthoseofjthe College,withoutanylossofpayatall.NorisitobvioustouswhytheCollegeshould havetobeartheburdenoftheGrievor'schoiceofadoctorwhoonlyworksfourhoursa week--espeeiallywhentheCollegehadalreadyindicateditsconcernaboutthatdoctor's abilitytorespondinatimelyway. Tobeclear:wedonotsuggestthattheemployercandictatethe employee'schoiceofpersonalphysician.Butneitheristheemployernecessarilyobliged 46 tobearanadditionaleconomicburden,becausetheemployeechoosesadoctorwhohas veryrestrictiveworkinghours.Andthefactis:intoday'sworldwherefamilyphysicians areinshortsupply,itisnotsounusualforanemployeetohavedifficultygoingtosee his/herdoctororarrangingtestsetc.duringnon-workinghours--although,torepeat, thereisnoevidencethattheGrlevorhereeverconsideredthatalternative.Onthe contrary,theGrievorsimply'madethedoctor'sappointment,withoutconsultationwith hersupervisor,thensheexpectedtheCollegetoratifyherchoice:togivehertimeoft'on thedateandatthetimethatshehadrequested,andalsotoindemnifyherforanylost wagesonthatday.Shetreatedthisasa"right"oran"entitlement"-whichitisnot;and shedidnotdiscussthesituationorfollowupwithMs.Watsononeitheroccasion. Inouropinion,itwasnotimproperorunreasonableforMs.Watsonto takeintoaccountthepossibilityofreschedulingtheappointment,ormodifyingthe Grievor'shours,ortoaskwhethertheGrievorhadconsideredthesealternatives.Indeed, inourview,anemployeeisalreadyobligedtodothatunderthefirstsentenceofArticle 12.2.NorwasitwrongforMs.Watsontotakeintoaccountwhetherthatseemedtohave beendone-oratleastconsidered-inthisinstance. Itseemstousthatifthereisadutyontheemployertoconsiderallthe relevantfacts-asthecasessaythereis-thenthereisconcomitantdutyonthepartofthe employeetotakeintoaccounttheemployer'sinterests,andtomakeanefforttoschedule appointmentsinawaythatwillnotengageArticle12.2.Thewords"scheduledwhere possible"inthefirstsentenceofArticle12.2suggesttousthataclaimantmustatleast 47 explorethesepossibilities;andinthlsregard,thereisadutyofreasonableconsideration, ontheemployee'spartaswell. TheUnionisrightthatweshouldnotgivetoomuchweighttothefact that,insofarastheFebrum3,28appointmentisconcerned,Ms.Watsonflaggedthe possibilityofresehedullngtheGfievor'sworkhoursorthedoctor'sappointment,only twoweeksaftertheappointment.Butthefactis:thatwasarelevantconsiderationinthe firstinstance,atthetimethattheappointmentwasmade(orperhapsevenbeforetha0; anditwaseertalnlybothrelevantandreasonableforMs.Watsontorefleetuponwhether anyalternativehadbeenconsideredorshouldbeconsidered,inrespectofthenext appointment,thatwasstillamonthaway.However,notonlyhadtheGrievornot consideredeitherofthosethings,butitwasclearfromhercross-examinationthatshedid notthinkthatshehadanyobligationtodoso. F TheUnion'spositionseemstobethattheGfievorwasentitledtomakean appointmentunilaterally,withoutanydiscussionwithhersupervisor,withoutexploring mayalternativeswiththedoctor,withoutconsideringanyalternativeworkscheduling arrangementsthatmighthaveminimizedthedisruptionoravoidedthewageloss altogether,andwithoutevenadvisinghersupervisorofanyoftheextenuating circumstancesthatarenowsaidtoexist;andtheEmployermustsimplyratifythatchoice, andprovideboththetimeoff'andindemnificationforlostwages.Thereisnoneedfor anydialogueorbalancingofinterests-evenwhenthereislotsoftimetodiscussthe 48 options.Thesuggestionseemstobe(toputthemattercolloquially):thatthedutyof reasonableconsiderationisa"onewaystreet". Howeverinourview,thatistotreatArticle12.2asanentitlement,which itclearlyisnot;andwhichArbitratorBendelhassaidthatitisnot,(inasimilarcase, involvingthesesameparties);andwhichtheUnionitselfhasrecognizeditisnot,inthe MemorandumofUnderstanding,setoutabove.Moreoverinourview,the "reasonableness"oftheemployer'spositionmaybefairlyaffectedbythe 'ireasonabieness;'of"theempioyee'sbehavi0urkparticularlyWhentheemployeemay havesomeinfluenceonthetimingoftheleave,ormaybeabletoavoidormitigateany economicloss. WeagreewithArbitratorBendel,thatthereisnoautomaticrightto indemnificationforthesekindsofabsencesfromwork(asthereis,forexample,for paymentfor"bereavementleave",orforthedaythatsomeonegetshis/hercitizenship papers).Accordingly,iftheUnionwantstorestricttheemployer'sdiscretion,orcreate such"right",orturnrequestsfortimeoffwithpay,intoan"entitlement",thenitmust modifythelanguageofArticle12.2.Otherwise,thereisnoguaranteethatanemployee willgettimeoff,withpay,underthisprovision. Perhapsthesituationmighthavebeendifferentinthiscaseiftherehad beenthekindofdialoguewhichArbitratorSimmonsandArbitratorBrownreferredtoin theirdecision.Wedeclinetospeculate.Itsufficestosaythatwearenotpersuadedinthis 49 case,thattheGrievor'sclaimsfallwithintheambitofArticle12.2,orthattheCollege contravenedArticle12.2,whentheGflevor'sclaimsforindemnificationwererejected. Thegrievancesarethereforedismissed. DATEDATTORONTOTHIS13thdayofJune,2008. "R.O.MacDowell" R.O,MaeDowelI,Chair IAGREE "AnnBurke"[CollegeNominee]' IDISSENT "SherrilMurray"[UnionNominee] 50