HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1759.Laurin.92-04-09 ONTARIO EMPLO Y~cS DE LA COURONNE
/ CROWN EMPLOYEES OE L 'ON TARIO
~4' GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE '-
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS -
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2tO0, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELePHONE., (4~61 326-1388
;'BO, RUE OUNDA,~ OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIOJ. M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/~ELEcOP~E .. (416] 32~- 1396
[759/90
ZN ~ ~TTE~ OF ~ ~ZT~TZO~.
Under
Before
BE~BN
OPSEU (~urin)
Grievor
The Cro~ in Riqh2 off Ontario
(Minist~ o~ Tourism ~ Recrea2ion)
BEFO~: R. Verity Vice-Chai~erson
J. A Car~thers Me. er
D. Clark He~er
FOR THE R. Healey
GRIEVOR Counsel
.Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE M.. Fleishman
EMPLOYER Counsel
Crown Law office Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
HEARING February 21, 1992
DECISION
Mona Joly and Ronald Laurin, both classified as Travel
Consultants 3, were employed at the Ontario Travel Information
Centre on Highway NO. 417 near Hawkesbury, Ontario until it was
destroyed by fire on May 22, 1990. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Joly
was assigned to work at the Lancaster Travel Centre and Mr. Laurin
was assigned to the Cornwall Travel Centre.
Subsequently, the Ministry decided not to rebuild the
"Hawkesbury Travel Centre" but to change its operation from full-
time to seasonal. The seasonal operation was scheduled to commence
in the summer of 1991.
On July 11, 1990 Joly and Laurin received written notice
declaring them "surplus to the needs of the o~ganization effective
immediately". The letter also advised "if you are unsuccessful in
obtaining alternate employment, you will be laid off on January 11,
1991" The following day, both employees gave written notice of
their intent to exercise displacement rights. Subsequently, on
August 24, identical grievances were filed alleging improper denial
of displacement rights under Article 24.6.1 of the collective
agreement.
At the original hearing, the sole issue was the location of
the grievors' headquarters at the time they were declared surplus.
3
In·a decision dated October 30, 1991, the panel found that the real
headquarters of Ms. Joly and Mr. Laurin were Lancaster. and Cornwall
respectively.
At p. 17, the award read:
...the grievance of Mona Joly must succeed on a finding that
she has been improperly denied displacement rights under
Article 24.6.1 of the collective agreement. Ms. Joly shall be
forthwith reinstated to her position as Travel Consultant at
Lancaster and shall be compensated for all lost wages and
benefits. At the request of the parties, the panel shall
remain seized on the grievance of Mr. Laurin.
In the absence of agreement on the Laurin grievance, thepanel
was reconvened on February 21, 1992.~ 'It was agreed tSat Cornwall
is within a 40 kilometre radius ·of Lancaster.· Third pa~ty notice
was given to Debra Lynn Baker and Lucy Rondeau who work as Travel
Consultants at the Lancaster Travel Centre. Both employees have
less seniority than Ms. Joly or Mr. Laurin. Ms. Joly is now
employed at the Lancaster Travel Centre following the Board's
award. Mr. Fleishman advised that Lucy Rondeau will be given
notice of displacement. Mr.~ Laurin now seeks the same remedy
accorded to Ms. Joly.
There is, however, a significant difference on the facts of
the Laurin grievance. Unlike Ms. Joly, Ronald Laurin was assigned
to a vacancy in another Ministry effective November 14, 1990.
Essentially, the facts are not in dispute. As indicated
4
previously, on August 24, 1990 Mr. Laurin grieved that he had been
denied displacement rights under Article 24r6.1 of the collective
agreement. In the fall of 1990, Mr. Laurin became aware of a
Clerk-Typist vacancy (classification 0.A.G. 8) in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food at Alfred College. He expressed interest in
that position even though it attracted a lower salary. On October
9, 1990, Mr. Laurin filed a grievance under Article 24 seeking
assignment to the position in question. After being interviewed
and tested, the grievor was assigned the position and was "red
circled" pursuant to Articles 24.3 and 5.4 of the collective
agreement.
The Union .maintains that Mr. Laurin is 'entitled to the same
displacement rights awarded to Ms. Joly. The issue in dispute is
whether the assignment of the grievor to the Clerk-Typist position
at Alfred College on November 14, 1990 bars ,access to displacement
rights under Article 24.6.1.
The job security provision contained in Article 24 reads, in
its entirety, as follows:
ARTICLE 24 - JOB SECURITY
24.1 Where a lay-off may occur by reason of shortage of
work or funds or the abolition of a position or
other material change in organization, the
identification of a surplus employee in an
administrative district or unit, institution or
other such work area and the subsequent assignment,
displacement or lay-off shall be in accordance with
seniority subject to the conditions set out in this
Article.
24.2.1 Where an employee is identified as surplus he shall
be assigned on the basis of his seniority to a
vacancy in his ministry within a forty (40)
kilometre radius of his headquarters provided he is
qualified..to perform the work and the salary
maximum of the vacancy is not greater than three
percent (3%) above nor twenty percent (20%) below
the maximum salary of his classification, as
follows:
- a vacancy which is in the same class or
position as the employee's class or position;
- a vacancy in a class or position in which the
employee has served during his current term of
continuous service; or
- another vacancy'.
24.2.2 With mutual consent, a surplus employee shall be
· assigned to a-vacancy in his ministry beyond a
forty (40) kilometre radius of his .headquarters
provided he is qualified to perform the work and
the salary maximum of the vacancy is not greater
than three percent (3%) above nor twenty percent
(20%) below the maximum salary of his
classification. Relocation expenses shall be paid
in accordance with the provisions of the Employer's
policy.
24.2.3 Where an employee has not been assigned in
accordance with sub-~ections 24.2.1 or 24.2.2, he
shall be assigned on the basis Of his seniority to
a vacancy in another ministry within a forty (40)
kilometre radius of his headquarters provided he is
qualified to perform the work and the salary
maximum of %he vacancy is not greater than three
percent (3%).above nor twenty percent (20%) below
the maximum salary of his classification, as
follows:
- a vacancy which is in the same class or
position as the employee's class or position;
- a vacancy in a class or position in which the
employee has served during his current term of
continuous service; or
6
- another'vacancy.
24.2.4 Effective March 16, 1987, with mutual c6nsent, a
surplus employee who has not been assigned in
accordance with subsections 24.2.1, 24.2.2 or
24.2.3 shall be assigned to a vacancy in another
ministry beyond a forty (40) kilometre radius of
his headquarters provided .he is qualified to
perform the 'work and the salary maximum of the
vacancy is not greater than three percent (3%)
above not twenty percent (20%) below the maximum
salary of his classification. Relocation expenses
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of
the Employer's policy.
24.3 Where an employee is assigned to a vacancy in
accordance with sub-sections 24.2.1, 24.2.2, 24.2.3
· or 24.2.4, Section 5.4 of Article 5 (Pay
Administration) shall apply.
24.4 An employee who does not attend a placement
interview when requested by the Employer or
does not accept an assignment in accordance with
sub-sections 24.2.1 or 24.2.3 shall be laid off and
the provisions of Section 24.5, 24.6 and 24.10
shall not apply.
24.5 Where an employee has not been assigned to a
vacancy in accordance with sub-sections 24.2.1,
24.2.2, 24.2.3 or 24.2.4, he shall be subject to
lay-off in accordance with the following applicable
sections.
24.6.1 An employee who has completed his probationary
period and who is subject tc~ lay-off as a surplus
employee, shall have the right to displace an
employee who shall be identified by the Employer in
the following manner and sequence:
(a) The Employer will identify the employee with
the least seniority in the same class in which
the surplus employee is presently working and
if such employee has less seniority than the
surplus employee, he shall be displaced by the
surplus employee provided that such employee
is in the same ministry and within a forty
(40) kilometre radius of the headquarters of
the surplus employee and provided that the
surplus employee is qualified to perform the
work of such employee;
(b) If no employee in the same class has less'
seniority than the surplus employee, the
Employer will identify the employee in the
class in the same class series immediately
below the class in which the surplus employee
is presently working, who has the least
seniority and if he has less seniority, than
the surplus employee, he will be displaced by
the surplus employee provided that such
employee is in the same ministry and within a
forty (40) kilometre radius of the
headquarters of the surplus employee and
provided that the surplus employee is
qualified to perform the work of such
employee;
(c) Failing displacement under (a) or (b) the
Employer will review the classes in the same
class series in descending order until a class
is found in which the employee with the least
seniority in the class has less seniority than
'- the surplus ,employee. In'that event such-
employee will- be displaced by the surplus
employee provided that such employee is in the
same ministry and within a forty (40)
kilom~tre radius of the 'headquarters -of the
surplus employee and provided that the surplus
employee is qualified to perform the work-of
such employee;
(d) Notwithstanding the above, in the event that
there are one or more employees in one or more
classes in another class series in which the
surplus employee has served during his current
length of continuous service who have less
seniority than th~ surplus employee, the
surplus employee will displace the employee
with the least seniority in the class with the
highest salary maximum (no greater than the
current salary maximum of the surplus
employee's .class) and provided that the
surplus employee has greater seniority than
the displaced employee .hereunder, provided
that such employee is in the same ministry and
within a forty (40) kilometre radius of the
headquarters o~ the surplus employee and
provided that the surplus employee is
qualified to perform the work of such
8
employee.
- 24.6.2 Any displacement shali be limited to a class which
has a salary maximum no greater than the maximum of
the surplus employee's current class and Section
5.4 of Article 5 (Pay Administration) shall not
apply.
24.7 The employee must indicate in writing to the
Director of ~uman Resources his intention to
displace another employee as far in advance as
possible but not later than two (2) weeks in
advance of his date of lay-off. If he does not
· indicate his intent to dis. place another employee
within this period, he shall be deemed to have
opted to be laid off and th.~ provisions of Section
.24.10 shall not apply.
24.8 Where the employee chooses not to exercise his
rights under Section 24..6, he shall be laid off and
the provisions of Section 24o10 shall not apply.
24.9 An employee who i:s displaced by an employee who
exercises his right under Section 24.6 shall be
declared surplus and the provisions of Article 24
shall apply.
24.10.1 Effective March 16,. 1987, where a surplus employee
has not been assigned to a vacancy in accordance
with Section 24.2 and no displacement is possible
under Section 24.6 and the employee is within the
two (2) week period prior to his date of lay-off,
he shall be assigned on a retraining basis to a
vacancy ,in his ministry within a forty (40)
kilometre radius of his headquarters, subject to
the following conditions:
(a) Such assignments shall be made on the basis of
seniority; i
(b) Such assignments shall be made during the two
(2) week period' prior to the employee's date
of lay-off, where, based on information in its
records or as provided by the Union or the
surplus employee, the ministry determines that
the employee has transferable skills which
would enable him to meet the normal
9
requirements of the work of the vacancy within
a maximum retraining period of twenty-five
(25) ~ays;
(c) Such assignments shall be limited to a class
which :has a salary maximum no greater than the
maximum of the surplus employee's current
class! and Section 5.4 of Article 5 (Pay
Administration) shall not apply;
(d) Wherel a surplus employee is assigned to a
vacancy in accordance with 24.10.1, his date
of laY-off shall be extended to accommodate
the r~training period, up to a maximum of
twenty-five (25) days;
(e) A surplus employee who has been assigned to a
vacanqy in accordance with 24.10.1 shall have
no .rights under Sections 24.2 or 24.6
following his original date of lay-off;
(f) If, a~ the end of the retraining period, the
surplus employee meets the normal requirements
of the vacancy to which he has been ass%gned,
he shall be confirmed in that vacancy;
(g) If, at the end of the retraining period, the
surplus employee does not meet the normal
requirements of the vacancy .to which he has
been assigned, he shall be laid off without
any additional notice under Section 24.11.
24.10.2 In 24.10.1(.b) and (d), days shall include all days
exclusive ~f Saturdays, Sundays and designated
holidays.
24.10.3 A surplusl employee who does not accept an
assignment ~n accordance with 24.10.1 shall be laid
off.
24.10.4 Where an employee has been assigned under 24.10.1
to a vacancy in a class with a salary maximum lower
than the salary maximum of the class he held
immediatelyl prior to such assignment and
subsequentlly he is laid off in accordance with
24.10.1(g),~ any termination payments 'to which he
may be entitled under Article 53 (Termination
Payments) ~hall be based on the salary he was
reCeiving i~ediately prior to the assignment under.
10
24.10.1.
24.10.5 The assignment of a surplus employee to a vacancy
in accordance with Section 24.2 shall have priority
over an assignment under 24.10.1.
24.11 An employee shall receive a notice of lay-off or
pay in lieu thereof as follows:
(a) two (2) weeks' notice if his period of
employment is less than three (3) years;
(b) three (3) weeks' notice if his period of
employment is three (3) years or more but less
than four (4) years;
(c) four (4) weeks' notice if his period of
employment is four (4) years or more but less
than five (5) years;
(d) six (6) weeks' notice if his period of
employment is five (5) years or more but less
than seven (7) years;
(e) seven (7) weeks' noti.ce if his. period of
employmeht is seven (7) years or more but less
than eight (8) years;
(f) eight (8) weeks' notice if his period of
employment is eight (8) years or more but less
than ten (10) years;
(g) twelve (12) weeks" notice if his period of
employment is ten (10) years or more;
with copies of such notice to the Human Resources
Secretariat and the Union.
24.12 An assignment under this Article shall not be
considered a promotion or a demotion.
24.13 Where an employee has been identified as surplus,
reasonable time off with no loss of pay and with no
loss of credits shall be granted to attend
scheduled interviews for positions within the
public service, provided that the time off does not
unduly interfere with operating requirements.
24.14~1 Effective March 16, 1987, where a person who, prior
to release, had completed at least one (i) year of
continuous service, has been released and a
position becomes' vacant in his former ministry
within a forty (40) kilometre radius of his former
headquarters within one (1) year after his release,
notice of the vacancy shall be forwarded to the
person at least fourteen (14) days prior to the
closing date of the competition and he shall be
appointed to the vacancy if:
(a) he applies therefor within the fourteen (14)
days, and
(b) he is qualified to perform the required
duties, and
(c) no other person who is qualified to perform
the required duties 'and who has a greater
length of continuous service applies for the
vacancy pursuant to this subsection.
24.14.2 Appointment under 24.14.1 shall be limited to a
class which has a salary maximum no greater than
the maximum of the class the person held when
identified as-a surplus employee and Section 5.4 of
Article 5' (.Pay Administration) shall not'apply.
24.14.3 A person shall 'lose his rights under 24.14.1 when:
(a) he does not attend a placement interview when
requested by the Employer; or,
(b) he does not accept an appointment, in
accordance with 24.14.1; or,
(c) having accepted an appointment in accordance
with 24.14.1, he fails to report for duty
within two (2) weeks of receiving written
notice of the appointment.
24.14.4 The assignment of a surplus employee to a vacancy
in accordance with Sections 24.2 or 24.10 shall
have priority over an appointment under 24.14.1.
24.14.5 Where a person who has been released is reappointed
under this Article to the same position or a
position having the same classification as the
12 "
-. position which he occupied immediately prior to his
release, he shall be reappc~inted at a rate within
the salary range applicable to the position
equivalent to the rate at which he was paid
immediately prior to his release.
24.14.6 Where a person who has been released is appointed
under this Article to . a position in .a
classification that is not the same as the
classification of the position which he occupied
immediately prior to his release, he shall be
appointed at a rate within the salary range
applicable to the position commensurate with his
qualifications and experience, including previous
relevant public service.
24.15 It is understood that when it is. necessary to
assign surplus employees or -appoint persons in
accordance with this Article, the provisions of
Article 4 (Posting.and FiIling of Vacancies or New
Positions) shall not apply.
24.16.~ E~fective Mar~h 16, 1987', where it is necessary to.
release an employee, who -has completed his
Probationary period, because of the introduction of
technological change in equipment or methods of
operation, at least three (3} months' notice in
advance of the change shall be given to the
employee affected and to the Union.
24.16.2 the matter will then be referred to the joint
consultation committee of the parties to discuss
and to attempt to resolve the problem with relation
to the reallocation and retraining of the affected
employees with a view to minimizing the effects of
the Employer action required to be taken.
24.17 For purposes of Article 24 lay-off means the same
as release as per Section 22(4) of The Public
Service Act, Revised Statutes 6f Ontario, 1980,
Chapter 418.
24.18 Article 24 shall apply t°probationary employees in
accordance with the terms of the Minutes~ of
Settlement set out in Appendix 10.
The Union argued that the Employer violated the collective
agreement in denying Mr. Laurin displacement rights because the-
assignment did not comply with Article 24.2.4. Mr. Healey
maintained Such an assignment requires mutual consent, that the
grievor was denied the opportunity for meaningful consent, and that
he was mislead by the Ministry's error in determining the
headquarters for purposes of Article 24. The Union contended that
in the absence of time limits for either assignment .rights or
displacement rights, the collective agreement contemplated the
immediate implementation of all Article 24 rights. In the
alternative, the proper time limit "to cast about for a vacancy"
for assignment purposes cannot exceed the eight weeks notice of
lay-off as provided for in Article 24.11(f). Further,, Mr. Healey
contended that i~ 12 weeks n6tice of lay-off.was deemed to be a
reasonable period for assignment to a vacancy (under 24.11(g)),
that period would have expired by mid October. He contended that
the grievor accepted the assignment with displacement rights
pending and that the panel's decision in Jol¥ should have
determined the matter. Finally, Mr. Healey argued that in these
circumstances., the doctrine of estoppel should apply whereby the
Ministry cannot rely on -its own error in identifying the
headquarters when that error worked to the detriment of the
grievor. The Union cited the decision of Vice-Chairperson Samuels
in OPSEU (Union Grievance) and Ministry of Community and Social
Services 2507/86'
14
Counsel for the Employer contends that there was no breach of
the collective agreement in that the grievor.was properly assigned
under Article 24.2.4 and accordingly was no longer subject to lay-
off under 24.5 or to exercise displacement rights under 24.6. Mr.
Fleishman argued t~at the facts support a finding that the grievor
actively sought and consented to the assignment in question..
COunsel contended that the fallacy of the Union's submission was
that there was no evidence that the issue of headquarters played
any part in the grievor's decision to seek the assignment. He
maintained that the assignment was by mutual consent under Article
24.2.4. The Employer's submission was to the effect.that Article
24 rights are triggered by the surplus designation and that
employee rights commenc~ with the assignment phase. Mr. Fleishman
con{ended that the assignment rights cannot b~ disregarded under
the wording of Article 24.2. The Employer relied upon the decision
of Vice-Chairperson Gorsky in O~'SEU (Adrianne Read et al) and
Ministry of Health 1548/89, 2015/89.
Article 24 and the entitlement to displacement rights has been
interpreted in a number of GSB decisions including Adrianne Read et
al and Ministry of Health, supra. The issue in the Read decision
was not unlike the 6ne before us.
In that case, four employees who Worked as Group Processing
Clerks processing OHIP premiums (classification OAG 8) grieved the
denial of displacement rights under Article 24.6.1. The matter
proceeded on the grievance of Diane Van Luven. Due to the
elimination of health insurance premiums, on July 7, 1989'Ms. Van
Luven was given written notice of identification as a surplus
employee under Article 24'.1 of the collective agreement with the
actual date of abolition of the position to be determined. On
August 15,'the employer confirmed in writing that Ms. Van Luven's
position would become surplus on May 15, 1990. On August 22, 1989,
Ms. Van Luven gave written notice of her intent to exercise
displacement rights under 24.6.1. On September 12, the employer
acknowledged her assignment rights in accordance With Article 24.2
and advised that displacement rights would follow only when all
assignment possibilities had been exhausted and she had not been
assigned to a vacancy~ On November 2, 1989, she was assigned to
the position of. Document prOcessing-Clerk (classification .OAG 6)
with the Ministry of TransDortation with a start date of November
14, 1989. Rather than face lay-off, Ms. Van Luven accepted the
position. Subsequently, she filed a grievance alleging improper
denial of displacement rights under 24.6.1 and complained of the
assignment to the lower salary position despite the red circling.
In the Read case, the employer contended that Article 24.6.1 did
not apply where an employee had been assigned to a vacancy under
the assignment provisions of Article 24.2. The Union maintained
that the grievors had the option of exercising Article 24.6.1
rights to displace junior employees rather than await assignment.
In dismissing the grievances, Vice-Chairperson Gorsky referred
16
to the decisions in Teresa Becket ~511/82 (samuels) and Patan~io
#227/83 (Verity). Mr. Gorsky offered the following rationale at
pp. 19-20:
Article 24 is an unusual Article, which is quite different
from similar provisions found in the private sector which deal
mainly with displacement rights of senior employees. If it
has been the intention of parties to permit employees subject
to Article 24.1 to circumvent the assignment procedure, it
would have been a simple matter to say so. As it is, the
parties have drafted a job security provision which creates
employee rights which move through successive stages of
assignment, displacement or layoff. While I would not~ in the
circumstances, find the acceptance of the assignment by Ms.
Van Luven as precluding her arguing that the assignment right
and the displacement right are not part of a scheme that must
be followed; having considered Article 24 in its entirety, I
would agree with Mr. Verity, although in a different factual
context, that the situation cannot be avoided given the
present wording of Article 24. I find that that Article does
not permit an employee to forego the process of assignment.
Where assignment is offered and refused the employee would be
subject to layoff without any rights under Article 24.6.1.
The wording of Article 24 leads me to the same conclusion as
arrived at b~ Mr. Verity, although in a different factual
context. That is: "The only choice given to a surplus
employee under Article 24 is to accept an assignment or to
face layoff .... "
As Mr. Verity noted, although restricting his comments to the
process of assignment, there must be: "... a degree of order
in sequence in view of the number of ~:mployees involved in a
major reorganization ... otherwise chaos would be the end
result." Not only employees have a genuine concern over the
subject of job security when there is a material change in
organization or the abolition of a position. The Employer is
concerned with carrying out a reorganization in an orderly
fashion. If employees had a choice between assignment and
displacement rights, the situation for the Employer could
become truly chaotic. I am satisfied that if the parties had
decided to create alternative rights (either assignment or
displacement) in favour of employees affected by Article 24.1,
it would ,have been a simple matter to say so. In drafting
Article 24.1 as they did the parties created a scheme that is
much more consistent with the establishment of a mandatory
process moving from assignment to displacement to layoff. In
each case subject to certain rights and subject to the penalty
of a loss of those rights where an.employee does not accept an
assignment as provided' for in Article 24.4.
At pp.'21-22, Mr. Gorsky goes on to state:
.... Displacement rights under Article 24.6.1 are subject to
seniority, and displacement rights only arise after ~he
failure to secure a position for an employee identified under
Article 24.1 through the process of assignment. What the
Grievors' ask for is the creation of a right which they regard
as "logical". This caanot be achieved under Article 24.1.
The other employees working for 0HIP were not surplus
employees. If they could be treated as surplus employees,
then the Grievors would not have been surplus employees and
would have had no rights under Article 24, which only grants
rights to surplus employees. What the Grievors really request
is that the surplus list include them as well as the employees
whom they wish to displace and they ask for an immediate right
of displacement. That is, displacement without going through
the assignment procedure. For the reasons above described,
this is not what the parties have agreed to.
In our view, the Gorsky rationale in the Read decision applies
with equal.force to the facts before us. We would agree that the
Employer's right to assign under Article 24.2 is not time
restricted in the sense that displacement rights arise only in
circumstances where there has been no assignment of a surplus
employee to a vacancy under the various subsections of Article
24.2. In the instant matter, Article 24 rights were triggered on
July 11, 1990 with the identification of Mr. Laurin as a surplus
employee and the notification that he would be laid off on January
11, 1991 if he were unsuccessful in securing alternate employment.
Article 24 provides for a staged procedure beginning with
assignment, then displacement and finally lay-off. On the
18
evidence, we find that Mr. Laurin was properly assigned to the
Clerk-Typist position under Article 24.2.4 of the collective
agreement. The assignment was by mutual consent on the evidence
that it was Mr. Laurin who brought the vacancy to the Ministry's
attention and Mr. Laurin who grieved the failure to be assigned to
the Clerk-Typist position. That grievance was eventually resolved
in his favour. We would agree with the Em]91oyer that there is no
evidence that the issue of Mr. Laurin"s headquarters played any
part in his decision to seek the assignment.. It would appear to us
that Mr. Laurin chose the assignment at Alfred College rather than
face the prospects qf lay-off with full knowledge of the
displacement grievance pending. In .these circumstances, the
grievor's assignment to the vacancy at Alfred College does bar
access to displacement-rights. In Our view, this is not.the proper
case for the application of the doctrine of estoppel. In the
result, this grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this ~th.'. day of April, 1992.
'" D. CLARK - MEMBER