Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-2004-1721.Mark Drakos.06-08-25 Decision Public Service Commission des Nj Grievance Board griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 ~ Suite 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1 Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 P-2004-1721 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD BETWEEN Mark Drakos Grievor - and - The Crown In Right of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Kathleen G O'NeIl Vice-Chair FOR THE GRIEVOR Mark Drakos FOR THE EMPLOYER Sean Kearney Semor Counsel Mimstry of Government ServIces HEARING June 16 2006 2 DeCISIon ThIS deCISIOn deals wIth the gnevor's claim that hIS salary has been Incorrectly calculated. In a prelImInary decIsIOn dated December 22, 2005 the Board found there to be an arbItrable Issue between the partIes as to the nature and duratIOn of a pay adJustment promIsed by semor management, and accordIngly dIsmIssed the employer's prelImInary obJectIOn, affordIng the gnevor the opportumty of a heanng on the ments, The Facts Mr Drakos, the gnevor secured a full tIme OperatIOnal Manager (OM-16) posItIOn In December 2001 havIng served In an actIng capacIty on vanous occasIOns between 1992 and 2001 January 2001 was establIshed as hIS anmversary date Other OperatIOnal Managers had career paths whIch meant that they were techmcally members of the OPSEU bargaInIng umt on January 1 2002, and thus receIved the January 1 2002 OPSEU pay Increases pnor to promotIOnal Increases The result of thIS was that later promoted managers were earnIng more than the gnevor was after havIng been a manager for almost a year ThIS sItuatIOn was a source of dIscontent to hIm, and other sImIlarly sItuated OperatIOnal Managers to whIch Mimstry management responded wIth a pay adJustment. Mr Drakos gneved, claimIng that he had not gotten the full benefit of management's response to the problem He says he IS entItled to a salary Increase of 3%, rather than a lump sum payment representIng 3% over the 2003 CorrectIOnal Officer salary for a lImIted penod of tIme, as he has receIved. As set out In the prelImInary decIsIOn, the gnevor bases hIS claim on a senes of commumcatIOns from the employer The first letter dated June 4 2004 IS from Mr Gary Commeford, AssIstant Deputy Mimster Adult InstItutIOnal ServIces In the Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces As the letter addressed to Mr Drakos, as well as a number of other OperatIOnal Managers, IS central to the dIspute between the partIes, It IS useful to set out the body of the letter In ItS entIrety 3 Re. Adlustment to Salary As you may be aware, the Mimstry has been reVIeWIng a number of compensatIOn related Issues ImpactIng the OperatIOnal Managers I am wntIng to notIfy you that as a result of thIS reVIew you have been IdentIfied as beIng elIgIble for a salary adJustment. The sItuatIOn arose as a result of complIance wIth OPS compensatIOn polIcIes As such, there was no breach of polIcy that can be cIted as a reason to amend the pay treatment of OperatIOnal Managers affected by thIS scenano However semor management has decIded that a pay adJustment IS appropnate for these IndIVIduals In order to address thIS sItuatIOn the Mimstry has decIded that the salanes of the OperatIOnal Managers hIred dunng the mass recruItment ImtIatIve In late 2001 wIll have theIr salanes adJusted to 3% above the 2003 CorrectIOnal Officer salary retroactIve to Apnl 1 2002 Our reVIew of Mimstry records IndIcates that you are elIgIble for the above- mentIOned adJustment and wIll receIve $4 537 77 I expect that these changes to compensatIOn wIll be Implemented dunng the next SIX to eIght weeks ThIS adJustment IS made on a wIthout preJudIce or precedent basIs and In no way IS It meant to suggest that the mImstry IS contemplatIng adJustments In other cases where an overlap eXIsts On June 18 2004 the gnevor commenced an e-maIl correspondence wIth VikI Scott, Eastern RegIOn Human Resources Semor Consultant, concernIng vanous questIOns he had about hIS pay On June 29 2004 In one of her responses to hIm, she dIrectly addresses the gnevor's concerns about hIS salary as follows I have clanfied the Issue Involved In your compensatIOn. Please note that your salary wIll not change as a result of the payment, but you wIll be reCeIVIng the lump sum as IndIcated In your letter I have clanfied thIS folloWIng my emaIl below - and seekIng further InfOrmatIOn on the detaIls of the compensatIOn memo As such, your current salary wIll stay unchanged untIl 1) any applIcable P4P [pay for performance] IS applIed retroactIve to Apnl 1 2004 and 2) any applIcable across the board Increases retro to Apnl 1 2004 are applIed. I do not have any InfOrmatIOn at the moment regardIng these Increases 4 The gnevor replIed on June 30 2004 refemng to Mr Commeford's letter and pOSIng the questIOn "Are you tellIng me that HR [Human Resources] IS not gOIng to gIve me what Mr Commeford has promIsed In hIS letter?" Ms AmlIn replIed In turn on July 5 2004 as follows There are two somewhat separate pIeces here from Mr Commeford's memo - the adJustment (to 3% above the 2003 CorrectIOnal Officer salary retroactIve to January 1 2002) and ensunng that "InstItutIOnal managers confirmed as of July 2003 wIll be compensated 3% above the current CO rate" The "adJustment" that you are reCeIVIng, and referenced In Mr Commeford's IndIVIdual letter to you, IS the payment (or adJustment) that bnngs you to 3% above the 2003 CO salary retroactIve to January 1 2002 As of July 2003 you were already compensated hIgher than 3% above the current CO rate As such, there IS no further adJustment to your salary If your salary as of July 2003 was less than the current CO rate, than a salary Increase would apply As such, you are reCeIVIng the full compensatIOn promIsed In Mr Commeford's letter I hope thIS InfOrmatIOn offers further cl anfi catIOn. In the mIddle of the penod spanned by the e-maIl exchange wIth Ms AmlIn, the gnevor receIved a letter dated June 22, 2004 from Kate Karn, another Human Resources employee adVISIng the gnevor of an amendment to the letter sent to by Mr Commeford regardIng the adJustment to hIS salary ThIS letter amended the retroactIvIty date to January 1 2002, but confirmed that the dollar amount was correct, and ended wIth the folloWIng two paragraphs Although the wrong date was referenced, the dollar amount IdentIfied In the ongInalletter was accurate as the calculatIOns were determIned USIng the January 1 2002 date The retroactIve salary dIfferentIal wIll be reflected on your June 30th pay as a lump sum payment. We apologIze for the error In com mum catIOn. The final letter referenced by the gnevor IS dated July 13 2004 sIgned by Kate Karn, as ActIng Manager Human Resources PolIcy & Programs, whIch reads as follows 5 Re. Adlustment to Salary - ClanficatIOn I am wntIng to provIde further clanficatIOn on Gary Commeford's letter dated June 7 2004 regardIng the tImIng of the mass recruItment dnve Its Impact on you and how the lump sum payment was calculated. The Mimstry recently decIded that OperatIOnal Managers hIred dunng the mass recruItment ImtIatIve In late 2001 would be compensated wIth a lump sum payment eqUIvalent to the dIfference between theIr actual earmngs and 3% above the 2003 CO salary of $53 421 retroactIve to January 1 2002 Your bI-weekly pays from January 1 2002 to March 31 2004 were revIewed. BegInmng January 1 2002, your actual bI-weekly earmngs (e g. regular earmngs, overtIme, etc ) were compared to the bI-weekly earmngs of the new C02 2003 salary rate plus 3% ($25 59/hour or $53 421/annum) Dunng the bI-weekly reVIew penod, If you earned less than $25 59/ $53 421 then, you receIved the dIfference between the two rates on all hours worked over the 2-week penod. Once your salary was eqUIvalent to or exceeded $25 59/ $53421 the reVIew ceased. Should you have any addItIOnal questIOns please raise them wIth your Supenntendent and he wIll contact your HR Consultant. In the gnevor's VIew the adJustment descnbed In the clanficatIOn letter was much less than what Mr Commeford had promIsed. In order to receIve the benefit of that promIse, Mr Drakos says that the adJustment should have been "rolled Into" hIS salary rather than treated as a temporary top-up paid out In a lump sum. The gnevor takes the posItIOn that the employer's offer of a salary Increase became a term or condItIOn of hIS employment, and that he IS not beIng treated fairly because the employer's InterpretatIOn of the new salary adJustment IS arbItrary The gnevor InVItes the Board to find that Mr Commeford's letter acknowledged that there were pay IneqUItIes In relatIOn to hIS peers, and promIsed as a solutIOn that hIS salary or annual wage would be adJusted. The gnevor states that Mr Commeford, as an AssIstant Deputy Mimster at the relevant tIme, would have had the authontIes of a Deputy Head. In thIS respect, he refers to the statement on page 13 of the Pay on AssIgnment OperatIng PolIcy whIch states Deputy heads are responsIble for establIshIng mImstry operatIng procedures and delegatIng authontIes to managers on dIscretIOnary pay decIsIOns 6 The gnevor also relIes on the folloWIng statement from page 3 of the same polIcy whIch he maIntaInS IS contradIcted by the employer's posItIOn that he IS only entItled to a lump sum Employees should be paid eqUItably In theIr assIgned salary ranges takIng Into account such factors as skIlls and Job-related expenence relatIOnshIps to peers and career progresSIOn. As well, the gnevor makes reference to page 10 of the same polIcy whIch provIdes for a promotIOnal Increase where an employee's posItIOn IS reclassIfied retroactIvely and that all subsequent transactIOns should be recalculated In the new hIgher salary range The gnevor takes Mr Commeford's promIse of a salary adJustment as a retroactIve reclaSSIficatIOn, whIch should result In such a recalculatIOn of all subsequent transactIOns, IncludIng Pay for Performance He charactenzed the $4 53777 mentIOned In the letter as a retroactIve payment, and IS lookIng for what he consIders the full value of the adJustment as remedy In thIS respect, the gnevor asked for a payment of $34 022 98 that hIS salary be adJusted to the top of the salary gnd effectIve September 25 2005 and all retroactIve money owed to be paid out. He asked that all sImIlarly affected OperatIOnal Managers be compensated accordIngly As well he seeks compensatIOn for hIS travel to the Board, and tIme spent In prepanng hIS case and consIderatIOn of the effect thIS dIspute has had on hIS famIly Refemng to the July 13 letter from Kate Karn, the gnevor emphasIzed that It came from Human Resources, rather than the employer He notes that the letter says that It IS the Mimstry rather than the employer who recently decIded that OM-16's would be compensated wIth a lump sum payment eqUIvalent to the dIfference between theIr actual earmngs and 3% above the 2003 CO salary It IS the gnevor's VIew that the thIrd paragraph of the letter IS a further statement he was to be compensated 3% above the gOIng rate of a CorrectIOnal Officer based on a bIweekly pay The gnevor also referred to old polIcIes that he says would have elImInated the problems wIth the OM-16 pay scale one of whIch clearly provIded that OperatIOnal Managers were to be paid at least 3% above theIr subordInates However he stated that the employer removed all these clauses when they rewrote the polIcIes In hIS submIssIOns, the gnevor mentIOned a number of other elements of hIS IndIVIdual expenence as well as the treatment of all managers In the OM-16 class wIth whIch he IS dIssatIsfied, some of whIch focus on terms and condItIOns of the collectIve agreements for 7 members of the OPSEU and AMAPCEO bargaInIng umts, others of whIch are related to the compensatIOn of semor management or the practIces of Human Resources ThIS decIsIOn only deals wIth those Issues necessary to the resolutIOn of the gnevance before me, whIch deals wIth whether the gnevor IS entItled to a lump sum payment, or an adJustment to hIS salary base Employer counsel argues most fundamentally that the letters should be Interpreted qUIte dIfferently than the gnevor does, and that they sImply do not support hIS claim to a permanent adJustment to hIS salary In the employer's VIew the Mimstry offered a senes of gratUItous lump-sum payments wIth no clear authonty to do so In an effort to address the Issues of the dIscontented managers Counsel underlInes that even the first letter makes reference to a lump sum, In a dollar amount, and does not make reference to an ongOIng salary rate wIth enough preCISIOn to be enforceable As well, the letter was wntten on a "wIthout preJudIce" basIs Further employer counsel underlInes that there was no reclassIficatIOn, as argued by the gnevor As well, counsel submIts that although one mIght apprecIate the dIsgruntlement of OperatIOnal Managers negatIvely affected by the tImIng of theIr promotIOns, the eVIdence does not support the remedy the gnevor IS seekIng, as the fact that someone else's salary goes up more than yours does not, wIthout more entItle a gnevor to a salary Increase Employer counsel urges the Board to find that there has to be a mechamsm by whIch a gnevor becomes entItled to a salary Increase, reflected In polIcy or statute The uncontradIcted eVIdence ofMs RIsa Caplan, Corporate CompensatIOn SpecIalIst, was to the effect that Deputy and AssIstant Deputy Mimsters do not have the authonty to change salary rates or ranges of any employee ReferrIng to a document entItled Salary Rates and Ranges DIrectIve" she underlIned that there IS a specIfic well-establIshed process Involved, whIch reqUIres at page 3 under the tItle Mandatory ReqUIrements All salary rates and ranges must be approved by the LIeutenant Governor In CouncIl, subJect to recommendatIOn by the CIvIl ServIce CommIssIOn/Management Board Secretanat for management and excluded classes Ms Caplan noted that Management Board Secretanat was the name of the former central agency In the government, but It has been succeeded by the Mimstry of Government ServIces, where she works The same dIrectIve outlInes the responsIbIlItIes of Mimstnes, whIch sIgmficantly do not 8 Include authonzIng salary adJustments She also underlIned that the Rates and Ranges DIrectIves does not speak to IndIVIdual pay treatment, whIch IS covered by the Pay on AssIgnment OperatIng PolIcy That polIcy lays out certaIn pay treatments to be approved by Mimstnes when there are specIfic employee transItIOns, such as new hIres, temporary assIgnments or return from leave In contrast to the way pay on assIgnment IS handled, Ms Caplan IndIcated that each salary Increase comes out In the form of an Order-In-CouncIl whIch revokes the prevIOUS salary provIsIOn and authonzes a new one For example, there was a general Increase to the salary scales effectIve Apnll 2004 and 2005 whIch Included the OM-16 salary gnd, whIch remaInS In effect untIl It IS superseded by another Order-In-CouncIl wIth another salary schedule Ms Caplan testIfied that a reclassIficatIOn occurs when there has been an addItIOn or subtractIOn of dutIes to a posItIOn, such that a dIfferent rate of pay IS appropnate for Instance where the dutIes of a posItIOn are Impacted sIgmficantly by techmcal change She noted that In such a case the IndIVIdual employee has not moved anywhere In the cIvIl servIce, but hIS or her dutIes have changed. If the reclassIficatIOn IS to a hIgher salary scale, It IS treated as a promotIOn for pay purposes She said that thIS IS not what occurred In Mr Drakos' case there was no change of dutIes or reclassIficatIOn for those In the OM-16 class As to Mr Drakos' relIance on the portIOn of the Pay on AssIgnment OperatIng PolIcy whIch refers to eqUItable treatment wIthIn the salary range, she testIfied that thIS comes Into play when an employee IS entenng the wage scale For example when someone IS hIred from outsIde the Ontano PublIc ServIce, a manager would have the flexIbIlIty to offer the employee a salary wIthIn the range, whIch took Into account the new hIre's skIlls and expenence As well, the Mimstry has authonty to approve a promotIOnal Increase over 3% where necessary to bnng a manager up to the mImmum of the new salary range Employer counsel also submItted that the documentatIOn shows that the gnevor was not treated arbItranly Counsel refers to the July 7 1998 decIsIOn of thIS Board In Scott et al. and the Crown in Riszht of Ontario (Ministrv of Transportation) (Lynk) at page 26 for the proposItIOn that commumcatIOns from a Mimstry wIthout any IndIcatIOn of a change In polIcy does not result In an enforceable amendment to terms and condItIOns of employment. Further counsel argues 9 that the polIcy for settIng salary IS very clear and the employer does not have the power to Ignore ItS own polICIes In support of thIS proposItIOn, counsel refers to page 20 of the Apnl, 1998 decIsIOn of thIS Board In Mously, Lister, Watson and the Crown in Riszht of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services) P/0068/96 P/0171/96 P/0172/96 (LeIghton) Here, the process for settIng salanes IS descnbed In the statute and ovemdIng polIcy and therefore, salary cannot be revIsed by a Mimstenal dIrectIve, In counsel's submIssIOn. If It could be, then managers could umlaterally decrease salanes as well wIthout folloWIng the proper procedure, In the employer's VIew Counsel argues that there has been no proof of a clear breach of an eXIstIng polIcy or statute or of bad faith, dISCnmInatory or arbItrary conduct. Mimstry staff went through every aspect of the calculatIOn of the adJustment, analyzIng every pay penod, whIch IS the OpposIte of arbItranness FInally employer counsel argues that In the absence of any proof that anyone else receIved the adJustment rolled Into salary there IS no foundatIOn to the gnevance *** The gnevor's maIn contentIOn IS that the employer should make good on the word of the AssIstant Deputy Mimster to the effect that hIS salary would be adJusted to 3% above the 2003 CorrectIOnal Officer salary retroactIve to Apnll 2002 He takes the word "salary" to mean hIS annual, ongOIng base rate And that IS certaInly an understandable InterpretatIOn of the thIrd paragraph ofMr Commeford's June 4 2004 letter set out above However and unfortunately for the success of the gnevor's claim, the rest of the eVIdence IS persuasIve that the employer meant somethIng dIfferent, and less, as ItS response to the dIscontent among the OperatIOnal Managers When readIng the June 4 letter closely several thIngs become apparent. FIrstly there were a number of compensatIOn Issues under reVIew by the employer The dIfferentIal between the OperatIOnal Managers and those reportIng dIrectly to them was at tImes the maIn focus of the gnevor's attentIOn. However Mr Commeford's letter In the second paragraph, focuses on the dIfferent but related Issue, whIch was also central to thIS gnevance the fact that due to the tImIng of the mass recruItment In November/December 2001 some OperatIOnal Managers were beIng compensated at a lower rate than that of OperatIOnal Managers hIred In 2002 ThIS IS an Issue of 10 companson wIth other OperatIOnal Managers, not wIth the rate of members of the bargaInIng umt. However It IS related to a companson wIth members of the bargaInIng umt because It IS the fact that new OperatIOnal Managers who were promoted later than December 2001 left the bargaInIng umt wIth the January 1 2002 Increase already In theIr base salary whIch caused the problem In companson wIth other OperatIOnal Managers When the 3% promotIOnal Increase was applIed to that, It created a hIgher salary than someone promoted even a day before the Increase, who left the bargaInIng umt wIth a lower base, to whIch the promotIOnal Increase was then applIed. As Mr Commeford's letter pOInts out, that sequence dId not represent a breach In polIcy It was a result of the applIcatIOn of polIcy Each OperatIOnal Manager receIved the promotIOnal Increase applIed to hIS or her pre-promotIOnal base The letter then says that "thIS sItuatIOn" I e the fact that later promoted OperatIOnal Managers were beIng paid more than those promoted earlIer would be addressed by adJustIng the salanes of OperatIOnal Managers hIred dunng the mass recruItment ImtIatIve late In 2001 to 3% above the 2003 CorrectIOnal Officer salary on a retroactIve basIs NothIng IS Said about the future treatment of salary although of course the word salary In ItS ordInary meamng connotes a regular payment that goes on Into the future as long as the person IS employed. It IS notable however that the terms used In the letter change from the thIrd paragraph to the fourth. The term "pay adJustment" In the thIrd paragraph does not as easIly bear that ongOIng connotatIOn. And the lack of an end date In the June 4 letter dId nothIng to clanfy whether It was Intended to be ongOIng or not. It IS Important to note that, when looked at In lIght of the problem that Mr Commeford's letter states It was tryIng to solve, It appears that the retroactIve adJustment was Intended to have the effect of puttIng the OperatIOnal Managers hIred before the ImplementatIOn of the bargaInIng umt Increases Into the same posItIOn as those hIred later That IS, the relatIOnshIp the employer was tryIng to re-establIsh was not wIth the salanes of the bargaInIng umt, but wIth that of other OperatIOnal Managers promoted shortly after January 1 2002 In the context of commumcatIOn to a group already dIsenchanted wIth the relatIOnshIp of theIr salary to that of the bargaInIng umt, It IS unfortunate that the companson was expressed as a relatIOnshIp wIth the bargaInIng umt salary as It left open the ImpreSSIOn that the gnevor receIved. StIll, expressIng the adJustment In terms of the bargaInIng umt salary IS also understandable, SInce It was the hIgher bargaInIng umt salary base of the later promoted managers that caused the problem In the first place 11 The letter contInues to make a specIfic statement of how much the gnevor IS entItled to a dollar amount that was paid out to hIm However gIven hIS understandIng about what the prevIOUS paragraph had promIsed, he concluded It was not calculated correctly as hIS gnevance claims The letter then goes on to say that the changes to compensatIOn wIll be Implemented dunng the next SIX to eIght weeks ThIS wordIng very lIkely also contnbuted to the ImpreSSIOn that there was to be an ongOIng change to compensatIOn, rather than a sIngle pay-out of one lump sum. However the SIX to eIght week tIme frame had another effect It opened a WIndow of tIme before whIch the promIsed adJustment was to be Implemented, dunng whIch the employer dId a much more effectIve Job of commumcatIng what the Intended adJustment actually was It IS the Board's findIng that the confusIOn caused by the unfortunate wordIng of the June 4 letter was very adequately cleared up before that target ImplementatIOn date, so that by the tIme the correspondence referred to above was fimshed, there IS lIttle doubt about the amendment to compensatIOn that the employer was offenng. It was not an ongOIng adJustment to the salary base Intended to contInue Indefimtely Into the future It was a one-tIme lump sum, representIng a temporary top-up or bndgIng provIsIOn, untIl the gnevor's IndIVIdual progressIOn wIthIn the managenal salary gnd reached a level eqUIvalent to 3% over the 2003 C02 salary rate ThIS IS explaIned over the senes of e-maIls from Ms AmlIn, and also clearly stated In the July 13 2004 letter from Ms Karn. The June 22 letter also went some dIstance to cleanng up the confusIOn, although It repeats the problematIc wordIng "adJustment to salary" ThIS was mItIgated somewhat by the statement In the final paragraph that the retroactIve salary dIfferentIal would be reflected on the gnevor's June 30 pay as a lump sum payment. The June 22 letter also apologIzes for the error In commumcatIOn of the retroactIve date In hIndsIght, It was a much more mInor mIsstep In commumcatIOn than the ImpreSSIOn created by the reference In the June 4 letter to a salary adJustment defined as a relatIOnshIp to the bargaInIng umt pay rates There are many examples In the Board's Junsprudence of the employer's efforts to dIsabuse managers of the mIstaken Idea that theIr compensatIOn package IS tIed to that of the bargaInIng umt, but the June 4 letter can be read as perpetuatIng exactly that Idea. In order to succeed In hIS gnevance, Mr Drakos would have to show that It was a term or condItIOn of hIS employment that he was to receIve an ongoIng amendment to hIS salary Ifhe could show that, then the Board would be In a posItIOn to enforce that term or condItIOn of 12 employment, and award hIm a remedy As a matter of contract law thIS would reqUIre that both he and the employer had agreed on an ongOIng change to hIS salary as a term of hIS employment. In legal language, It IS Said that there must be consensus ad idem whIch IS a LatIn term meamng that the partIes have agreed to the same thIng. The eVIdence IS very clear that, by July 13 at the latest, the employer had clanfied that what was beIng offered was a lump sum payment, whIch the gnevor has SInce receIved, rather than the ongOIng salary Increase that he belIeved he should receIve after readIng Mr Commeford's letter In the result It IS my findIng that the employer dId not offer or agree to the same thIng as the gnevor IS claimIng. Therefore, It dId not become a term or condItIOn of hIS employment whIch the Board IS In a posItIOn to enforce As well, In the cIrcumstances, the eVIdence does not establIsh that the gnevor's treatment was arbItrary as he receIved the Intended adJustment to hIS pay the calculatIOn of whIch was venfied by Human Resources In the process of answenng hIS questIOns The gnevor argued that Ms Karn dId not have the reqUIsIte level of authonty to overrule the promIse made by Mr Commeford. FIrstly the commumcatIOns from Human Resources are not InCOnsIstent WIth the June 4 letter although they are clearer as they were respondIng to the gnevor's questIOns Further there was no eVIdence beyond the gnevor's assertIOn to establIsh that there was anythIng out of the ordInary In the Idea that Human Resources staff would clanfy the employer's offer of a pay adJustment. More Importantly there IS no eVIdence from Mr Commeford or anyone IdentIfied by the gnevor as havIng authonty whIch would support the gnevor's verSIOn of the pay Increase offered by the employer Nor IS there any eVIdence to the effect that the employer IS bound to commumcate everythIng through the same person. GIven that the gnevance IS not successful even IfMr Commeford had the authonty to make the salary adJustment claimed, It IS unnecessary to deal wIth the employer's arguments that he lacked the reqUIsIte authonty to promIse salary adJustments 13 In the result, for the reasons set out above, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto thIS 25th day of August, 2006