HomeMy WebLinkAboutGosciminski 02-06-25 BETWEEN'
GEOKGE BKO~ COL~GE
(~ CO~E)
AND:
o~o ~LIC SE~CE E~LO~S ~ON
(~ ~O~
~ ~ ~ ~~ O~ ~ a~V~CE OF ~O~ ~SC~S~
(~7-~)
BO~ OF ~I~ON:
Ho~d D. Bro~ C~
She~ M~ay, U~on No~ee
KJ. ~ll~m Co~ege No~ee
~PE~CES FOK ~ COLLEGE:
F.G. ~to~ Q.C., Coumel
~E~CES ~OK ~ ~ON
Ursd~ Boyl~ Cou~el
A FUKTt-~R HEARING WAS HELD AT TORONTO ON JANUARY 25, 2002.
AWARD
2
In the Board's award dated September 28, 2001, the majority of the Board found
that the layoffofthe Griever was improper. The Board retained jurisdiction to determine
any remedial issues arising, from the award. For that purpose,, the BOard was requested to
reconvene and at the above-noted hearing, received the submissions for the parties
concerning the remaining issues in dispute which involve the remedy to the Griever as a
result of the Board's award. Following this hearing, the Board met in executive session to
consider the submissions and the preparation of its award set out below.
The background of this dispute which is significant in consideration of the issues
dealt with in this award is set out at p. 49 of the Board's award as follows:
" The issue to be determined by'the Board is whether
the Griever was unjustly laid off by the College contrary to
Article 3.1 of the eolle~'tive agreement. As set out at the
hearing, the issue does not relate to misconduct or
disciplinary action, demotion or any culpable conduct, nor is
the Cyrievor's job performance in question rather, the matter
is narrowed in that sense but not in its determination to
whether the C,-rievor's failure to pass the OIS screening test
in June 1997 was an appropriate basis on which the College
to initiate the layoff, process under Article 15 of the
collective agreement. In that regard, the Griever was
notified on ~Iuly 15, 1997 of the redUction of staffin the
Deaf and Hard of Heafin§ Services foHowin§ which the
Griever was given the required 90 day notice period which
he could utilize to be re-screened by OIS which he did in
August but again failed and the layoffwas not rescinded and
became effective in October 1997. While the C. nicvor's job
Performance during his term of employment as an
Interpreter at the College was not in dispute, the application
ora higher job standard directly related to the C_nievor's
ability to perform at the level requked by the College in the
future and thus was set up as a condition of employment as
an Interpreter and the continuation thereof'of the Griever's
employment in that classification should he not attain the
OIS qualification within the one year period set by the
College for that purpose. Arbitrators have consistently held
that Employers have the fight to set reasonable standards
for their employees to meet'in carrying out their work
requirements.,,
As found by the Board in response to the issue .raised in the grievance, the
Griever's layoffwas improper. The remaining question..is.v?l~'at is the appropriate remedy
to the Griever in these particular circumstances.
It is the submission of the Union that the appropriate notice period would have
been one year had the College met its obligation to clarify to the Griever, the consequence
of failure of the OIS standard. The Griever was deprived of that length of notice and was
unable to use the professional development fully in that period. It is its position that the
Board should reinstate the Griever as an employee conditional on his passing the OIS test
within the one year period from the date of the award. In fact, the Griever has received
his OIS card as of June 2001. His test in August 1997 was regraded by the OIS under an
interim marking formula in July 1999 when ihe Griever retroac~dvely passed tho OIS
screening test but which ho again took and passed in April 200I and therefore has met the
requirement of having the OIS standard set by the'College. When the Griever was laid
oS he had failed the OIS test and re, screened himself within the 90-day layoffnotice
period in August 1997 but that was not a proper notice period, with reference to the goal
of the workshop held in May 1996 in which professional development for a two or five-
year plan was indicated to be the usual standard. The College used a one-year window in
which the Interpreters must have passed the OIS screening test and cannot now use the
4
90-day layoff notice which would not be sufficient notice. The Griever has now met the
objective standard which would fall within one year's notice which should be made
· effective fi'om the date of the award.
The Union rejects the request of the College to produce the results of the marking
of the Griever's OIS test in April 2001 to which it maintains the College is not entitled as
the condition for the Interpreters is to obtain the OIS status and could be penalized if he
was required to give the College such information which is a different requirement than for
other employees. The Griever now holds the OIS card which is sufficient doeumentafiom
The Griever should be therefore reinstated in his employment as an Interpreter without
loss of seniority or benefits and with full monetary damages for the years 1997, 1998,
1999 as set out in Ms. Boylan's letter to Mr. Hamilton dated January 17, 2002. The
Griever has worked elsewhere in 2000 and 2001 at higher rates than he received at the
College and therefore does not have a claim for damages for those two years or fi'om then
to the date of this award. It is its position that an award to that effect would satisfy the
principle of damages to place the Griever back in the same position had the collective
agreement not been breached by the College in 1997 as found by the Board.
The submission for the College is that in its interest as to the appropriate level of
Interpreters for the deaf students, the test results of the Griever should be made available
to it, to find whether the Crrievor improved in ASL to English which was the concern of
the College with regard to its standards for the sign language Interpreters. The Griever
failed the test twice in 1997 but passed in July, 1999 after a remarking of his second test
5
using an interim formula subsequently used by the OIS. Its other Interpreters have passed
both sides of the teSt which the College has the right to specify and to be satisfied that that
condition' has been met by the Grie¥or. In any.consideration of reinstatement to :
employment, the College'muSt be satisfied that the Griever is able ~o perform the duties
required of the Sign Language Interpreter's job at the College with the ability to interpret
both ASL to English and English to ASL.
The Union was notified in June 1997 of the issue raised at the Employment
Stability Committee and given notice of layoffs in the Deaf Services on July 4'~ which
resulted in the layoffofthe Griever by letter dated July 22, 1997. It was appropriate
under the collective agreement to provide 90 days' notice of layoffin which he could pass
the test. The Crrievor did not have the qualification to. displace any other employee within
the notice period which started on June 22~a and did not become OIS qualified within that
notice period. It is the position of the College that a reasonable notice period to the
Griever should be found to run from July 1997 when the Griever was told that he had one
year to qualify and not be applied from the date of the award. The Board found that the
one year notice given to the G-rievor in 1996 was not sufficient but there is no claim of
misconduct or Performance related iSSUes. It is theOIS qualification Which the Griever
did not obtain within the time allowed.by the College to meet its standards. The Griever
knew he had to pass the OIS screening test and did not have that qualification in1997 or
1998 and so further notice or retraining under the collective agreement was not necessary.
The OIS interim formula was not applied to the Griever's test in August 1997 until
October 1999 yet he was entitled to have a retest three months after his rescreening in ':-'
6
August but did not do so and did not receive his OIS qualification even if a one-year
notice is applied from July 1997. It would be unreasonable to allow a further one-year
notice period from the 'date of the awardfor him to qualify. Whether the reasonable.
notice period is found to be 90 days or one-year from the date of layoff, there was n°
change in the qualification of the Griever and by October 1999 on!.y.~e marking system
was altered by OIS. By that time however, the Griever had'Eot met the College standard.
It is its position to consider reinstatement and thereby require the College to rely on the
Griever's OIS status in 2001, it is entitled to his screening test results which the Union
must provide to it along with the rating sheet and supporting material as had been done
with the Interpreter's tests in 1997 in order to meet the concern of the College.
It was further submitted however that instead of reinstatement of the Griever to
employment, the Board should render a lump sum award mounting to four to six months
of salary. The Griever does not meet the standard required by the College for a Sign
Language Interpreter, the Cu'ievor has since obtained employment at a higher rate than he
received at the College which should not be risked by a return to the College. Reference
on this issue was made to Re Health Sciences Centre and CUPE. L, 1550, 96
L.A.C.(4t~)404 (Graham); Re'Canadian Labour Arbitration 2: 1470; Re deHavilland Inc.
and CAW. L. 112, 83 L.P~C.(4~)157 0tayner); Re Community Living. South Muskoka
and OPSEU, 92 L.A-C.(4'~)384 (lVfflcus); Re York Region Board o__fEducation, 84
L.g_C.(4~)90 (Shime); Re Westpark Hospital, 49 L.A.C.(4~)32t (Samuels); Re Peelle
Comoanv Ltd., 39 L.A.C.(4~370 (Kennedy); Re Shaver Hospital, 20 L.A.C.(4tu)122
( yneO.
7
The consideration of this issue must start from the Board's finding that the Grievor
was improperly laid off. That was prefaced by the Board's finding that "the College's
· requirement to be clear and direct as to the performance expectations it had .and
specifically that the GrieVor,s serviceS as an Interpreter to the deaf and hard of hearing
would not be required if he did not obtain the OIS standard within the one-year time frame
and would be laid off". The wrong to the Grievor was therefore not disciplinary or
performance related but to the core requirement set by the College of the OIS qualification
for the Sign Language Interpreters of the College. The Board endorsed the right of the
College to set reasonable standards which it could expect thew employees to meet in
carrying out their regular work as stated at p. 50 of the award. The Grievor did not obtain
the OIS screening test qualification within the one-year period prescribed by the College
by the date of his notice oflayoffin July 1997 nor did he obtain that qualification within
the 90 day layoff notice period provided by the collective agreement, in that he failed his
rescreening test in August .1997.
Where it is found that an improper layoff of the employee occurred, it is the
generaUy applied remedy for such breach of the agreement to reinstate the wronged
employee to his former position without loss of earnings or benefits. That result,
however, presumes a return to a job for which the laid Off employee is qualified to perform
and was occupying at thc time of layoff In thc present circumstances, thc complicating
factor to the usual remedy is the Grievor's inability to return to his former position as. a
Sign Language Interpreter as at the date of his hyoffbecause of his lack of quslification
for that position as determined by the College in that at the time of notice oflayoffas well
as at the effective date ofthe layoff, he did not have OIS'standing.
The n°tice ofiayoff dated luly 22, 1997 was giVen by the College in accordance '
with the collective agreement by giving 90 days of the Griever's effective layoff as at
October 21, 1997 within which time the Griever could if qualified, displace other
employees or as he attempted to obtain the qualification for the job fi-om which he was
laid offbut was unsuccessful in that quest. To therefore reinstate the Griever to his
employment as of the effective date of his layoff would be of no effect as he could not,
because of his lack of qualification at that time, resume his employment as a Sign
Language Interpreter and it is only that posititn to which his claim is made.
The Board has found that the laYoffofthe Griever was improper because of the
lack of warning or advice by the College that his failure to obtain the OIS standard would
cause a layo~ which must be considered in the context of the whole award. The College'
had set a one-year period in which its Sign Language Interpreters were to obtain the OIS
qualification during which time they wcrc to have professional development to assist them
in attaining that qualification. With that period of nOtiCe being found to have been
defective,, the circumstances which pertain to the development within that time set by the
College in the Board's consideration ora remedy which would reasonably allow the
Griever to be placed in the same circumstance had his layoffin 1997 not occurred or the
College had followed an appropriate procedure for the qualification period. The Board
did not conclude that the one-year notice period in which to qualify for OIS was incorrect,
9
' although there is an indication that professional development could usually be undertaken
over a two to five-year time span for that purpose but in the context of working
Interpreters at the College, one year .with professional development to obtain the OIS
qualification under the special Contract with the College was not established to be
unreasonable and was accepted by the employees involved. Therefore the Board finds on
the evidence placed before it, that a one-year period within Which to obtain the OIS
screening test qualification is the appropriate standard.
There are two issues as a result~ whether the one-year period should start from the
date of the award as submitted by the Union wb./ch term would encompass the Grievor's
attainment of the OIS card/n Stme 200I and allow his reinstatement or to find that the
notice period runs from the effective date oflayoffin October 1997 within which time the
GHevor did not obtain the qualification required by the College. If reinstated under that
cond/tion, the Grievor would not have met the College standard for the Interpreter's
position which could lead to termination of his employment'for failure tO achieve the OIS.
standard by October 1998 .and therefore his inability to return to his former position from
which he was laid off. To replicate therefore, the drcumstances at the time of the
improper layoff as found, by reinstatement ofthe C-devor as at that t/me would not, in our
opinior~ provide an appropriate remedy for the breach of the agreement by the College.
The Grievor grieved his layoffand knew by the clear notice of that layoffthat he
had to acquire the OIS qualification in order to continue his employment with the College.
The 90-day layoff notice period is not designed to rectify an improper layoff but does ""
10
allow an employee so affected, time to seek other positions to which he may be qualifi~
to perform within thc College without loss of income during thc ninety day notice. Those
terms however, have no .effect'on the Board's consideration, of an equitable remedy as a
resuIt of the Cu'ieV°r's layoffin 1997 which must be applied retroactively so to place the
Grievor in relatively the same position had that improper layoff not occurred.
Consequently, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Grievor should be given by the
Board, a further one-year period from the date of this award in which to obtain the OIS
qualification when he was clearly notified in June 1997 that the loss ofhis job through his
layoffwas caused by the lack of his OIS qualification which would be required of him at
least within the 18 months recall period following his layoffin order to return to the Sign
Language Interpreter's position. Yet his OIS qualification was not established until a
remarking of his previous' test in August 1997 occurred in July 1999 using thc revised
interim formula by the OIS which it applied to the marking standard used by the OIS at '
the time of layoff and as contemplated in the initial contract, between the College and OIS.
If reinstated in employment, the College could challenge the G-rievor's OIS
qualification whether as at August 1997 as remarked or at lune 2001 as not be'rog
consistent with its standards which it set for its Sigii'Language Interpreters in 1996 which
they were required to meet within one year. That issue if and when it arose, would likely
substantially delay and affect a reinstatement order of this Board even if it accepted that
the Grievor had achieved the OIS qu,lification within the following year of this award. It
is clear fi.om the submissions before the Board, that the OIS card obtained by the Grievor
in June 2001 is contested by the College which seeks to obtain the test results to satisfy
itself that the Griever has met its standard for interpretation of both ASL to English and
English to ASL for its deaf students. Ii'this Board rejected that request as submitted it
should by. the Union, which submits that the card obtained by'the Griever in June 2001 is
sufficient on its face to qualify for the position 'of Sign Language Interpreter at the
College, the issue as to the C-devor's competence in ASL to English. will remain and which
could have a negative effect on the Griever's acceptance and ability to provide the service
expected by the College for the deaf students.
In the deHavilland award, Arbitrator Rayner set out his considerations in denying
reinstatement to the employee while determining compensation in lieu thereof some of
which are not particularly relevant to the instant matter where the core of which is the
C-rievor's inability to meet the College's standard for the position to which he seeks
reinstatement which does not arise through a disciplinary issue dealt with in that award.
Yet Arbitrator Rayner points out the difficulty of continuing an issue between the parties
which will negatively impact on the sustainability of the employment relationship.
In the present case, a great deal of time has lapsed from the initiation of the
program by the College to set standards of quslific/tion for its Sign Language Interpreters
and the Griever's lay off a/ter which to his credit, the Griever has obtained what we
assume to be satisfactory and at the least more remunerative employment as a Sign
Language Interpreter elsewhere. The benefits attributable to a six year employee of the
College can be adjusted in a compensation package and would not be a sufficient reason in
our view to compel his reinstatement to a position at the College which would in all
12
likelihood remain in dispute with no assurance to this Board that any such direction would
in fact be effectively implemented in the circumstances of the services to its deaf students
sought to be provided by the College and its interaction with the Deaf and Hard of : ...
Hearing Community. Where therefore there'remains, as we are satisfied it does, tile
reasonable likelihood of continuing confrontation between management of this program at
the College and the C,-rievor which could adversely affect the C,-rievor's ability to
recommence his Interpreter's position at the College, the Board is lead to a finding that
with consideration of such serious attendant difficulties inherent in this claim for
reinstatement and the extended time involved in this whole matter that the appropriate
remedy in these particular circumstances for this G-rievor is not reinstatement to his former
position from which he was laid off.but a monetary compensatory award.
There is a distinct difference in the consideration given to the.appropriate amount
of compensation in the circumstances of this grievance compared with the results of the
cases referred to above dealing generally with disciplinary or performance issues. The
Board has found that the appropriate notice period in which the Griever could have
reasonably expected for development to obtain the OIS qualification was one year which
is the period to now be applied from the effective date ofhis'layoffwhich the Boai'd found
to have been improper, that is from October 1997. That would have provided a clear one-
year period to the G-rievor to comply with the College's requirement to obtain the OIS
qualification. The 90-day notice applies separately in the layoff procedure under the
collective agreement and therefore that time during which the Griever was paid by the
College, cannot be considered as part of the time set for his qualification as a Sign
13
Language Interpreter which he should have been properly given by the College prior to his
lay off.
Having reference to the C-rievor' S claim set out in Ms. Boylart's letter dated
January 17, 2002, we find that the appropriate measure of damages .to which the Griever
is entitled to be paid is the straight time hourly rate of $24.5~s at October 21, 1997 for
the hours he would normally have been scheduled to work together with an additional
15% for loss of benefits under the collective agreement as compensation for his improper
lay off as found by the Board and in lieu of reinstatement to his former position with the
College.
This mount to be paid by the College to the Crrievor is compensation for loss of
his employment with the College. In the deHavilland award, it is noted that compensation
where reinstatement is not awarded is for the loss "of all the benefits and protection that a
collective agreement brings. It is for loss of that protection and those benefits that
compensation is awarded". That consideration equally applies in the circumstances of this
grievance.
The Board will retain jurisdiction as to the implementation of its award.
DATED AT OAKVILLE THIS 25TH. DAY OF JUNE 2002.
SHERRH. MURRAY, UN-tON NO~E
IVAN, COLLEGE NOMINEE
PARTIAL DISSENT OF R.J. GALLIVAN
I agree with the Chair'~ conc]us{o, that reinstatement of
the griever would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.
Mr. GOSCiminski has yet to demonstrate that he has the qualifications
necessary to meet the need~ of deaf students at the College for
reliable interpretation service.
Although I disagreed, and continue to disagree with the
Chair's original decision that the College's notice to the griever
of the consequences of failure to meet the OIS standard was inadequate,
! support the resolution o~ thi~ long-standing dispute as now decided
by the Chair to award a year's notice in theme unique circumstances.
Mowever, I must disagree for the reasons which £ollow with
the Chair's decision to date the yea£'s notice from October 1997 when
the layoff occurred instead o~ from ~uly 1997 whe~ the grievo~ actually
~irst received no=ice.
As the Chair acknowledges (p.9) "...a one-year per~od within
which to obtain the OIS screening test qualification is the appropriate
standard", we found as a fact in our earller award that all the
Interpreters, including the grie¥or, agreed to that twelve months limit.
By dating t~e no=ice from ~he october, layoff date instead of from the
July date when layoff notice was.first given, the griever receives
fifteen instead of the agreed twelve months. As the Chair says later
on p.9 the griever "...knew by the clear notice of the layoff that he
had to acquire the OIS qualification..." within the agreed year. That
"clear ~otice" was given %n ~uly not October ]997. In my ~spectful view
the twelve ~onths awarded should commence from the July date in order
to take into account that the'grie¥or already has been paid for the first
three o~ the twelve months.
Dissent
The board in consideration of tbe question of the reinstatement has given only a superficial and glancing
analysis of the question before it.
Thc fact of the matter as enunciated by the board, in keeping with the Cavell decision, analyze only thc"
length of time" element as to whether or not reinstatement is appropriate. With all due respect, that ·
e~r, min~tion falls exceedingly short of the ~n~lyses required. So short in fact, fl~e is a strong case to'be
made that the hoard indeed, answered the wrong question.
It is a matter of agreement that the employer has the fight to set a reasonable employment standarcL
Having accepted that notion, there are a number of conditions that mus~t~.]~ considereck The majority
attempts to turn back the hands of time, as one must, in an" histori~al" ex~mir~tion of the events.
I refer first to the conclusion set out in the previous award
"Wc must on the evidence conclude that the college failed to meet its obligation to advise the ~ievor in
clear and unequivocal terms of the consequences of this failure to pass th~ OIS screening test.~
In the Island Farms case, (this) is "fatal by itself to its case". At page 50 of this Board's prior award it also
accepts the other four criteria expected in a non culpable deficiency in an employee's job performance.
If the Board finds that clear and unequivocal notice is given by October 1997 and therefore the grievor has
until October 1995 to pass the OIS, where is the 'reasonable supervision and insmwtion to the employee
and afforded the opportunity to meet the standard" Cav~ll There of ~ou~e isn't any as the gdevor
struggles to get work.
Where is the employer's evidence" that establishes an inability on the part of the employee to meet the
requisite standard to an extent tl~t renders her incapable of performing the job and that reasonable effo~s
were made to find alternate employment within the competence of the employee.' Cavell. The grievor
continues to work at the University and other colleges as an interpreter. The employer only considered
work outside the classification of Interpreter as contemplated in the lay-off prdcedure.
The testimony of the grievor was that the students themselves were not tested to ensure, nor did many of .
them have, the level of proficiency of ASL exp¢~ed. This Board ruled that this member was not
permitted to enquire as to the level of competence attained by the students. The purpose of course was to
find if there was indeed a stream of students to whom this gfievor might be assigned while improving the
two areas that he marginally f~iled. Later in the hearing, colmsel for the employer, attempted to
charactcriz~ that line of inquiry as belittling the students. Neither this member, the grievor nor the Union
inferred or implied that the students deserved any less than an excellent q~_~_~lity of education. The college
and this Board must however recognize the troth to testimony of the gfievor which was fl~t the various
levels of competency requires the interpreters to reach them at whatever level the student requires, not just
the stahdards of a test. Further, the college continues to demand of this grievor that he bas attained a pass
in all 6 areas, not an average or under the remarking scheme. This is not the standard applied to other
employees who are only required to show that they posses a valid OIS certificate. The same certificate
pos.~.~ by the pievor.
In evidence is the fact that the grievor continued to work as an Interpreter, illustrating he had the
competence to continue working as an Interpreter in the college and University systems.
The more logical approach to the evidence in terms of m~IdnE the grievor whole is to reco~,ni:,e that the
grievor could have had a number of opportunities to access the professional development offered by the
college, if the collcgc had communicated its intent.
The Board in dismissing the complaint under the H.m:~n Rights Code, obligates the griever to have
satisfied the professional development requirements for the four months paternity leave. Leaving aside tho
finding of"onus", the scenario begs the question, if the griever had known his job was on thc line, what
would tho griever had done?. Thc te$imony of the griper was that he would have made ti,no to practice.
He could have made arrangements to como to the college to meet with Cam Mc Dermid: ff he had known
the OIS test itserf was revamped f~om the format he was f~milinr with lie would have been more aware of
the meaning behind his shortfall in English to ASL, and had thc opportunity to address it. The Board will
recall that thc griever did not know thc changes to the OIS rentuircments until lVlay 1997, one month
before the test. The employer also had an obligation to lot the Interpreters know that the requirements of
tho OIS wore not the same that they had agreed to in the Plapning Doounent, nor what they were familiar
with and that the requirements had been sil~pific~ntly changed. They should have been in possession of
this knowledge from the begipning of thc year in question. 1Vis. Styliauos '~assumed" they knew.
That then brings us to the testimony of lvls. Johnson. The board finds that tho OIS test in general was an
appropriate stsndard to usc. I al~, but havin§ 'cast your lot" so to speak with this standard, as did the
colle§e initially, does it not then logically follow that once the OIS reco~tmiTed sj~ificant problems ( only
30% of its own interpreters passed ) and the OIS both developed a a new nmrking scheme and granted a
two -five year extension to allow Interpreters the time required to q,**li~y, that the griever be given the
same latitude. It defies logic that employees of thc college were not afforded thc same. I say 'initially"
because only in the course of this hearing and aitcr the marking scheme was changed did the college take
thc position that the griever had to pass all elements of thc six modules. In fact all documents, including
the griever's Position Description Form and the Planning Document itself; prior to this homing speak to
the standard"OIS Certificate". After the OIS introduced an interim marking scheme which would have
allowed thc 8rievor to "pass", Ms. Stylianos took thc position the griever had to pass all areas. Employees
need only produce an OIS certificate. How is it posm'blc ~h~ this Board can find that the griever need
produce more than that required of the other employees.
The fact of the matter is ~hi_~: If thc griever had known thc consequences, he would have done things
much differently. The professional development oppornmitics had come and gone by thc time the griever
was laid off. Then how is the griever to be made whole7
The exp~ testilied that those working within the O15 would attain ~hi~ stalldard, IL~ ~h~ Board
a~knowlMg~, v~_hin two to fiw y~ars. They am not siren professional development. Therefore, the
griever should have the same standard applied: two to five years.
The other option is for this Board to follow the usual standard in matters of arbitration where as in this
case there is no reason, let alone evidence to consider the relationship between the griever and his
employer irreparably a~m.~ged and to apply the employers' standard from the date of the award. In tho
ciro~m.~sn~e of this griever, his attsinment of the OIS Certificate f~lls squarely within e. ither parameter.
To find otherwise is to ignore the jurisprudence submitted by.~he U~ion and to treat this griever along the
lines that the co~n~el for the employer urges, which is directed to cases of culpable behaviour. In that
neither party has suggested that there were performonce or culpable issues with this gri .ever, he should be
reinsta~ to his former position.
All of which is respectfidly submitted,
Sherril Murray