HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0843.Union.90-05-06---.. ~ ONTARIO EMPLOY~:S DE LA COURONNE
~ "' ' '" ~ CROWNEMPLOYEE$ DEL'ONTARIO
· GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET' WEST, SUITE 2'tO0, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (416) 325-
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTARIO). M5G t~78 FACStMILE/TI'~'L~-COPIE : (4 16) 326-I396
843/89
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
- and -
BEFORE: J.D. McCamus Vice-Chairperson
S. Urbain Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE K. Whitaker
GRIEVOR: Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright and Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE J. Knight
EMPLOYER: Counsel
Fraser & Beatty -
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: December 19, 1989
~ on ~nar~ 9b~ec~on
This is a policy grievance brought by the Union concerning
~rogram initiated a= ~he Millbroo~ C~rrecttonal Centre in 1988.
In the preaen= grievance, the Union grieves a decision taken by :he
Minietry=o convert five classl~ied correctional officer positions
=o five unclassified peel:ions as being in conflict wit2~ the
req~irmments of the C011ective Agreement. The Employer ham raised
asked that =he ~anel ~le on i~s firs~ prsllminaF~ objection
relating to the timeliness o= the filing of ~he grievance.
Ac=or~ingly, at ~e firs: ~ay of hearings conceding this mat:er,
~sstion.
Briefly ~tated, the ~mployer's position is the: the Union
failed to file s grievance within the time limit preecribe~ in
day =i~e limit in the following =arms=
the Union arlse~ from the inter, re=etlon,
application, administration or alleged
contravention o~ thm Agreement, the Union
·hall be entitled =o file a grievance a= the
second stage of the grievance procedure
~rovided it deem so wi=him thirty (30) Says
following the occurrence or origination of the
circumstances giving rise to the grievance"
of =his Board that ~he ~ime limit set out in article 27.i2.1 is
~anda=ory in =he sense tha~ failure to comply with
mus~ re~u!= in th9 dismissal of =he un=imely grievance. The
circ~atances giving rise ~o ~e grievance" occurred at acme point
in =he fall of 1988 and, in any event, ~o la,er =ham Nove~er 28,
Local. Moreover, the ~ployer aT~es that this ve~ same ~es~ion
different panel of ~his Board arising fr~ ~e same factual
Correctiona~ se~ices) (Wright), 1506/88, =he Board dismls~ed a
similar policy grievance ~iled by =he Union relating
the rem=taint measures undertaken at =he Millbrook Correotional
decision of the ~oard ought to bm con~idered %0 be ~i~poai~ive cf
=he issues raised in its .prelimina~ objection to ~he
grievance.
For i=e ~aTt, th~ Union has argued ~ha= the "occurrence or
origination" of the ~resen= dispute consists in ~he failure o~ the
Employsr to post car=aim vacancies an~ the= the D~e~enC grievance
4'
Fur=her, ~ha Unton argues ~hat the previous'de¢i~ion of the Board
relie~ upon by the~mployer is d!~=lnpuishable aha therefore should
untimely.
In or,er to fully coneider~e issues raised in =he Employer's
preliminary obJeotion, ~t is necessary =o set out the factual
restrain= program a= ~he Millbrook Correotional Centre in some
detail. Ae well, it will be neceesary =o consider at some imngt~
the previous decision of the Board upon which the ~mployer =miies.
A n~i~er o£ ~ocummnts rela~ing ~o ~he res=rain= initiative
which is sub, act to =he ~re~ent dispute and, ~ur~er, rela=in~ =o
the res=rain: initiative that was subject to ~he grievance l~ading
were filed as exhibits. The previous grievance dealt wi~ an
~argo on hiring placed by the Mlnts~ on ~hree vacant
general population win~ a= the Millbrook Corrmutional Cmn=re. That
initiative was announced by =he Regional Director, Mr. Shoom, i~
a memorand~ to =he Superintendent of ~e Millbrook Co=recticn=l
can=re, Mr. G.P. Preston in a memorandum dated O~=ober 26th, 1988
in the following terms (E~ibit 2)=
initiatives, it has ~een decided to clos~ one
SENT BY:Xe.ox Tele¢opier ?020
gene=al po~u~ation win~ as of
1988. This will result in a reduction in your
would be appreciated if you could now prepare
Regional Office for processing.
This constraint initiative wli1 result in the
G.D.0. vacancies, ~hey are to remain vacant
and no= filled without my prior approval.
~lease note~hatwhile ~he three posi~ions are
sala~ an~ wa~ee fun~ing will remain in Y¢ur
base budget. ' In
~un~ing for ~ese poll=ions will be uua~
=owar~ re~uoi~ the overall mala~ aha wages
deficit within the =egion.
me."
A further memorandum from Sheom ~o ~reeton cf =he same date
a~nou~ced the restrain~ initiative that is =he subJect~of the
pre,mn= grievance in ~e following te~s (E~ibl=
~Ae one of the region ~ s constraints
initiatives, i~ ham been ~ecide~ ~o
the =tvs classified correctional officer
you are aware, the overagms had been
~u~oses. The next five correctional officer
necessa~ per~o~ei action can be taken to
abolish each overage' and increase your
unclassified correctional officer
establim~en~ by the e~iva!en= n~er. This
initiative will be revimwed .f~llowing
audi= of your ins=itu=ion whic~ will take
It is in '~er for you to advise your union
~ecutive f ~e closure o~ =he
SENT
population wing and this action which ia
of ~/~e region's salary and wages constraints
to re~u=e the defiolt is apprecia=e~. Shoul~
you have any luff. her qume:ions, please contact
mm."
on or about O=tober ~lst, Mr. Preston me~ with Mr. P.M. MuZ~hy,
President of Local 341 and with ~r~ J. Nattress and ~isoussed
initiatives, on November 12~.~, 19B8, ~hy wrote to Preston
Pleame inuludm mta~f~ng reduo~i~n~, staff training
Thim woul~ 'enable thi~ Executive =~ fully e~ialn
to our m~ers how .:he res=taints are speoifically
It has been brough~ ~o m~ attention ~h&t there is som~
oonfuston by staff, regarding budget issues implemented
As part of an on going process~ the ~-~nistry continucu~!y
reviews its operations and where '~ ~ired, resources are
number of coat saving strategies, ~o=h on an interim and
long term basis, to ensure ~hat budget expenditures fall
wi=hl~ allocated resources.
In respect to this process, the ~ollowing lntmrim
measure~ have been tmpl~men=ed at Mlllbrook Correctional
C~ntre.
1. The closure of a wing, ef~e~ive November 1, 198S,
~e balance cf the current fiscal yea=.
reduced by one correctional officer.
3. At the present time we have three correctlcnal
officer vacancies and &n embargo ~as been placed on
filling these vacancies at ~his time, due to the
re~uction of staff on days and afternoons, b~¢ausa
of the win~ closure.
4. Delay filling the vacant Psychometrtst Doll=Ion
until March 31, 1989.
Delay filling ~ha Lsundz"f officer posi:lon that
becomes vacant in ~ebruary, until March ~1, 19s~.
6. Reducing' I.¢.I.T. monthly training to every other
month, for the balance of the ouxTen~ fiscal year.
7. Disc~ntinuing the four day annual I.C.I.T. tTaining
at A¥1me~ for the balance of the current fiscal
year.
Reducing some purchases ~f supplies and equipment
9. Utilize~he institution vehicles wherever ~ossible,
to reduc~ travel expenses by private auto~obile.
10. The 'five classified correctional officer overages
that are utilized for sick relief will be converted
=o un¢laesi:ie~ e~tablis~an~ as vacancies occur.
The next ~lve correctional officer vacancies will
not be filled, but as each occurs, an c~era~&
position will be abolis~ and the unolas~ifisO
establishment will be increased. The abolishment
of %~e five correcUional officer overages will be
reviewed following a pos= audit of this Ins:itu=ton,
which will take place in the future.
lay cfr of classified staff as a consequence of these
budge= measures.
For your ~nfurmation."
~ENT BY:Xerox Telecopie~ ?020
On November 28, 1988, a copy of Emhibit $ was forwarded by Preston
to Murphy toga=her wi~h a covering memorandum (Exhibit 6) which
read as follows:
"In ~asponse =o your =emorandum of November 12, 1988,
attached find copy of a memorandum to Ail Staff,
regarding this matter. This memorandum includes =he
informs=ion ~isousse~ wl~h you an~ ~r. =im Nm=tress, on
October 31, 1988.
Should you have any further qume=ions, we could discuss
There can be no do~=, then, tha~ the ~nion was ma~e aware of the
~ployer~s intentions wl~ reepec~ ~o the res=raln~ ini~iatives
first described by Mr. Shoom in E~ibits 2 and 3. Those
!nj=ia=lyes were reported =o all staff in paragraphs 2 and 10 of
Exhibit 5, a copy of whic~ was ~o~arded to Mr. ~hy ~der the
cover o~ ~ibit 6 on ~ve~er 28th~ 1988.
From the Employer'~ perspective, the chronology o~ relevant
facts could be terminated at this point in time. In Exhibit 5,
~he Enployer clearly com~u~icated its intention to do what has
become the sub~e¢= ma=Car of t~e present grievance, tha~ ia, to
convert five classified positions into five unclassified positions.
It appears evident from the con=ants of paragraph 10, particularly
when read in ~he context of the entire document, that the ~mployer
Was not S~lli~g any tnt~tion to reduce tho ~eleva~ workload.
There would continue =o be a need for people =o fill in ~hile other
correctional officers were off on sick leave. In ~he future,
however, the individuals who filled in for =hem would not hcl~
SENT BY:Xe¢ox Telecooie~ ?02C ; 5- 4-90 ; 3:55PM ; w A183261396;~10 ~
ma~in~s %0 %he ~mploye=. Surely at ~hia ~oin~, the ~mplcy~r
the Union had 'reason to believe that t/la intended course of action
oonstituted a bresoh oft/~e ¢olleo:ive Agraemen~ l= would have bmen
The ~ployer' a~es, utilizing =he lan~age of ar:icle 27.12,1,
that =he co,unica=ion 0f its decision =0 the Un,on ¢ons=!:utes an
"occur=once" or, at ~e ve~ leam~, ~e "origination" of the
vs~ latest. The present grievance was no= filed, howmvsr, ~til
July 10~h, 1989.
The Ltmployer draws su~9ort fort his po&i~ion from~he previous
decision of ~he Board, referred to above, in OPS~ (Un.~on
Exhibit 1 and Daragraph 3 of Exhibit 5 which involve= =he olo~ing
of one wing of the facility and :he declaration of an embargo on
filling three correctional officer vaoan=ies as a result of that
closing, The Union grieved, as in the Dremen= case, the: the
conduct of the Employer ¢onstitu=ed a breach of Article 4 cf the
collective agreement on the basis, presumably, that it had failed
(Exhibit 5) and the ocm~nunica=ion wi~h Mr. Murphy concerning its
origination of circumstances ~iving rise c~ ~e ~rlevan=e.
rsJaoCe~ ~e po~it~n takmnb~h~ Union in,he fo%l~wing
p~. 4-~)~
" As has already bsen stated, t~ ~m~l~e~ ~aya that
"wi~in 30 ~aye following ~e occur=once or
of ~he circ-~stances giving rise to ~e G=levanom". The
ooourred wi=him the meaning ~f ~iole 4.1 ~en' the
~7.1~.1. However, =he Union's Grieva~ce was ~0= filed
until Feb~a~ l~th, 1989 which was ~7 ~s after
provisions of Article 27.1~.1 ams manda~o~ an~ not
directo~ and the union agrees with the: position. The
have n~ Jurisdic:lon to deal with it. The Employer say&
brought Co the attention of th~ Employer,
~m ~St o~cas.~o~ was when =~e Employer's
memorandum =9 "Ail Shift Supe~isors" wen~ out
Mr. Mushy and Mr. Ne=tress on October ~lst,
!988. The second occast~n was when
P~e~n ~ote to Mr. ~rphy ~ncl~ing the
SENT BY:Xerox Tete¢o~ie~ ?020 : 5- 4-90
of .management to be ~haC ~d~e s~eps which che~ were
~e Nove~er 35~, 19~8 m~oran~ by Mr. ~res~on nta~e~
olearly tha~ "At the presen~ time we have
position kno~ =o ~e ~ployeoo and to ~e Un, on and
bo~ ~e Union and ~o ~loyees generally ~ew
or~ginati~n of =ha oirc~s~ances" would ta~e place at a
ve~ la,est, ~a. occurreace teo~ place on Nove~r
19~ w~en ~. ~res~on~s mamo=and~ WaS posted =o "All
Staff" and that the Grievance Wa~ f~led more ~an 30 days
following "~a occurrence,.
The Beard further consid~rad and re~ec2ed a submission made
by the Union to the effect tha~ the viola~ion ~f ~he celiac=ire
agreement in question was of a continuing ~nature. The Board
summarized its reasoning on this point in the following te~mm (at
8):
"~a~eme~C made a decision and poste~ iC on
~ovember 3$th, 1986 ~nd ~ook no further ~eps
since then. That hardly constitutes =
violation of a continuing nature w~lch is
the Union"
It is not alleged by =he Union in =he ~resen= case ~ha~ Che ac=los
~aken by the Employer constitutes ..a continuing grievance and
= SE~IT BY;Xerox Tele¢oDier 7020
previous decision of the Board is necessary in ~he present
The Employer argues, =hen, tha~ the previous decision cf the
conduct described in paragraph 10 of Exhibit $ in t~e p~esent casa,
the ~loyer ar~aa ~a~ ~e aama analysis shoed apply. In each
case, a decision was made bM the Employer and ~lea=ly co~icatad
~o the Union. In'eac~ case, this, it ia at,ad, consti=u~e~ an
"o~currence" wl~in the me~ning of article 27.12.1. Alternatively,
the Employer aries ~ha=, as ~a passage ~otad from the Board's
~acision suggests, ~e "origins=ion" o~ =ha circ~stan~es giving
rise to ~he grievance which - some~ing would occur prior ~o =~e
actual occurrence itself - has at ~he very least taken place in the
present con=ext. Surely, the Employer ar~as, even if E~ibft 5
ia ~ the occurrence of ~ha act givin~ rise to t~e present
The Union responds to these submissions by arquin~ =hat the
manner in which :he aecisi.n communicated in paragraph 10 of
Exhibit 5 was actually implemented is oriticaI to determining when
Article 27.12.1 im engagm~ on ~he present ~act~. U~iike =he
previous grievance, it is argued, the implementation of the
paragraph 10 restraint scheme required further 0onduct on %he p~r%
SENT BY:Xerox Telec0pie~ ?020 ; 5- ~-90 : 3:57P~ ; ~ ~!632~1396:~14
13
it to wait ~o asa wha~ actual steps were ~akem in crier to
~ha collective agreement. In order to assess the merits of ~his
argument, i~ is useful to set out ~e further steps taken by the
Employer in =he implementation of =he paragraph '10 restraint
scheme.
T~e pax~ies ara no~ in precise agreemen= as =o ~ne eneps =hat
were taken to implement the paragraph 10 plan =o conver~ £1ve
classified posi~ions into five unclassifiea positions and, in
effe~=, to replace permanent s=a~ wi~h casual ~ployeee.
None~elesa, there la ~eneral a~raam~t on ~e main features of
w~t was ~one by the~loyer ~urauan= =u t~ia ~lan. At
~f the vacancies w~ich the Employer relie~ on
making of developmental as~i~en=s of two dlfferen= kin~s.
laf~ ~ei= pusitf~ns ~ere. One re=ired and =he other ~as poste~
ln~o an A~sis~nt ~ore~eeper position snAp=il I0~, 1989. These
developmental asmig~en=s into which co~mctlonal o~ficer$ woul~
rs%ate. ~e availability uf these developmental assignments tn the
a memorand~ dated May 9th, 1959 (Exhibit 16). U~ilizing
correctional officer s=aff in this fashion,
SENT DY:Xerox TelecoPier 7020
~ositicn ~(htch were, in ~ue course, converte~ into unclassifie~
Supervisors (0M-14), =he Employer decided tD use t~eee ~ositions
for developmental assiTnments into which correctional officer~
could rotate. Thus, =we ~ur~her correctional officers were
vacancies, ~ far as the Employer is concerned aC' least, ~n =he
correctional officer pool with the result ~hat a basis for
implementtnq ~he conver~ion scheme thereby arose. The paz~ies do
not agree with respect =o =he nature of ~ha fifth vacancy which
became subject =o~a conversion scheme. The Employer ar~es ~hat
~he flf~h vacancy arose by ~e posting of ano~er correcCicnal
officer into a la~y post=ion on April 3r~, 1989. The Union
aries thaC ~ha fifth so-called vacancy arose from ya~ a~other
developmental amsi~ment into the Har~er Plane.
chosen by the Employer ~r lmplsmen~in~ t~e paragraph 11 restraint
~he Union suggest that some of Chose strategies might have resulUed
in a conversion of clae~ifie~ posi~'ionm into unolassifie~ pose=ions
~hat would no= have constituted a violation of the collective
agreement. OCher strategies might have ¢ons=ttu~e~ a viola=ion an~
accordingly, before determining whether or not a grievable
situation had arisen, the Union wam obliged to wait and see what
~ENT BY:X~rox T'el~¢OD~er ?020 ; 5- 4-90 ; 3:SSD~ ; ~ ~§32~I$$$;#16
There Would be much force in ~his submission b2 the Unicn i.~,
indeed, it could determined that there wa~e~ in fac~ a n~e~ o~
violations o~ ~he collec~iva a~aemen2 and ~er~ of whi~ would
n~t. Co. eel ~o~ ~he Union ~ed ~ ~hare ware at leaa~ f~
su~ strategies. ~irs=, ~e Employer might have ~losed a wing of
~e ~acility o~ ~ak~n td~antag~ of ~e closure so as to ~educa the
~an~itM o~ work re~t~ed of ~a correctional o~ficer pool wi~ a
~e~ulting reduc~ion in ~he complema~ of correctional o~ficers,
Tha~ is to say, ~e Employer may ~ave cree~e~ r~dundenciea.
Secondly, the ~ployer might have transferred a n~er cf employees
out of ~e ~eneral du~y rcs=er =hue-creatinq ~ive vacancies, we
understood counsel ~or the Union =o Me sugqeS~inq that ~ie ia more
or lees what happened in =he present case and ~harafore, inasmuch
as =ha duties ~o~ally parroted by the inc~ents o~ ~oae
positions r~ained to be disobeyed, Artic!e 4 would re.ire a
po~ing, Third, co.eel suggested =hat cna possible strate~- would
be to create developmental essi~ents, as wes done in the preaan~
case with ~espect tc at least four of the pcmition~. In t~e view
oZ co'~sel for the Union a~ least, the legitimacy cf that strategy
is open to do~t. The fourth me~od auqgeete~ was ~at the
Employer might slm~ly declare ~e position in ~es=ion t~ be
Incu~en=s of those positions is no longer neade~. If that fourth
a~aCep~J we~e adopted, it ia a~uad that dtf£erenc proviBion~
the collective ag~eemen~ would be broug~ into
Counsel ~or ~he Union did no~ provide an ex~a~st£ve analysis
o~ the applicati~n o~ the collactive eg~aemen~ to each
determine whethe~ the employe~ ~ad behaved in a marker whic~
constituted a violation o~ the a~eemant, it wa~ n~ce~sar¥
become aware'oS the epecl£ic $~epS taken in the implementation
~his aspec~ c~the restraint p~o~ram, counsel for the~mployer has
urged upon us, in response, that there was in fact no need for the
Union to wait i~ order =o detormime the precise nature of
vacancies upon which the Employer woul= rely in due course. The
point of the Union's presen~ grievance lo faa= in a situation where
there has been ~o reduction in the work load for ~he correctional
of.ricer ata~fr five classified positions have been terminated and
She classified otaf£ have bean replaced by casual staff. That is
what ~he Employer announced it would do on November 25th, 1998, and
that is what the Employer has done. There was no need to wait
~eturmine whe=~er or n~= ~he ~mployer mig~ close a win~. That
aspect o~ the strategy was sst out in paragraph ~ of Exhibit
The Employer suggests ~hat it is apparent on tho face of
5 ~hat the worx to be done by the correctional officer sta~ is not
being reduced~in any Way in or,er to facilitate the conversion.
Further, it is argued on behalf of the Employer tha: the fact that
the Employer utilized, in some instances at least, t. he device of
the creation of developmental assignments is not material to the
SENT BY:Xerox Telec0Dier ?020 ; 5- 4-90
17
present ~rievance. A separate g=ievance has been filed by the
therefore not, ~he Employe~ submits, an issue in the present
grievance. The coho= pomJible ~trata~iss recounted by the Union
fact occur as, i~dsed, o~e could have predicted in November of
It iS our understanding that the presen~ grievance advances
e. he theory =hat since the Employer failed CO pose vaoanc!ej which
~ros$ in oiruums~ances where ~here was no reduction, of ~he amount
of worm required of the correctional officer work for~e, a breach
of the Ar~icle 4 posting re~liremenCs has occur=ed. In our view,
~e ~loyer clearly siqnallea los intention =o do Ju~= that
E~hibi: S an~ c~nicated tha~ in=ention clearly by fo~arding
oo~enoed ~o r~, ~t the la=eat, on Nova~er 28~, 19~8. There was
n~ reason for ~e union ~o wait ~o ~ete~ine whether or not ~e
conversion of five classified positions in~o unclassified
woul~ arise from some reduction o~ the Worm ioa~ Chat mi~t
legitima=e such a move. In our view, iC is apparent on ~e face
of the info~a=ion co~ioa~ed in E~ibita S and ~ ~haC no such
reduction is conCamplaCed. Nor do we C~ink~e Union's s~missZ~n
developments! aa~ig~en=s in ~e creation of the vacancies
~ ~ENT BY:Xerox Tele¢opie? ?020 ; 5- A-BO : ~:OOP~ : - ~]6~2613~#19
question. ~e no~a in passing t~at ~J~e legitimacy O£ ~ha crea~iom
o~ a~ least some of ~2~e developmental assignments in ~e presen~
case is at issue in a separate grievance. Mo~e~hanthis, ~owever,
wa n~e that =ha ~e~ry underlying ~e ~ni~n'a comp!stn~ in the
p~esent con~e~ i$ not chan~ed Dy vi~ue of ~e fac~ ~at some of
the vacancies have a~isen in ~his way. The Union has a~laine~ to
~is panel of ~a Board that ~e problem in ea~ case
"vacancies" Were oreate~ an~ m~t pos~e~ in circle=antes where the
~obs ~ha~ were per~o~ed by ~he previous incu~ents
posi~i~ns in ~ea=ion had no= disappeared. Again, We view
entirely consis~ent wi~h~e stra=a~ indica~e~ by =ha ~ployar
E~tbi=s S and 6. There was no anticipates =eduction
workload. Work currently being ~one ~y classi=ie~ ~taf~ was ~oin~
=o be perfo~ad in =he ~=ure by unclassified staff. Accordingly~
it ia our view,at ~he ~eo~unaerlying ~he present grievance
Jus~ aa applicable to ~ha ~c~s as they were a~ N.v~er tach, 198~
as it is t~ the facts at any later point in time.
of ~he circumstances giving rise =0 ~e presen~ griev~noe was the
decision taken by ~he Employer an~ communicated by the Union in
Exhibits ~ and 6. At ~he very lease, we view tha~ decision and
its com~unicatiom to =he Union aa =he "origins=ion" of such
circumstances. A~ ~hat point in time the Union nee~ea ~o know
no~hing more in order to de=ermine Whether the deoieio~ was one
which would, when implemented, constitute a violation of ~he
~ENT BY:Xerox Telecooie~ 7020 ; 5- 4-90 ; 4:00PM ; ~ 41~3261398;#20
Collective Agreement on ~he basim Of Re ~/~eory advanced in this
grievance =o this panel of ~he Board. Further, having clearly
indicated wh&t it intended =o dot ~he~mployer was entitled to know
wi=bin the time limi~ prescribed by the collective agreement
=o constitute a Breach of ~e cella=rive agre~en~.
l~urther~ we note 'that it is not our view ~ha= ~he previous
decision o~ the ~oa=d dealin~ wi~.~ t~e paragraph 10 scheme is
precisely dimpositivs of ~he issue before us. In the previous
came, ~here were no ~er $~eps ~o be taken by ~he ~ployer,
whereas in the presan~ case, acme ~rther s~eps did indeed r~ain
to be taken. The importan~ p~in~ for presan~ ~oaes, in our
view, is ra~er ~at =he Union had no reason =o wal% ~or the'
further s=e~s In or, er to dateline whaler ~e decision taken by
~ ~ployer envisioned conduct which cons~ituted a viola=ion of
~e a~reemen=. The nature of =he conduct Which is now alleged by
claasifie~ into unclas~lflad positions eve~ ~ough no reduction in
=he workload of the workforoe in ~es=ion was contemplated.
present grievance has no~ been ~rought in ~imely fashion.
Accordingly, =he grievance i~ hereby dismissed.
SENT BY:Xerox Teleco~ier ?020
2O
Vice-Oha i'rp rson
$. Urbain, Member
'_'p, M. Clark"
D.M. Clark,