Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKuca 05-09-08~8 Sep 2005 18:32 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYNDR G. 905-634-3951 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ( the "Union" ) - A~D - GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (the "College") AND IN THE MATTER OF TME GRIEVANCE OF LAURA KUCA OPSEU GRIEVANCE NO. 2004-0557-0021 (455721) (SUPPORT) BOARD OF ARBITRATION Robert D. Howe, Chair Sherril Murray, Union Nominee Ann E. Burke, College Nominee APPEARANCES For the Union Andrew Lewis, Counsel Danny Kas~ner Christine Legault Marilou Martin Laura Kuca For the College F.G. Hamilton, Counsel David Ivany A hearing in the above matter was held in Toronto, Ontario, May 4, and August 9, 10, and 11, 2005. QB Sep 2005 1B:32 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYNDR G. $05-634-3951 ........ AWARD The matter to be decided in this award is whether the College breached Article 2.1 and/or Article 18.2.7 of the collective agreement in relation to a performance appraisal (also referred to in the evidence and in this award as the "performance review") conducted by Alfred Cart on July 15, 2004, in which he assessed the performance of the grievor, Laura Kuca, during the three-month period of April, May, and June of 2004. Those provisions read as follows: 2. RELATIONSHIP 2.1 Interference The College and the Union agree that there will be no intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint or coercion exercised or practised by either of them or their representatives or members because of an employee's membership or non-membership in the Union or because of his/her activity or lack of activity in the Union. 18. COMPLAINTS/GRIEVANCES 18.2 General Conditions 18.2.7 Rights An employee shall not be required to appear before a committee, board or other investigation body to answer concerning his/her conduct or performance without first being given reasonable opportunity to be accompanied by an employee representative if, as a result of his/her appearance, he/she may be subject to some written reprimand, assessment or penalty. However, this provision shall not be aDplicable when an employee is 1 Uu 5ep 2005 18:32 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.6 required to appear before hiS/her immediate Supervisor or, in his/her absence, the person acting in his/her stead or the Personnel Officer of the College to answer concernin~ his/her conduct. On the first day of hearing, counsel for the College raised a preliminary objection tc the arbitrability of the grievance, on the grounds tkat a performance appraisal cannot be arbitrated. ~owever, the Board dismissed that objection for the following reasons. Article 16.1 of the collective agreement (the "Agreement") provides as follows: 16. EMPLOYEE EVALUATION 16.1 Performance Appraisal The copy of an employee's performance appraisal which is to be filed on the employee's record shall be given to the emplOyee in advance. The employee shall initial such appraisal as having been read within seven (7) days of receipt of a copy of such appraisal. If the employee wishes, he/she may add his/her views to such appraisal within such seven (7) day period. A notice shall be printed on the performance appraisal stating "The Employee's rights concerning performance appraisals are found under Article 16.1 of the Collective Agreement." In preparation for the performance appraisal process, the Supervisor shall review the employee's PDF to determine if it is current. In OPSEU and Centennial College (grievance of Syed Kamal, unreported unanimous award dated January 20, 1992, in OPSEU File No. 91-D-562 (Mitchnick), it was held (at page 7) that "the rights which the parties considered to arise for an employee in connection with the matter purely of a 'performance evaluation' are simply and solely the ones set out in the foregoin9 provisions of Article 16.1 itself" The reasonin9 in that award (and in the two Seneca College awards 2 08 Sep 2005 18:32 ROBERT O. HOWE & LYNBR G. 90S-634-3951 ..... ~.~7 referred to therein) precludes an employee from successfully grieving the merits of a "negative" performance evaluation, at least un~il such time as the employer actually relies upon the evaluation in taking some form of action detrimental to the employee (such as imposing discipline or denying a merit increase). See also Re Georgian College and O.P.$.E.U. (1983), 10 L.A.C. (3d) 359 (H.D. Brown); and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and OPSEU (grievance of E. Sagar), unreported award dated August 18, 1999 (Swan). We respectfully agree with the reasoning contained in those awards, and find that it would preclude the grievor from seeking to have the July 15, 2004 performance appraisal rescinded or amended on the grounds that it degrades her work or otherwise inaccurately assesses her performance. However, it does ~ot preclude her from seeking to have it rescinded or amended on the basis of an alleged violation of Article 2.1 of the Agreement, nor does it preclude an arbitral determination of whether she was entitled to have Union representation at the performance review meeting. Mr. Cart is the Manager of Systems Development and Support in the College's Information Technology Services ("ITS") Department. Prior to accepting that position on February 2, 2004, he pained extensive managerial experience in the Ontario Public Service (from which he retired in 1998, following 27 years of service) and also worked for several years as an independent consultant in ~he private sector. ~e has conducted hundreds of performance reviews during the 08 Sep 2005 18:32 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 .. ?'8 ..... course of his managerial career. The grievor holds the position of Senior Programmer Analyst in the Programmer Analyst C job classification in the College's ITS Department. She has been in the employ of the College since 1981 and has filed seventeen grievances during the course of her employment, eight of which were filed in 2004. A number of her grievances have involved allegations of being improperly classified, and have sought to have her position reclassified to a higher classification with a higher rate of pay. She has also grieved her PDF (Position Description Form). In the e-mail correspondence by which a performance review meeting time and date of noon on July 15, 2004 were arranged, the grievor advised Mr. Carr that she was' "seeking union advice" This prompted Mr. Carr to send her the followin9 e-mail message on July 14, 2004, after consulting with the College's Human Resources Department and being advised that a Union representative was not to be present during a periormance review: Laura, you should be aware that as far as I am concerned this is a performance review that as a ~anager I am entitled to do when I believe it is required and does not involve the Union at this time. You may check with the Union but this performance review is not arising out of any grievance that you may have filed. I am not prepared to have the union attend a performance review meeting where there is no grievance involved. When the grievor contacted the Union, she was advised "that the College can giv~ performance reviews anytime they like", and was also advised to make notes of the performance 4 08 Sep 2005 _1..8:32 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.9 review meeting. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Carr provided the grievor with a draft copy of her performance review for discussion purposes. It is unnecessary to detail ~he contents of that review in this award, as it is common ground between the parties that the validity of Mr. Carr's assessment of the grievor's performance is not a matter to be determined in these proceedings. Indeed, each party expressly refrained from calling evidence regarding the merits of the assessment. It suffices for purposes of the present case to note that the performance review includes the following comments in the "Supervisor's comments', section (on page 7 of the review): Laura's performance in the past three months has been below an acceptable standard of performance. Laura has received Training in this period and needs to start to apply that trainin~ to her work assignments. She needs to adjust her attitude to be more positive and focus more on her work rather than continuing to argue for a promotion. She needs to improve her ~nterpersonal skills and be more cooperative in dealing with her ITS colleagues. Another review will be done at the end of September to evaluate whether she has accepted any of the comments noted in this review and started to modify her approach to getting her job done more professionally and competently. During his testimony in these proceedings, Mr. Carr acknowledged that the "Supervisor's commen~s" section of the performance review is a distillation and summary of the most important things in the review, and also described it as "an indication of [his] expectations of an employee ~oin§ forward". The grievor made a copy of that draft and drew to Mr. Cart's attention a number of areas regarding which she wanted q~ 5ep ~005 18:33 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.lO examples of "who, what, where and when". Although the grievor testified tkat the performance review meeting was not confrontational (except for the period of approximately five minutes when another member of management was in .attendance at the request of Mr. Carr), we do not find that testimony to be reliable. It is apparent from her testimony that her recollection of the meeting is largely confined to the matters recorded in the notes which she made at and after the meeting, and that she has relatively little r~collection of what else occurred at that meeting. Indeed, she expressly acknowledged (during examination in chief) that she does not have a recollection of all of the events of the meeting, we found Mr. Cart to be a more reliable witness than the grievor concerning most of what occurred at the meeting, and we accept his evidence that the grievor's "hostility, anger, aggressiveness [and] lack of respect" made the meeting very confrontational. His testimony in that regard also included the following observations: ... I found the meeting cf July 15th to be very confrontational from the start. Her attitude in tone, in words, conveyed to me a lack of belief in the review process, [and] certainly conveyed to me a lack of belief that I had a right ~o make any judgment about her performance. Quite frankly, it was a meeting that certainly was not a comfortable one for me, and it was quite different from any other performance review that I have done in the College or with other employees that I have managed. What her attitude demonstrated to me was that I was dealing with an employee who was first of all not listening or accepting anything that I said. Her attitude was an arrogant one and clearly she demonstrated rejection of my comments .... 6 ~u ~ep ~uub 18:33 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-~34-3951 p.11 We are also satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the following memorandum, which Mr. Carr prepared immediately after the performance review meeting, accurately summarizes what occurred at that meeting: The Performance Review for Laura Kuca which I started at noon today (July 15, 2004) was a very confrontational situation. She provided me with a copy which had her request to provide examples and details of who had said what for each criterion that ~ measured. She also took detailed notes, trying to record verbatim everything that was said by me. She stated that the review would take at least two hours because she wanted details. At one time she even challenged me about the use of the word "numerous" and she said that she is [an] analyst who interprets words and that is the way her mind works. During the review she was shouting at me and at one time, I stated to her that she was not to shout at me and I would not accept that behaviour from her. She replied that I had better get used to it since her lawyer will shout at me when this goes to arbitration. I agreed to provide her with examples during the discussion but she was not satisfied with an example for each area. She said where I said "numerous", I should be givin~ her several examples. I was defaming her character and I needed ~o prove what I claimed had been said by her. I made it clear that I was not going to sit and provide more than one example for each area. She indicated that she had trained many managers over the 23 years that she had been here and she hoped that I stayed to her retirement so that she could train me on how the College works. I advised her that it was not her role to train me and I was not like other managers who would be intimidated by her behaviour. I informed her that I plan on staying here. I finally decided to call Andrew Riem in ~o my office after her behaviour became more confrontational and when he arrived she claimed it was intimidation by me to have him there and that she wanted to contact the Union. She said that she was leaving and I stated that if she walked out, I would consider that insubordination. So she sat down shouting that she wanted to phone the Union. I stated that I would not have a Union representative in this meeting and asked Andrew to leave. She stated that the Union will want Andrew's notes to compare with hers when this goes to Arbitration. She accused me of not wanting her to improYe by not givin~ her examples. 7 u~ ~ep ~uu5 18:34 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.12 During the review, I pointed out her behaviour and attitude on several previous occasions bordered on insubordination. I gave examples for each area of the review but certainly not a list of examples. She said that I could email her the rest later and I said no. I made it clear to her that she had gotten all that I was prepared to give in this review and I was not sending any further examples. She questioned me about who are the business users tkat I indicated were dissatisfied with her work and I indicated Barry Hemmerling and Sharon Kinasz as two examples. The end result is he same as always total non acceptance by Laura of the comments, and a fight that she will take through as far as possible. Since she is away on vacation after tomorrow until ku~ust 13, inclusive, I gave her until August 24 to provide me with her comments. I made it clear that her signature does not mean anything other than that she had been giwen a copy of the review and an explanation of my co~£m,ents (she feels that I did not explain my comments to her satisfaction and that I refused to provide her with all the examples that she wanted and needed). I stated that after August 24, I will remove the "Draft for Discussion Purposes" from the document, correct the date of review to July 15 and correct the Oracle Developer Course to 5 days rather than 4. I stated that I would confirm this in writing. I have made it clear to her that I consider her performance to be substandard and not acceptable. I have prepared this document since it is obvious that I will need a clear recollection of today's statements and events at a later date. On August 24, 2004, the grievor sent the following comments to Mr. Carr, with copies to Anne Saddo, the President of the College; Nancy Hood, the College's Executive Director of Human Resources; and Marilou Martin, the Local President of the Union: The following are the comments you can attach to the performance review document that you prepared: This process that the manager, systems development and support (ITS), has initiated is a waste of my time and the College's resources and an abuse of the College's performance review process. This so-called 8 08 Sep 2005 18:34 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.13 "performance review" is completely negative, destructive and does not offer a means for improvement. It is nothing but a continuous putdown and harassment by the manager. Me has sent email critical of my work to the users. His aim is to do injury to my self-respect, self-esteem, dignity and degrade my work. There is nothing constructive in this "review". The manager's comments are based on his and other people's biased opinions but not on facts. Not only has the manager refused to explain his comments, he demonstrated anger and bullying behaviour when asked to do so. He also intimidated me by bringing another manager into the "performance review" meeting. He also shows contempt for workers' rights. This manager needs to learn how to promote a harmonious working environment and how to motivate his staff without abusing his authority. Andrew Reim is another manager at the College. Mr. Carr called him into the July 15th meeting because he wanted him to be a witness to the grie¥or's aggressive and hostile behaviour. After entering zhe room, Mr. Reim sat in a chair in the corner and did not say anything. However, his presence prompted the grievor to jump up, open the door, and state that she was leaving. After Mr. Carr told her that if she .walked out the door he was going to cite her for insubordination because the meeting was not over, she sat down and shouted tkat she wanted to phone the Union. Mr. Cart told her that he would not have a Union representative in the meeting, and immediately asked Mr. Reim To leave. It is the Union's position that the College violated Article 18.2.7 of the Agreement by denying the grievor Union representation at the July 15th meeting. As indicated above, that provision stipulates that an employee "shall not be required to appear before a committee, board or other investigation body to answer concerning his/her conduct or 08 Sep 2005 18:35 ROBERT Do HOWE & LYNDR G. 905-634-3951 p.14 performance without first being given reasonable opportunity to be accompanied by an emDloyee representative if, as a result o~ his/her appearance, he/she may be subject to some written reprimand, assessment or penalty". However, that provision also stipulates that it "shall not be applicable when an employee is required to appear before his/her immediate Supervisor or, in his/her absence, the person actin~ in his/her stead or the Personnel Officer of the College to answer concerning his/her conduct" Thus, the grievor was clearly not entitled under that provision to have a Union representative present while meeting with Mr. Cart, who is her immediate supervisor, to discuss her performance review. In the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the ~rievor would have been entitled to Union representation if a second member of management, such as Mr. Reim, had been present while her performance review was being discussed. It is common ground between the parties that Mr. Reim was in Mr. Carr's office for no more than five minutes, during which he did not say anything. It is also common ground between the parties that there was no discussion of the ~rievor's performance review during the short time that he was present. Consequently, it Ks unnecessary to determine whether the grievor would have been entitled to have a Union representative present if Mr. Cart had discussed her performance review with her in the presence of Mr. Reim. It suffices for purposes of this case to indicate that the grievance cannot succeed on the basis of Article 18.2.7 10 08 Sep 2005 18:35 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYNDR G. 905-634-3951 p. 1S because the facts do not establish that the grievor was "required to appear before a committee, board or other investigation body to answer concerninG his/her conduct or performance". We turn next to the issue of whether a violation of Article 2.1 has been established. As indicated above, the "Supervisor's comments'. section of the performance review includes the followin9 sentence: "She needs to adjust her attitude to be more positive and focus more on her work rather than continuing to argue for a promotion." Although Mr. Carr testified that he had no recollection of doing so, we accept the 9rie¥or's testimony that when she requested an example of this, Mr. Cart stated at the performance review meeting that she had filed grievances, that she was spending too much time on them, and that it was interfering with her performance. Her testimony in that regard is supported by the following entry included in her notes of that meeting: continue to argue for promotion Examples I have filed grievance spending too much time it is detracting from my preformation [sic] In concluding on the balance of probabilities tkat Mr. Cart did refer to her filing of grievances when Ms. Kuca asked for an example of how she was "continuing to argue for a promotion", we have also taken into account that fact that it is clear from Mr. Carr's evidence that, although it was not his primary concern, her use of the Grievance process was one of the things that he had in mind when he included that phrase 11 18:35 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.16 in his written comments. During examination in chief, he offered the followin9 explanation for the inclusion of that phrase in the performance review: I felt that this was an individual who had been arguing for years that she should be a systems analyst, which would be two classifications higher than her present classification. I felt that if she was really serious about wanting to be promoted then she needed to demonstrate that with a good job performance. That just constantly claiming that she should have a higher classification in the absence of good job performance was not going to do it. She's argued for promotion [by] making comments which have been reported to me through other employees, through the grievance process, [and] through just General attitude that she was as good if not better than the staff at the level to which she aspired. Certainly I did not mean by this that she had no right to file grievances. If she chooses to do so and the Union chooses to act on her behalf, it's her right. During cross-examination, Mr. Carr acknowledged that when he referred (during examination in chief) to the grievor arguing for promotion "through the grievance process", he had in mind some of the past and current Grievances filed by the grie¥or. He also acknowledged that he is "not thrilled" about the grievor havin~ filed a number of Grievances since he became her manager, but reiterated that "it's her right" and also stated: At no point in time have I ever denied an employee's right to file grievances, and I haven't done so in her case. This comment was not by any means an attempt on my part to deny her rights as a member of the Union. He also testified that his primary concern was that the grievor would not accept that the best way to get a promotion was to improve performance. As indicated above, Article 2.1 of the Agreement provides as follows: 12 V~ 5ep ~uu5 18:36 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3851 p.l? The College and the Union agree that there will be no intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint or coercion exercised or practised by either of them or their representatives or members because of an employee's membership or non-membership in the Union or because of his/her activity or lack of activity in the Union. As noted in Fanshawe College and OP£EU, Local 109 (grievance of Teresa Greene, unreported award dated April 16, 2001 (M.G. Picher), a~ page 13, Article 2.1 is an important provision, in relation to which a board of arbitration must be mindful of the chilling effect upon Union activity which an overt or subtle abuse of supervisory authority can have. In order to establish a breach of that provision, the Union has the onus of proving: (a) that there was intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint, or coercion exercised or practised by the College or a representative of the College; and (b) that this intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint, or coercion was based on the prohibited grounds set out in Article 2.01. See Fanshawe College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, unreported award dated January 23, 1986 (Brent); George Brown College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Grievance of Dou9 Johnson), unreported award dated March 27, 1995 in OPSEU File No. 94D998 (Bowe); and George Brown College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Grievance of G.M. Hinchliffe), unreported award dated July 3, 1984 in OPSEU File No. 83867 (Brunner). Filing and pursuing grievances are clearly activities which fall witkin the ambit of "activity in the Union". See, 13 08, Sep 200S 18:36 ROBERT D. ......... HOWE & LYNDR G. 905-634-3951 p. 18 for example, OPSEU and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services, GSB #299/93 and 1162/93, unreported Grievance Settlement Board decision dated July 26, 1995, at page 13: ... Filing and pursing individual grievances is a fundamental union activity in which employees who are represented by the union engage and participate. Accordingly, discrimination against an employee for filing or pursing a grievance is "discrimination ... practised by reason of an employee's ... activity in the union" within the meaning of section A.1.2 of Article A of the parties' collective agreement. Obviously, an employee's lawful, grievance-related "activity in the union" is protected from being the basis of discrimination no matter how the merits of the grievance are ultimately resolved in the grievance procedure or at arbitration. See also The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, [1980] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1392; and Bedard Girard Ontario, [1981] OLRB Rep Oct. 1338. In the instant case, we have concluded that Article 2.01 was violated during the course of the grievor's performance review meeting on July 15, 2004, when her Manager referred to her filing of grievances and spending too much time on them as an example of how she was "continuing to argue for a Dromotion", in the context of the following sentence which he included in the "Supervisor's comments" section of her performance review: "She needs to adjust her attitude to be more positive and focus more on her work rather than continuing to argue for a promotion." Although Mr. Carr is to be commended for the restrainu which he exhibited in the face of the hostile and confrontational manner in which the grievor conducted herself during that meeting, her utterly 14 08 Sep 2005 18:36 ROBERT D. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p 19 inappropriate conduct does not excuse his impermissible reference to her filing and pursuit of grievances in that context. We are also not persuaded that this reference is excused by the fact that it did not have the effect of dissuading the grievor from filing new ~rievances or from pursuing previously filed grievances. In this regard, we respectfully agree with Union counsel's contention that Article 2.1 is not a "no harm, no foul" prowision, but rather is a provision in respect of which "the harm occurs when the foul occurs", in that "the foul" is itself a form of harm in the sensitive context of the largely unquantifiable and often indeterminable chilling effect which an overt or subtle misuse of supervisory authority can have upon Union activity by the employee subjected to it or other employees who become aware of it. For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied on the totality of the evidence that Mr. Carr, as a representative of the College, exercised or practised interference because of the grievor's activity in the Union, in violation of Article 2.1, when he referred during the course of the performance review meetin9 on July 15, 2004, to Ms. Kuca's filing of grievances and spending too much time on them as an example of how she was "continuing to argue for a promotion" in the context of the above-quoted sentence which he included in the "Supervisor's comments" section of her performance review. We are not persuaded, however, that the contravention of Article 2.1 established by ~he evidence warrants the 15 ~ 5ep ~UUb 18:37 ROBERT g. HOWE & LYMDR G. 905-634-3951 p.20 removal of the entire performance appraisal from the grievor'm employment record, as requested by the Union. The evidence adduced in these Proceedings does not support a finding that the performance review process was initiated or carried out by Mr. Carr because of the grievor's activity in the Union. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence that Mr. Carr undertook that process because he had serious concerns about her job performance. (As indicated above, the validity of Mr. Carr's assessment of the grievor's performance is not a matter to be determined in these proceedings.) Having regard to all of the circumstances, we find that the contravention of Article 2.1 which has been established in this case can be appropriately remedied by a declaration that the provision has been violated in the manner described above, and by a direction that the phrase "rather than continuing to argue for a promotion" be deleted from the performance review. Accordingly, it is hereby so declared and ordered. DATED at Burlington, Ontario this 8th day of September, 2005. Robert D. ~owe Chair co,cur. "Sherril Murray" Union Nominee 16 g8, Sep 2005 18:37 ROBERT D. ........... HOWE & LYMD8 G. 805-634-39S1 p.21 DISSEHT Having had an opportunity to review the award in this matter, I feel that I must respectfully dissent from the majority ruling DS it relate~ to art. 2.1. On fha evidence, the comment, "She needs I0 change her attitude to be more positive and fasua more on her work rather than continuing to argue for · promotion", was intended to assist the griever to achieve better performance and, if appropriate and a vacancy presents ilself, a promotion. At the hearing the griever continually repeated that Mr. Carr did not wahl her to improve and in fact hacl not iclentJfie<l ways by which she could improve. Obviously felling her to concentrate on her work and improve her attitude was ,ntencled to cio exau-fl¥ that. It is equally clear tiler tile =omment did not have the effect of interfering nr -restraining the griever from exercising her rights as a member of the bargaining unit nor did it dissuade her frnm filing grievances. The Grievance Summap/, entered as exhibit 2 at arbitration, supports this com=lusion. 1~ was also <;lear that there was no 'discrimination" involved in this case nor was there any form of reprisal. It was evident however that the griever sees the grievance procxss~ as a frleans by which she can intimidate her supervisor. This is very clear from the evidence as a ',~llole 8n4:1 II1 pallicular her oomment Ihet Mr. C,=rr "had better get used to [shouting] since her lawyer [would] shout at [him] when this gees to arbitration". In my vic'w, it is also relevant that Mr. Cart d~d not intend to influence her against pursuing her right to file grievances. As much as he said he would ralher that Ms. K, ce concentrated on herwork, Mr. Can' stated ve~ clearly that he respects her right to do so. I cannot accept that the protection afforclecl by art. 2.1 was intended to have the result that a manager cannot advise a griever, such as Ms. Kuca, that her time woulcl I:)e betler spe~}l, o~ t~er work &for that her atlitude requires improvement. In any case, as was argued ray Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Kuca was not filing.grievances in good faith but ether aa a fon'n of harassm~.nt and intimidal:jon against her manager. Them is point at which the filing of grievances becomes vexatious and an abuse of the grievance process. That process is intended to provide a means af resolving honest differences of opinion concerning the interpretation &/or . application of the collective agreement. It is not appropriate in my view to encourage the practice et at>using the grlevanuu proc, e~s by interpreting art. 2,1 so broadly that one cannot suggest that an eml~loyee concentrate on her work. Ann E. Burke