Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBloom 04-10-18 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Onlario Public Service Employees Union, Local 559 and Centennial College Classificahon Ca-ievance of Susan Bloom dated May 29, 2001 For the Union: Peter Shlanka, Grievance Officer (George Rich~ds, Sr. Grievance Officer on December 2, 2003) Susan Bloom, C~ievor Larry Goldin, President, Local 559 Sheila Draycott-Gregg, Steward For the College; Timothy P. Liznick, Counsel Mel Fogel, Dir~tor, Labour Relations Kathleen Massey, Registrar Lmda Carson, M~mager, Employment Services Louis M Temce (Chainmn) Robert Gallivan, College Nominee Larry Robbins, Union Nominee Heard in Toronto, December 2, 2003; May 14, July 6, August 4, 2004. AWARD 2he griever, Susan Bloom, has been employed at Centffmial College since July 4, 1987. She has been in her current position (Apprenticeship Representative, Paylmnd 8) since 1995. She filed her classification grievance (Exhibit 15) enMay 29, 2001, alleging that her position had been improperly rated and m-classified for some six and one- half years. The remedial action requested is that her position be rated and reclassified to Support Services Officer, Payl:~nd 11, based on the Position DescriptionFerm (PDF) which she prepared, with an effective retroactive date of January 2, 1995, and that she be paid accordingly, with interest accruec[ Counsel for the College raised a pre 'hmirmy objection to the arbitmbility of the grievance based on grounds of timeliness and procedure. Counsel submitted that the grievance submitted on May 29. 2001 was never processed to Step 1 of the grievance procedure; neither was there a meeting at that level nor a response fi'om the College. No request was ever made to the College for an extension of time and the "grievance" never proceeded to Step 2. It was never processed Yet, it was referred to arbitration on May 22, 2002. Counsel submitted further that in processing a grievance, the grieving l:arty is restricted to the written grievance form 2he grievance crystallizes a set of circumstances as they exist in a point in time. One cannot expand the written grievance to complain that something that took place after the grievance was fried should form the basis or an integral part of the grievance. In Counsel's submission, the Union is attempting to forward a grievance to arbitration that never went through the normal grievance procedure envisaged by the collective agreement In his view, the issue is moot and there is no dispute to be determined by the Arbitration Bear4 Furthermore, Counsel submitted that because the College produced a new PDF which the griever signed on December 23, 2002, the griever would have had to submit a new grievance at that point, in accordance with the collective agreonent provisions. Counsel for the griever alleges that the grievance was properly filed with Mr. Trevor Massey (Registrar at the time) on or about May 29, 2001. At that point, the griever's PDF was some six years eld There were various discussions between the parties about pre[mSng a newPDF but no progress was made. Unless the College produced a PDF quickly, there was no point meeting The collective agreonem contemplates a meeting when there is a dispute between the parties about the duties of a positier~ In this case, there was no PDF. ~[hat is why the Union referred the grievance to arbitration. He submitted that the College had a responsibility to generate PDF's in a timely fashim 2he foundation for the grievance remains the same - the grievor is not properly classified. Counsel submitted thzt, in his view, this is a "continuing grievance" because it is a lay dispute. 2bus, there was no need to file a new grievance once a new PDF had been issued on December 23, 2002. This would be an unreasemble position for the College to take. He acknowledged that the parties had been lax in their handing of this matter. It was agreed that the Arbitration Board would first hear evidence from the parties on the prelirnm~ry objectior~ Evidence on Prelinmaw Objection Linda Carson testified tMt she has been employed with the College since 1990 and is currently the Mamger of Human Resources Consultant Services (formerly Manager of Employmer~ Services). Since 1995, she bM been the College person designated to hmr classification grievances at Step One of the procedure set out m Article 18.04 of the collective agreement. She also chmrs the Support Staff Job Evalmtion Committee. Since approximately 1995, she bM had five or six classification grievances filed with her. Ms. Carson testified that she was aware of Susan Bloom's request for reclassification and also that she had filed a grievance during the spring of 2001; however, she had not seen the actml grievance (Exhibit 15) that Ms. Bloom had filed with the College until md-November of 2003, some two and one-t-~lf years after it was filed and just prior to this arbitration which commenced on Deram~ 2, 2003. Ms. Carson was adamant that, until this time, she had never seen any such grievance. She first heard about it from her boss, Mr. Ga~ Cannon, the Director of Human Resources, who informed her that he had received a memo fi'om Mr. Larry Goldin, President of Local 559, stating that he was referring MS. Bloom's classification grievance to arbitration (Exhibit 2). Ms. Carson expressed her surprise to Mr. Gannon because she had never seen the grievance; she had never discussed it with Mr. Goldin and she was not even sure what the grievance was. From her perspective, this was not in accordance with the provisions set forth m Article 18.04. In her view, whatever grievance had existed was "dead' and the lmrties were engaged in atten~ng to complete a new PDF for Susan Bloom The College had never waived the application of Article 18.04; there had been no Step One or Step Two meeting and no promises had been made relating to the specific retroactivity of any possible reclassificatim During cross examination, Lmda Carson stated that she had not objected to the grievance proceeding to arbitration, however, she had only seen Mr. Goldin's notice of referral (Exhibit 2) after the fact, when she retumed from vacation m June of 2001. She could not understand why it had been referred to arbitration since it had never even been heard at Step 1. Concemmg her status as the College designate at Step One of the classification grievance process, Ms. Carson stated that she could not rev,,all ever having discussed thzt status with any Union representative. Furthermore, she was not aware of the College ever having given any notification of such to the Unioa In her own words, "It was an undemtanding between myself and the Director of Human Resources." She also acknowledged that, m some cases, a grievance was presented to the respective mamger/supervisor who would then forward it to her. She noted that the Union was always present at the Step One meeting and that she had dealt with Mr. Goldin on such matters in the l~St. 2hroughout all of this, there was an on-going e>ercise to re-write Susan Bloom's PDF. Linda Carson testified that she was aware that the grievor had re- written her own PDF and that this document eventually found its way to Mr. Trevor Massey's desk on April 10, 2001 because the grievor's immediate supervisor was away on sick leave at the time. Mr. Massey was supposed to review the PDF and meet with Ms. Bloom, but by June 26, 2001, no meeting had ever taken place and the grievance was referred to arbitratior~ Ms. Carson testified that, at this point, she n:ade no attempt to set up a Step One meeting. She asked both Mr. Goldin and Mr. Massey to forward her a copy of the grievance but none was forthcoming It was her testimony that as of November 21, 2001, she still had not seen the grievance. Susan Bloom testified that when she went into her current position m 1995, the job title changed and the duties were completely different from those of her previous positior~ She did not get a new PDF and her salary was unchanged - she was still being paid at Payl:~nd 8. Without dwelling on what happened over the next several years, the grievor was finally presented with a new PDF in March of 2001. She made certain revisions and forwarded what she considered to be an accurate reflection of her duties to Mr. Trevor Massey on April 9, 2001 (Exhibits 14 and 24-2). She forwarded it to Mr. Massey because her own supervisor, Moreen Fearon- Tapper, had left the College. She also forwarded a copy to Lmda Carson because they had had several conversations about it and she knew that Ms. Carson would submit it to the Rating Committee. On a couple of occasions, she asked Mr. Massey about it. He told her that he had looked it over but she never received a formal response. One or two meetings had been arranged with him but they never took place. On June 26, 2001, Margaret Kahler, Mr. Massey's secretary, asked the grievor to forward her a new copy of her PDF because Mr. Massey had lost the copy he hac[ At this point and on the same date, Mr. Larry Goldin, President of Local 559, wrote to Mr. ~ Gannon, Director of Human Resources, copied to Mr. Trevor Massey, as follows: "As there has been no response to this grievance, I am forwarding this matter to arbitratiord' (Exhibit 2). Several months later, Mr. Massey was replaced by a Kathleen Massey (no relation). Ultimately, Kathleen Massey sat Ms. Bloom down with a PDF writer and by December 23, 2002, a new PDF was signed by the grievor and mamgement (Exhibit 6). 2here was no Union representative present Although there were still elox~ents ofthe new PDF with which the grievor disagreed, she signed it. She believed that it was then going to be sent to the Rating Committee. In her mind, the grievance she had filed on May 29, 2001 (Exhibit 15) was still active. In cross- examimtion, Ms. Bloom testified that she was not familiar with the collective agreement provisions (Article 18.04) and that her shop steward, Sheila Draycott- Gvegg, helped her complete the grievance form She discussed it with Mr. Goldin on June 22 and 26, but there~ffter, she left the handling of the grievance m the Union's hands. There were no meetings with management to discuss it. She did, however, have two meetings with Mr. Mel Fogel, Director of Labour Relations and others, to discuss her new PDF (Exhibit 6) and some of her suggestions were mcorporatexi She testified that the scope of her job had not decreased during the interim period. 2hroughout all of this, she believed her grievance was still "alive". She still had issues with the PDF, both then and now. She still expects further changes.. Mr. Larry Goldin is President of OPSEU Local 559, a function he has fulfilled on and off for a total of some fn°reen years since 1981. He is employed as an Audiovisual Technician in the Resource Centre and has worked at Centennial College since 1979. He remembers filing the grievance by either handing it direly to Mr. Massey or by putting it into the internal n~il system He testified that it was a general practice to present a grievame to the supervisor or manager of the department It would eventmlly end up on Linda Carson's desk He has handled between ten and twenty classification grievance and there has never been any objection from the College about how these grievances were filed in the past. He was never advised to present such grievances to Ms. Carson or, for that matter, to anyone else. It was just a general practice and he was never told to do otherwise He did not r~r,~tll any Step One or Step Two meeting in response to the grievance. He allowed that it was unusml not to have a Step One meeting In his own words, "Normally, there is some kind of response, some acknowledgement or atterr~ to meet. In this case, there was nothing" When he referred the grievance to arbitration, there was no ol~ection on the lmrt of anyone from the College to the referral to arbitration or to the timeliness of the grievance. In his view, there were continuing atten~Xs at resolution and both parties were acting in good faittr He testified that te forward the grievance to OPSEU Head Office simply to put it into the scheduling calendar. It could always be withdravm However, he had never signified to the College any agreement to withdraw the grievance. Mr. Goldin testified that there was no new PDF for Susan Bloom's job at this point. He had several conversations with Linda Carson about the items in dispute and eventmlly obtained Mr. Fogel's agreement to have the grievance go to a tripartite arbitration board. Until the Union received the letter from Mr. Fogel stating that the grievance was untimely, both in terms of its original filing as well as the refenal to arbitration (Exhibit 10), he was not aware of any problem During cross examination Mr. Goldin testified that he did not remember precisely when he forwarded the grievance on to O.P.S.E.U. Head Office to schedule it for arbitration but he acknowledged that he had not done so as of April 29, 2002. His purpose was simply to have it placed in the queue for scheduling but to k~ep it in abeyance to give it a greater sense of urgency as the parties dealt with it, knowing full well that it could be withdrawn if the lmrties reached a settlement. He was trying to express his "frustration" to mamgement Mr Goldin reiterated his testimony that the practice had fi~equently been to file a grievance with the Delmrtment Head or Director rather than with the first line manager. 2he grievance would then be forwarded to Linda Carson who would put it into the process. There had never been any forrml notification by the College designating certain individmls as steps in the grievance procedure. The process had always worked and no grievance had ever been tumed back because of this. Mr. Goldin reiterated his testimony that during the entire time there had been an ongoing dialogue with managerrent in terms of the instant grievance. During cross- examination, Mr. Goldin testified that he forwarded the grievance to OPSEU Head Office a few days after May 6, 2002, the date on which he sent a E-mail to Mel Fogel (Exhibi 8) in which he wrote as follows: The issue orS. Bloom's PDF has been in abeyance from grievance for quite some time now. By way of this memo lam requesting a meetingwithin the next two weeks~ to sa#sfactorily resolve this issue. After May 10, 2002, I wi#forward this matter for arbitration. Thanks' for your attention to this matter. Larry During further cross- examimtion, Mr. Goldin testified that he was unsure of when he forwarded the grievance to OPSEU for arbitration. Argument on Prelirnmmy Obiection Counsd for the College's arguments were submitted on the basis of the timeliness and the processing of the grievance, the scope of the grievance, and that it was moot Dealing first with the timeliness issue~ Counsd noted that there was no indication on the grievance form (Exhibit 15) of when it was delivered to Mr. Trevor Massey. The only date indicated on the form is 'Why 29/01" next to the grievor's signature. Although the College acknowledges that the grievance was received by the College at Step 1 pursuant to Article 18.4.2.1, there was no Step 1 meeting and the Union failed to process it to arbitration pursuant to Article 18.4.2.3 or to refer it to Step 2 (the President) within the fourteen-day time period set out in Article 18.4.2.4. The fact that there was no meeting or response fi'om the College at Step 1 did not prevent the Union fi.om processing the grievance further as envisaged by the collective agreement. The Union did not refer the grievance to arbitration until June 26, 2001, beyond the fourteen-day time limit. Moreover, Mr. Goldin had testified that he notified the College tkat he h~ad referred the grievance to arbitration on June 26, 2001 (Exhibit 2); however, Exhibit 8, a letter fi.om Mr. George Richards of OP.S.EU. Head Office, shows that the referral was rer,,eived by him on or about May 22, 2002. Counsel for the College submitted that it was possible during this hearing for O.P.S.E.U. to have testified and to have established precisely when the grievance was referred to arbitration but this was not done and the Board should draw an adverse inference from their failure to do so. In support of this argument, the Board was referred to Re Douglas Aircraft Co. Ltd. and United Automobile Workers, Local 1967, 13L.A C. (2nd) at page 412 and Toronto Transit Commission and Amalmmated Transit Union, Local 113 (Unreported), Douglas C Stanley (Chainmn) at pages 39 and 50. In any event, Counsel argued th~at the date would still have placed the grievance outside of the prescribed time limits. At no time did the College give any indication thzt it had agreed to waive time limits. As soon as the Union took a flesh step in this matter as evidenced by Mr. Richmd's letter noted above (Exhibit 9), the College was quick to respord that the Union h~d failed to process the grievance within the prescribed time limits and that the College considered the grievance abandoned and mmbitrable (Exhibit 10). As far as the College was concemed, the grievance was dead, irrespective of the flct that they were still attempting to create a new PDF for Ms. Bloom Conceming the matter of whether this could be considered a continuing grievance because it deals with a pay matter, Counsd for the College submitted that the proper time to take issue with a classification matter is when a position is classified or reevalmted In support of the above arguments, Counsel for the College referred us to the following cases: Timmins Beard of Education and Federation of Women Teachers Association of ~o et al, Unreported (November 14, 1997: B.Keller, Chair); Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology and O.P.S.E.U., Unreported (i. GThome, Chair); George Brown College and O.P.S.E.U. (April 1, 1998, Wm Kaplan, Chair); Lambton College and O.P.S.E.U., Unreported (July 14, 1993, B. Keller, ChaiO. In terms of the scope and moomess of the grievance, Counsd for the College submitted that the grievance filed onMay 29, 2001 crystallized the dispute. There was no Step 1 or Step 2 meeting and there were no meetings concemmg its advancement to arbitratior~ 2he sul~ect matter of the grievance was never explored and its scope was never expanded Ms. Bloom was given a new PDF and point rating placing her at Payl:~nd 8 (the same as her origiml level)which she signed off on December 23, 2002. That PDF is a new matter and cannot be the subject of this arbitration as it occurred some eighteen months after she filed her origiml grievance. The grievor did not grieve the new PDF and agreed that her duties had not decreased m nature. Counsel for the College submitted that the underlying dispute has been resolved and the issue has become moot. In addition to the cases noted above, Counsel referred the Board to the following cases m support of his Re Public Sffvice Alliance of Camda and Alliance Employees' Union, Unit 1 (1987), 27 LA C. (3rd) 389 (Abbott); Re Fanshawe College and O.P.S.E.U., Local 110 (2002), 113 LA C. (4th) 328 (Burkett); Re Cold Spring Farms Ltc[ and Cold Springs Farms Emplo.vees' Association~ Local 100 (2000), 88 L.A C. (4th) 150 (Solomatenko); Re St. Joseph's Hospital and Service Employees Intermtioml Union, Local 204 (1997), 65 L.A C. (4th) 213 (Goodfellow); Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology and O.P.S.EU. (Academic), Unreported (January 31, 1995: S. Schiff, Chair); Algonquin College and O.P.S.EU., Unreported (June 18, 1993: MBendel, Chair); Re Electrohome Ltc[ and I.B.E.W., Local 2345 (1984), 16 LAC (3r') 78 (Rayner); ReWelland County Roman Catholic Semrate School Board and Ontario Emlish Catholic Teachers Association (1992), 30 L.A C. (4th) 353 (Brenner); Borowski v. Attomey-General ofCamda (1989), 57 D.L.R (4th) 231 (S.C.C.); Solosky v. The Queen (1979), 105 D. LR (3rd) 745 (S.C.C.); Seneca College of Awlied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Umon, Unreported (July 6, 1982: Gall Brent, Chair). Counsel for the Union submitted Ms. Bloom has had no proper PDF since 1995 when she was appointed to her current position. Between 1995 and late 2001, the College did nothing to address the issue. In the spring of 2001 she wrote her own PDF and forwarded it to Trevor Massey and copied it to Linda Carson, but the College did not respond m any meaningful way. Trevor Massey put off repeated requests for meetings and finally, a classificahon grievance was filed Even once the grievance was filed, the College continued to disregard its obligations under the classification grievance process not only by not responding to the grievance but also by not even formally acknowledging its existence. Nonetheless, there was an extensive exchange of correspondence between the parties after the grievance was filed conceming Ms. Bloom's PDF. At no time was the grievance withdravm From the Union's perspe~ve, it was lulled into believing that the College was dealing with the matter and that it was only when the Union signified that it was refemng the grievance to arbitration that the College began to deal with it. Counsel argued that it was dear by the actions of the parties that they agreed to waive the time limits prescribed by the collective agreement q-he College never actmlly engaged the process as set out m the collective agreement and the Board should conclude that, by its reaction, the College waived the entire process and was seeking some accommodation with the grievor, ffthe College intended to raise a technical objection about the timeliness of the grievance, it had to do so at the earliest opportunity, not just before the hearing For the College to argue that the Union did not adhere to time lines and that the grievance was deemed to have been ak~andoned is somewhat astounding when it is clear that the College did not adhere to the Step 1 requirements of the collective agreement The onus was on the College to acknowledge and reply to the grievance at Step 1 before the Union could move the grievance forward through the process. The College was obligated to provide a current PDF in advance of a Step 1 meeting but failed to do so. Without the PDF, there was no way for the Union to proceed In this regard, there was no need for the Board to look at the cases or the law. It would suffice to review the evidence and the grievance procedure. Everything was done m a timely manner. Whatever aberrations occurred were caused by the College, lmrticularly the failure to set up a Step One meeting. Concerning the delay m actually scheduling the grievance for arbitration, that was the Union's prerogative as well as a practice of all the Colleges. Counsel submitted that '~ a refelwal (to arbitration) takes place only when the union refers it, the whole system would be destroyed". In any event, the College should have objected when Mr. Goldin notified the College that he was referring the grievance to arbitration on June 26, 2001 (Exhibit In the altermtive, Counsd for the Union submitted that the parties agreed to waive the Step One meeting q-he College should have objected on or about June 26, 2001 when Mr. Goldin said he was referring the grievance to arbitration (F_xhibit 2) but it did not do so until it received the letter from George Richards on or about June 5, 2002 (Exhibits 9 and 10). By then, Counsel submitted that "fi~esh steps" had been taken in terms of ongoing settlement discussions and the obtaining of a PDF. q-he Union cooperated with the College and met its obligations at every stage and acted expeditiously in protecting its rights, q-he grievor is still not satisfied with the PDF ultimately prel:ared for her by Kathleen Massey and which she signed on December 23, 2003 (Exhibit 6). She still does not agree with it and wishes to have the PDF which she herself drafted in April 2001 (Exhibit 14) sent to an evalmtion committee for assessment and point rating, q-he preliminary ol~ection should be dismissed and the case heard on its merits. In support of his submission, Counsd referred the Board to the following cases: George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Unim 9 Unreported (December 29, 1995: Kevm Burkett, Chair); Re Falconbridge Lt4, Sudbury Smelter Business Unit and U.S.W.A, Local 6855, 112 L.A C. (4th) 243; Re Natrel (Ontario) Inc. and Teamsters, Local 647, 83 L.A C. (4th) 55; Natrel Inc. V. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Temnsters Local Union No. 647, [2001] O.J. No. 1283; St. Lawrence College of Applied Arts and Technology and OPSEU, Unreported (June 26, 1995: RO. MacDowell, Chair); Re City of Kamta and Canadian Umon of Public Employees, Local 2753, 79 L.A C. (4th) 204; Re Windsor Raceway Inc. and Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, 109 L.A C. (4th) 76; Re Ram¥crest Home for the Aged and Canadian Union of Public En~loyees, Local 65, 57 L.A C. (4th) 75; Re Board of School Trustees, School District No. 39 and British Columbian Provincial Council of Camenters, Ix)ca1452, 44 L.A C. (4a) 343; Re Western Star Trucks Inc. And International Association of M~chinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 2710, 69 L.A C. (4th) 250; Re Hotel, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 75 and Royal York Hotel, 42 O.R (2d) 509 and 149 D.L.R (3d) 268; In reply, Counsd for the College submitted that the Union had been free to proceed to a next step of the grievance procedure if the College failed to meet its obligations. There was a PDF m existence, albeit perhaps outdated and maybe even inappropriate. Nevertheless, the Union could have proceeded to arbitration on that basis on or about June 26, 2001 or, at least, proceeded to Step 2 of the grievance procedure. If the Union believed that there was no PDF, it could have proceeded to the President on the basis also. Counsel submitted on beh~qlf of the College that the Union never initiated the arbitration process. Although it did send a letter to the College suggesting that it was referring the matter to arbitration, in fact it did not do so until almost one year later. Mr. Goldin testified that he was "holding it in abeyance" pending resolution discussions with the College. In fact, there were no settlement discussions about the grievance. There were discussions, however, about creating a new PDF for Ms. Bloom 2-he Umon was not "lulled" into believing thzt the College had agreed to waive any of lhe time lines or other limitations of the collective agreement. AS to the argument that this should be considered as a "continuing grievance," Counsd stated that he could not undersland the basis for this assertion. The grievor was ultimately givm a new PDF which she did not grieve, thus rmdermg the matter moot 2-he fact that she n~y not have agreed with the new PDF is of no consequence as she did not challenge it. In any evert, the grievor now has a different job. 2-he Union can not nowtake issue with the PDF and seek a different point rating because this PDF did not exist when the grievance was filec[ It is also seeking a different remedy from thzt originally sought Counsd referred the Beard to the following additional cases: Re Dam Brake Parts Canada Inc. V Camdian Autoworkers Union, Local 199, 90 L.A C. (4th) 387; George Brown College and OPSEU, O.B. Shime (Chair) August 21, 2000 (Unreported); Re Vulcan Packaging Inc. arfl United Steelworkers of America, Local 6754, 72 L.A~C. (4th) 400; Re Small Fry Snack Foods Inc. and Retail Wholesale Camda, Div. ofU. S.W.A, Local 461, 74 L.A~C. (4th) 224. 10 It will be useful to set out the various applicable provisions of the collective agreement pertaining to is. COMPLAINTS/GRIEVANCES 18.2 General Conditions 18.2.1. Tllre If the grievor fails to act with the time limits set out at any Complaint or Grievance Step, the grievance will be considered almndoned. 18.2.2. No Reply ff an official fails to reply to a grievance within the time limits set out at any Complaint or Grievance Step, the grievor may submit his/her grievance to the next Step of the grievance procedure. 18.2.3. Extensions At any Complaint or Gsevance Step of the grievance procedure, the time limits imposed upon either party may be extended by mutml agreerrent. 18.4. Classification Grievances 18.4.1. Grievance to College Official An employee who claims his/her assigned job is improperly classified and that he/she should be properly classified to another classification tamed in Appendix E (i) or should be classified as an atypical position may present a grievance in writing to the College official desigmted responsible for classification grievances. The written grievance must specify at least the job family and pay~nd chimed by the employee to be appropriate. Where the employee is claiming he/she should be classified in an atypical position, the written grievance must specify the payI~tnd requested and must specify the job ~unily Where appropriate. 18.4.1.1. Retroactive Payment It is understood that there shall be no retroactive payment prior to the date of presentation of the written grievance as specified above. 11 18.4.2.1 Step 1 - Meeting and Information Provided The College Official shall arrange a meeting within fourteen (14) days after receiving the grievance to permit the employee and a Local Union Representative the oPlx)rtunity of making representations in support of the grievance. The College Offidal sb~ll ensure that the current Position Description Form (PDF), as per Article 7.2 2, is provided at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. At the meeting, the employee must first indicate in writing whether he/she is in agreement with the PDF and if not what specific disagreerrems he/she b~s with it. A discussion to resolve any differences shall then take place. At this meeting following discussion on the PDF, both lmrties will exchange, in writing core point rating by factor for the position in dispute. 18.4.2.2. College Official's Decision Within fourteen (14) days after the receipt of the core point rating by factor from the Union, the College Official sh~l give his/her decision in writing. It is undemt(x)d that the grievance cannot proceed further until the core point rating by factor and the SlX~C disagreement on the PDF, if any, have been r~eived by the College Official, in whting from the Unior~ 18.4.2.3. Referral to Arbitration After Step 1 Where the grievance has not been resolved at Step 1 but there is agreement concemmg the PDF, the n:atter may be referred direly to Arbitration by notice in writing given to the College within fourteen (14) days of the date the grievor should h~ve received the College's decision under Step 1. ~he matter will be referred to a single arbitrator as provided in Article 18.4.3. 18.4.2.4. Step li Where the grievance has not been resolved and where the grievor is not in agreement with the PDF, then he/she shall refer the grievance in writing to the President of the College within fourteen (14) days of the date he/she received or should have received the decisior~ The President or hi/her designee shztll convene a meeting conceming the grievance within fourteen (14) days of the presentation, at which the grievor shall have an opportunity to be present. The President or his/her designee shall give his/her decision in writing within fourteen (14) days following the meeting 18.4.2.5. Referral to Arbitration After Step H Where the grievance has not been resolved at Step 1I, the matter may be referred to Arbitration by notice in writing given to the College within fourteen (14) days of the date the grievor should h~ave 12 nxeived the College's decision under Step 1I. The matter will be referred to a single arbitrator as provided in Article 18.4.3. On mutual written agreement signed by the Local Union and the College, the matter shall be referred to an Arbitration Board as provided under Article 18.4.4.1. Decisiorr The facts of this case provide a sad commentary on the classification grievance system as it operated at Centennial College in the year 2001 Sue Bloom made what should have been a simple and reasonable request to have a new PDF and core point rating done for a position she had been in for some six years. After many delays, she did receive a PDF in March of 2001. She made revisions to it and resubmitted it on April 9, 2001, to Mr. Trevor Massey, her Director, as well as to Linda Carson, Manager of Human Resources. No response issued from management. ~gs were arranged which never took place. Mr. Massey lost the revised PDF Sue Bloom had submitted and he asked her to provide him with another copy, which she did Out of frustration and desperation, Sue Bloom filed her classification grievance on May 29, 2001. Management never responded to or even acknowledged the grievance. Linda Carson testified that she was the person desigmted to hear classification grievances at Step 1. She stated that she did not see the grievance until some two and one-half years later, just prior to this arbitration. We would observe that it is passing strange that, as Manager of Human Resources and the a~ent College official responsible to receive classification grievances, she did not see this grievance over a two and one-half year period during which time, according to her own testimony, she was aware of its existence. It was also Linda Carson's testimony that no notification had ever been given by the College to the Union concerning the names of persons designated to deal with grievances at the various Steps of the grievance procedure. Mr. Larry Goldin, President of Local 559, testified that he often forwarded grievances to the responsible manager knowing they would eventually firrt their way to Ms. Carsor~ On June 26, 2001, Mr. Goldin sent a letter to Mr. Ga~ Gannon, Director of Human Resources, stating that he was refemng the grievance to arbitration_ However, he seemingly did not do so until approximately May 10, 2002. Trevor Massey was replaced by Kathleen Massey who took the matter in hand and succeeded in having a new PDF prepared for Sue Bloom by December 23, 2002. 2-he grievor signed off on this PDF although it was her testimony that she still did not agree with it Hoverer, she did not file a new grievance. In her view, her original grievance was still alive; in mamgement's view, it was dead or al~tndoned 2-his is the crux of the preliminary objection on which this Board has been asked to rule ~ failures on the ~ of both the College and the Union are patently obvious for anyone to discern. Quite almrt from not officially informing the Union of the names or positions of those persons designated to r~eive a classification grievance, losing documents, arranging meetings that did not take place, the College failed to acknowledge a written grievance, failed to reply to a written grievance and generally did not respect the requirements of the collective agreement. The Union failed to take any rrearfirg~ action in response to management's failure to reply to the grievance, or to management's failure to provide a PDF in a timely fashion, particularly after the grievance was filed The Union did 13 not refer the grievance to arbitration in a timely ~. 2he fact that Mr. Goldin notified the College on June 26, 2001, that he was referring the grievance to arbitration is quite meamngless when faced with the fact that it did not really occur until some eleven months later, on or about May 10, 2002. Mr. Goldm testified that he was "holding it in abeyance" and that he was expressing his "frustration". An actual referral to arbitration must be real, not just a perceived threat, and some direct result normally flows from it leadin~ usually, to the appointment of a single arbitrator or the establishment of an arbitration board It is the first step in the process and its procedural terms are found within the applicable collective agreement. It is not a Sword of Damocles meant to be dangled over the head of one party by the other. Mr. Goldin's letter of June 26, 2001 (Exhibit 2), indicating a "referral to arbitration" did not initiate that process. As it tumed out, because it was kept in abeyance for some eleven momhs, it became, at best, a notice of intention to refer the grievance to arbitration and not an actual referral. 2bus, this Beard does not consider Exhibit 2 a valid referral to arbitratior~ When the College received the letter of M~ay 22, 2002 (Exhibit 9), fi'om George Richards of OPSEU Head Office indicating that the grievance was proceeding to arbitration, it reacted by suggesting to OPSEU that the referral was, by then, untimely. While this Bmrd is somewhat hesitant to call into play the provisions of the collective agreement, given that both parties managed to ignore them from the outset, the language of Articles 18.4.2.2, 18.42.3, 18.4.2. 4, and 18.4.2. 5 reproduced above plainly sets out the procedures to be followed by each of the lmaies. It is clear that the language places the responsibility on the Union/grievor to move the grievance forward through the various steps in the event that rmmgement fails to fulfill its responsibilities. It was open to the Union/grievor to move the grievance forward at each of the steps when no PDF, meeting or reply vas forthcoming from the College. It did not do so. Surprisingly, the College made no attempt to offer the slightest explamtion for its non-response to the original grievance during the course of this hearing. Such disregard is not acceptable. Notwithstanding, Article 18.4.2.5 clearly states that the grievance "may be referred to Arbitration by notice in writing given to the College within fourteen (14) days of the date the grievor should have received the College's decision under Step 11." 2he rrmnmg of the words "should have rer,,eived the College's decision" in the context cited above is clear. The Union does not have to wait for a reply. Once the actml date for a reply from management has passed, the Union is free (or not) to move the grievance forward 2he language contemplates the possibility that management may be delinquent and provides a remedy. By any reasomble standard, Mr. Goldin's holding the grievance in abeyance for some deven months, whether out of frustration or to put pressure on managemert (as he testified), does not meet the collective agreement requirements. While it is a fact that management was delinquent in not replying to the grievance or in meeting the various requirements set out in the collective agreement for dealing with it, including providing a copy of the then current PDF to the employee and/or the Union, the Union/grievor failed to move the grievance forwarc[ It could have done so at almost any time after rmnagement failed to provide a PDF. Failure of the grievor (union) to act within the prescribed time limits set out therein results in the grievance being considered abandoned (See Article 18.2.1. Supra). Based on the testimony of the various witnesses, We are satisfied that no settlement discussions took 14 place concerning the actml grievance. ]-here were exchanges of E-mails and some discussions but, based on the evidence presented, these appeared to centre around the issue of having a new PDF prepared for Sue Bloom Also, there was no cogent evidence preserted supporting the assertion that the parties had agreed to extend the time lines for the processing of the grievance or that man~tgonent by its action or imction had waived the me limits. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, namely, that it was never processed at all. Neither are we able to find any reasonable grounds to agree with Counsel for the Union that this should be considered a "continuing grievance" because it deals with a pay matter and also because the collective agreement has no time limilations for the filing of a classification grievance. With respexX, that is not sufficient for this Board to make such a finding Moreover, while the collective agreement n~y or n~y not conlam time limits for the initial filing of a classification grievance, it does conlain many time limits concemmg the processing of such a grievance. Regarding the matter of the new PDF, it is significant that the grievor testified that although she signed it, she did not agree with it; however, it was up to the Union(grievor to file a grievance at that moment indicating any disagreement with the contents. This was the very document the grievor had such difficulty obtaining. Unfortumtely, this was not done. Had she done so, that could have formed the basis of a separate grievance. We do not fault the grievor for this inactior~ We have reviewed the many cases to which we were referred by both Counsel but we fred no pressing need to cite any of them in this derision_ In our view, the facts of this case, however distressing~ are quite straightforward It is our conclusion that the Union failed to process the grievance within the prescribed time limits of the collective agreement and that this Board of Arbitration, pursuant to the applicable Statute and the terms of the collective agreement, is without authority to extend them For all of the reasons outlined above, the College's pre 'hminmy objection is allowed thus rendering the grievance imrbitrable Signed and dated in Ottawa, this 18th day of October, 2004 Louis M Temce Louis M Tenace (Chair) I concur Signed Robert Gallivan (College Nominee) I dissent (To Follow) Lany Robbins (Union Nominee) 15 IN 'FILE MAT"flhR OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CENTENNIAI. COL LEG E and ()N'I'AR10 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES t'NI¢.)N GRII(VANCE ¢)F SUSAN BLOOM ] F'lI~.E.~2001-0559-O0011 1)I SSENT i ((iss;relll I-L"(',llI this Av.'ard, '['he maiorils' {']t"td5 t]'..a'[ t~l¢ [,'jiioi'] thilcd ~:o process ~]',c gt'ievance' wilh. Jn lhe prescribed Ih'nc fin. ts oI" t}Je collective agrccmcm, and ttphol&-q prciinlir~ary ubjection rendering the grievance il;arbitrable, in m.v rcspL'cIfu] vkzz,~, this conciusinn is both wrong in law. aud r-r/anitkstl)' inequitable under thc Cil'C:Ln"tSlal"tCOS. Based on a proper analx sis of tt'~c provLsions of :he colLective agreer'ncrm Thc ~3mlp.] s].lol, l]d ha~e found Thai the [!nJon \vas not in brcac]l o£~he time limils and 1hal it in i~cl it I do agree ~vilh lh¢ statements in thc Ax~ ard thai [he Ernploscr comp[elc[y disregarded irs obligations under thc Agrc¢lnenl. '['he s]~ortcoming~ in 1}1c [::mp]oyer's belqaviOtLr arc described SO!]lC ([¢[{tiJ. '['lie iSSUe Ibm' This Board was to dctern']inc where docs thai [cave lime [ Jrlion. and we*re J~s oh![gatLons in respons:. In my x'ic~. ~he L.'.nion-s notice [o arbitrate was in f~ct timeS' As q..f_~.]!.a,t_.!}~¢ Was the Union Reclg. i. red_t.o Forward the Grievance t~.th<..~_x_"¢x{ Step? decision undc~ Step 1'. But when .should lhe gr~cvor have received thc Co!lcge's decision? '['hi, question that Iht ma.~ority cmnpJetely ~hib t<> answer, 1"o ?ropcrly an;,,xcr lhaLl qucsti©n, w'e have to look lo Ar6clc 18.4.2.1 and 18.4.2.2. h states lhaL ()~'ticiz:] shall g~c h{s"her decision in writing. But 5n lhis case Ibc cvcm which ~ou]d hax'c ~tartcd ~he }:'.;mp]o?Ys clock rLcking, llx[l [~ thc exchange of care poin[ rnlJn~. [hctut's m ~ },ccau~c the t';mp[oycc never provLded ibc PDF Form_ xx'h]ch il ~'as rcqmred to do: nor did iL scl up u meeting at S[cp 1 at ~vh[ch the pa~x~es wouId have exchar~gcd core point rating factors. It ,,vas thc Emp]oy'er'.~ respo,~;ibi[ity both to arr.'.mgc a Step t rmc:ting x,dthin [4 ,&e Briavance ~cl to cnsu:~ ~l~a~ PDF was pro~'i&d th'c d<¥~ prior ~a thc mcctinB. 18.4.2.1.1 '['hi* i, a eas~ whera fl~ Co limBo dCarl y !-ail. ed in ils m~lt{pl~ obli~alions under collective I-he ](mpLos'¢r's view, wl~ich thc majori't5 appears [o }laxc adopted, i~ ti:mi one s['rnply adds of thc various time lb'mrs t~,).ge[her [as.,;mn¢ thc 7I)t: is pre,.']dcd on time. lhat thc Step ()nc rnccdng takes ptacc cm or before the t4:" d~.,~ air. er Ibc filing or' the gdc'qmcc, and {hat the o1' lime. In mv vic,,,,.. 1. hat is ::tn artiScial ~.-xcrci~,e and an incon'ect ar-.d incqui¥,blc ]t'tr..~]-p;'e[:~ti<'~r't of .~]'~c Pag~ 3 collc~;tive agreement. O[~e simply cannot sa>-' when ~he Employer' s dec~sion would have been ~itt~out making a ~ho[e series of assumptions, because none of the other tt~[n~s happened. In c~rder fhr' ~hc Union's 14 day time I~rnit to 5m~ framing, thc rnceling at Step 1 mos[ occur first [md the parties must exchange core pofnt rating Ihctors./'hen the Employer would have I4 days to g~v~ a deerskin, and ouly fi-om that due date would the Union's 14 day fim~ ~imit begin lo run. t-'~)r the abo'~'c reason, nol only was tl~e Jr,ne 26i01 notice to arbitmI~ timely, but so was t.he Mu~ 22."02 nt~tice. As ofthal dale, Iherc was still no PDF. the Employer had still not set Lip a Step tnecti:qg or vxchanged ct)re [)oi~_t raling l'ttctors, so that the conditim~s precedcm for th~: ] 4 daw time limit in Article 18_4.2_2 ~o s~an running had nor ye[ laken place_ In t)ther words, x~here lhe Emplod~r fb. ils to take any of thc steps tlaa~ are required t() process thc grievance duou,~t~h Stel~ l, 1he c<mditions to create a rnandaloU lime [imi$ tbr the Un[on ycl el'fecti¥c. For *,hat reason, there is simply no ba~i.q ~'bt' ~he c?onclusicm that the I..~nion i~iled n~o,,'e thc grievance lbrward on time. or to act wEt]lin th<: prescribed time the June 2.6/01 l,etter a ['raper 5-otice to Arb.i~r.a.i_e3 'l'hu sect;nd reason for a ~j~ding ~hat the. grievance was filed 'a.'i*,hin the time limits is that the Jtillc 26.,'0] letter le the College was in hct a proper nmicc to arbitrate. Even if the Employer's method of calculating t'he lime limils ,~.'ere to be f~und correct, tkcm can be no dispute that the June 26.."0 [ nc~tice would have been on time. 'l'l~e key ten, son the majority dismisses the grievm~.'¢ is !]nat they fi~d thal the June 26/0I letter was not in fact a proper ztoticc to arbitrate, and in l;act the chairperson reliefs 're it as bcin¢ "qu{te mean ingless"_ 'l'l'le Jelte. r ilself'is very clear. Il is written by the [Jnion President. It states that he Es fb~¥ardJeg dispute ~hat it was rCCC~X.rCd by Mamtgement. in thio case by Mr. Gary G~mnon. lhe Director sE' Page 4 I-[urnan Resom'cezs. We heard evidence that there was a d[sctlssiOrl belween Mr_ Go]din arzd (iar~aon. lha~t Mr_ Cialdit~ sta~ed that lhe grievance had bee~ going on tbr a long time_ and taat ~vt~v to deal with it was to forward it to ~bittation but t(> still lO' to get it resolved ~awkic~-. (ioldin also expressed tSe f~slration that the ~...~nio~ was having g.'ith t]~e lnek o~' a~5. response Dom thc t;~n~ployer. Mr, Gannon made r<) obje¢tion to citijet tt~e timing or forma~ ()ftt~e notice to "l'hcre cat~ be l ittl ¢ ¢]otibt that on its lice, INs ]¢ttm' was i.~ {~cl a proper notice to arbitrate, ~,¥'}~tli Mr. Goldin did nt~t do v~'as to take the l-briber ~tetiori o_f'referring it to the CAA'I' A/S Scheduling Comrz~ittec tmtiI ] ] mouths later'_ '['ha~ Fact is not in tiispute. I'he ma, iorJty v~-'rongly co~clt!des Ih;_tl tl~is ]'ailt~ro tunis the Jtmc/Dl letter ittto someiNng ~'meamngicss". I co~pletel>' disarm-ce wit?_, thai ctmc!usian_ The reaI question is what docs t]:~,' eoliec[i,,.'e agreemem require the L/niotx lo do to ~n~:ct the requirements oFa ',:alJd re'fewa] to arbitration. The answer can be tbtmd by looking at 1.he plain [a~gt~agc el'iht ~tg~¢emenl. Ar~icIe 18A,2.3 slates tha~ thc mat~er ma}. be ~ef~gOt[ dir~cily to ~rbitratio~ *'by' notice in writing to the College within 14 days...". Tho on[?' event which must happc~ ~5'il}~}l~ 14 days is ttlg act of giving nolicc in writing to the Col lore. Tt~c J ut'~g' 26/01 is de~nitel? ~otice in ~.'rilmg lo the C~l[ege~ The language oI'lhe agreeme~ does not say tho1 U~ior~ ~l~st ~'cfk~ thc mal~cr Io a~bit~tioa by referral lo llae CAAT A..'"S Grieva~ce Scheduling ("onan~illee wilhi:~ 14 days. Yet the majority would appear to add thal obligmi~n o~ to the Union. ign<oring the clem' x¥ording oi' the agremnem. Ibis ,"rosen. ~hg Employer's eases on t]~is point ,~'ere not partioul~rly heip£t~l, g~tch one '~urns lbo l~tngtmge of tt~e cotleclive agreement under consideration. In some eases, there is a Fzqttironqonz that she 7.Jttion also name a nominee to the board, or that it provide names possible c[~gi~)ersons~ In each case, one must deters~ine whether t}~e notice lo arbi~rnte met are ~to suet~ afldirio~ml requirememg to make the not~ee to arbilr;ite a valid erie. Pa~e 5 'l'he ,June 2fi."O 1 le~tcr Js a ~imple statemcm 1hat the Union is re£erfing the ,grievance to arbilrafic,,n. It is nm phrased as a nolice of fcuure intention. It is nol a "Sword of Damocles" as the el'~airpurs(m suggests. The evidence was clear t~mt lite Union ~-artted to gr~ to the next step advance the proceedings because o1' its frustration in not g¢lting any response from Mr_ 'Frevor Masses, Finally it i~ wei] knotvn that in the Cnllcgc grievance ,ystcm there am many cases where notice given to the Employer bi~t lbr witatever reason thc pa~ies do not sch¢dtdc ~he case Ibr a hearin~ until many rnerlths later. I am very concerned rhar this decision ~.'lll i-cquir~ thc 1.Jrik>n to press ahead ibp a hearing ~r~ eve~, case even where there may be xralid reasoas ff>r no[ doing go, Th~s a~.vard therefore b~ thc poLent]a] ~br pla)Sag havoc with the grievance arbkration system of the :Carries. For all of thc above reasons I wo~fld have concluded that thc June 26/'01 iett'er was a va]id rdkrral to arbitration a~d that there was lid basis tbr tinding the UnMn in breach of its time !trait obligalions. Was the..Union~s Condaet ,U..n reasonable? Thc above paragraphs set out why i~t fact fft~ majority have improperly interpreted the collect:.ve agrccmcl~l, But s{,ne commcars are also necessatx.' on the reasonaitleness of the [.;nion's conduct m this case. The mh~od~y concludes thai neither party follo~cd thc temps of the co[lectNc agreement Spccifical[y~ at Paso 1_3 offlhc Award, the smtemenl is matte fl~at ~'bo[h pa~ks managed to ig~ore thc provisions vf the collective ageemcnt tk9m the outset." In my v~cw this sta[cmen! is unfair. There ~s no question [hat the Etnp}eycr completdy ~gnored its oBI igafions. Bul the Union's only fatture would appear to bc that it x~'aited/1 months to ~brw~d tko grievance to thc CAA'I' A/S Scheduling Commhrce afer sending J~s nolicc 1o arbilrate t<~ ibc E:nployer in _lune/OI. in my view, them were valid labour relations teasings For thc Union's Page 6 -]-h~ Union was stilJ atmmpting to g~t a proper PDF Jbr tk¢ gricvor ~a ~hat thc condkkms would b~'. ~hcrc ~er [o sc~llc The ~B~[er or ~o have a prop~[ c]~s~c~lion arb~rafi<m. 'l"he Emplo] er was ~upposcd ~o prov~d~ ~h~ PDF sho~]y =flor ~hc filing of ~]~e ~fi~van~c ~n Me'~ 2001, A~ ~1 proper PI)F ia place was a neccssaq.' condition to deal properly and {mcll]gently with this case. Rather th~m press lo schedule the hearing hnmediately it pretknrd m hold the1 option m abeyance and to allow the PDF process to resolve itself. Most hnpo~aant, this ] ] monlh dday was no~ a broach of thc collective agreemenl by the Union. Once it has given me Empk>ycr a valid not[ce m arb~mte~ tlmre are no specific time l~tni~s for when the additional steps must occur. '['he cimirpc]'son also states that tile fhcr_ the Union made many efibrl's lo get meetings scheduled. We had evidence of"a lengtN.' series of e mails which showed that thc Union was mkiug aclion on the matter, and aizcmprin~ secure a PDF lbr Ms. Bloom. It x~.'a~ clear ~hat Mr, 'r're¥or Masscy, the Registrar, had "gone cmup[etely siknL on the matter" as was stakd hi evidence. Only after hc was replaced b> M~. Kalhleen ~.'lusseS' were slops talc'ri, but the []tSon's e malls, reference waf made ro thc grievance, and there can bc ~o dm~bt Lhal il'to gricx.'ance wax ye%' much For ail nfthesc reasons, surely it Js the Employer's £onduct which fs clearly unaccept,'~ble by an)' slandard. There is a legal principle that a pony should not be able to profit from irs own c(md~:c[. Un~brtunatcly Ibc Award embraces such a result. Thc Employer ~ he~ng rewarded totally ignoring it~ commitments under the Agreement This is highly inappropriate, and in my view scnd~ ~!~ ~vron~ mcssag~ to thC parties in flfi~ case, Finalb.' the re.ink i~ veu.' inequitable ~hc gric~.'or, as ~'cll as thc U,fion, thc party that did act in good f~[fl~ {n processing ti,~s rnatlcr. the Grievance .Moot in a_._n~}' .Event? ]'i~ta~ly some comments are appropriate on the other prelim iT~.' obi ectiorx of lhe Employer, suggestion that given that a new PDF was created ia December/02, that this makes the gricvaace moot ia any event. '['he Award docs not reaclt a conck~sion on this isst~c one way or thc other. l-lowexer the Award does suggest that Ms. Bloom should have 5led a fi'esh grievance aficr December 23/02 in response lo the new PDF. I wm~ld siml~]y note the fbllowing: '?his is a grieYancc al!egi,:tg lhat thc gricvor w~,s knpropcrly class i[ied, ghc wag seeking a higl~er pa5, band. The preparation o I' the I'*DF some ~) mor~ths ]ale bx,' tke limp]o,x'er in no way wiped out her grievance. She was still seeking a higher c]assilicaticn. an~! financial compensation. The t~riginal grieYance was slitt 'valid, f he k;mpk~yer argued that the new Pl')I:' oreo. ted a new set o£circum.ctances whqc~ required that a ~.cx~' gri~:vancc be fitecl. Bur thc problem x~'/t]'~ that thcou is that clearly under lhc agrccrn~'n~, thc filing of lhe griev~mce precedes lhe preparaiion of the PDF lb~. Under Article 18~4.2.1, the Co]logo Og]Sola[ is supposed to ensure that the current PDF [s provided ar least five days pr'Let m rise meetkeg at Slep t_ [,el us stlppose timt Mr_ Massey had in Gcr prepared a Pl)P' game t}me tn Surely in that case it would nol kave been necessary !bt Ms. Bloom to lbe~ tile a~ second grievance_ The Pa~i es would then ]nave discusse4 the grievance ~har l~ad ah'eddy heen filed rl'_akklg rise oftt~e recem, ly prepared P[)F. Why then shr)uld thc t~mploycr's l 9 month delay in preparing a PDI' in cflkct imF>se a new obligation on the grievi>r tt) grieYe ago.in'? 'l'here is si~nply no logic in 1be Employer's argument tn my view. ] would also note that even bari the grievor tiled a second gri¢;'m~ce i~) December."(~2, the old grievancc of May.."O1 would still have been o£ s~me import~mce to her, '['he ~:t:w grievance can r'~t~ly pm¥icle a remedy back t:) the lime t~l' the 5ting of that grievance, so she still ~¥onld have needed ~hc original grie,,'ance to achie'~:e a financial remedy Gr r}~e period r.maing ~'¥om M~y..'"01 Page to December.'"02. ali of these reasons. [,his grie'~.'ance was certainly not n'toot, and tim fi liag of an additional gric~-'a '_.cc a ['ter December-, 2002 was r~c~t necessao', l'he original gri¢~'a~',c~: was still app[ic~t¢ic, Tn c~',nclt~skm_ I wotlld have dismissed ail of the Emp]r)ycr~s preliminary objectio~'~ a~d dea~.lt w{~h Ibc grie~..'ance on its murits, DA'['ED ..'\T 'f'()RONTO, this 8th da',.' of November, 20[)4_ ~.-=.' ~::- 9'~4 .....