HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0165.Policy.94-04-14
~-l--- :..; -~r I
,^ ." , ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
. . r ,''\.', ','
" 'L'" , CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
~ ",,' , ' ,
II' II GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TOPONTO, ONTARIO, M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416! 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE ITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
165/93
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OLBEU (Policy Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE: R. Verity Vice-Chairperson
M Lyons Member
C Linton Member
FOR THE- E. Mitchell
GRIEVOR counsel
Koskie & Minsky
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR.TBE R. Little
EMPLOYER Counsel
HickS, Morley, Hamilton, stewart & S.torie
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE THIRD M. Ryan
PARTY Barrister & Solicitor
HEARING November 25, 1993
December 17, 1993
January 10, 1994
.- c (
2
DECISION
In a policy grievance dated March 17, 1993, the union claims that the employer
violated the posting provisions of Article 21 of the collectIve agreement by failing to fill a
number of vacancies for full-time positions of help desk analyst at head office. The
employer contends that the board lacks jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the
positions in question were created as "training and development" opportunities within the
employer's exclusive authority under s.18(1)(b) of the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act. R.S.O 1990 c.C.50.
The union contends that the positions in dispute are not training and development
positions but rather legitimate vacancies for permanent positions which the employer Tefuses
to fill contrary to Article 21 of the collective agreement.
Article 21 of the relevant collective agreement reads as follows:
ARTICLE 21 I
Assignments and Job Postings
21.1 Employees shall progress through the steps of the salary ranges of their classification in
accordance with the procedures of the Employers, as established from time to time on the basis
of satisfactory written recommendations and subject to the approval of the Employers. The
Employers agree to permit employees to examine the said written recommendations upon their
completion by the Supervisor or Department Head and will provide a copy of the Assessment
Report if so requested.
--
"--
(
\
3
21.2 An employee promoted to a higher classification set out in any approved classification schedule
shall be entitled to a salary increase of at least one (1) step or an increase to the minimum of the
range attached to the higher classification whichever is greater and such increases will be effective
upon the effective date of promotion.
21.3 Where the classification of a store is changed all promotions resulting there from, within the
bargaining unit, shall be posted and filled in accordance with the provisions of Article 21.4
21.4 (a) If a new job classification within the bargaining unit is created or a permanent vacancy
occurs in an existing job classification before inviting applications from persons not
employed by the Employers, the Employers will post within the geographic area as
specified, notice of such new job or vacancy for a period of ten (10) working days during
which employees within such area may apply The notice shall stipulate qualifications,
classification, salary range, department and location concerned.
(b) For the purpose ,of Article 21.5(a), a promotion shall be deemed to include:
(i) the assignment of a permanent full-time employee to another permanent full-
time position in a class with a higher maximum salary rate than the clasS of
his/her former position; or
(ii) the assignment of a permanent part-time employee to a permanent full-time
position if there was no permanent full-time employee eligible and qualified for
the position; or
(ill) the assignment of a permanent part-time employee to another permanent part-
time position with a higher weekly salary than his/her former position; or
(iv) the Il!t<rlgnment oia casual to a permanent part-time position in accordance with
the provisions of Article 31.4
(c) Where the opening of a new operation necessitates the transferring of employees to
complete the required complement because of insufficient applicants under Article
21.4(a) above, then preference with regard to transferring.to the new location shall be
given to the views of the more senior employees.
(d) where an employee is to be transferred, the employee shall be given two (2) weeks'
notice of transfer where practicable.
21.5 (a) Where employees are being considered for promotion, seniority will be the determining
factor provided the employee is qualified to perform the work.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision of Article 21.5( a) within any calendar year the Employers
may identify a limited number of permanent part-time vacancies as vacancies to be filled
by special merit promotion. In no case shall special merit promotions exceed ten percent
(10%) of all promotions within the calendar year Special merit promotions shall be so
identified on the job posting and shall be awarded to bargaining unit employees only
In filling special merit promotions the Employers agree to give consideration to the
qualifications and ability of permanent part-time employees and casuals to perform the
duties of a vacant permanent part-time position. Where two (2) or more such employees
are relatively equal in qualifications and abilities, the permanent part-time employee with
the greatest seniority shall be awarded the position. If the employees who are deemed
relatively equal are casuals, the senior casual shall be awarded the position.
I
4
(c) Where it is decided that it is necessary to make a temporary appointment to fill a
temporary vacancy, including summer stores, which will last five (5) working days or
more, or one day in the case of stores, the Employer shall appoint the most senior
employee in the next lowest classification in the department, section or store involved,
who is qualified and available to perform the work.
21.6 It is understood that the employees of each Employer will constitute a separate unit for the
purpose of Articles 21.4 and 215.
21.7 Where the Employers select a candidate for a position advertised by a Job Posting Circular, from
employee applicants, the successful candidate's name, department number and seniority shall be
announced in writing within twenty (20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the
Job Posting Circular. Should no person presently employed by the Employers at the time of the
opening be deemed to be satisfactory to the Employers' requirements, the Employers shall so
announce in writing within twenty (20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the
Job Posting Circular.
21.8 (a) Other than for P-Circulars concerning positions in Metropolitan area stores inviting
applications from employees, should the Employers select an employee to be the
successful candidate to a P-Circular advertising a position, the Employers shall announce
the name, department number and seniority of the successful candidate within twenty
(20) days of the closing date for receiving applications to the circular.
(b) In the case of P-Circu1ars advertising positions in "Metropolitan" area stores, the
Employers shall announce the name, department number and seniority of a successful
candidate within twenty (20) days of appointment.
Note: It is recognized that unusual circumstances. may prevail so as not to allow proper
selection of a person to fill a vacant position within the time limits prescribed in Article
21.7 and 21.8, in which case additional time may be necessary The Employers and the
Union agree to cooperate so as to allow for proper selection of a person to fill any such
vacancy
21.9 (a) In the event an employee who has been promoted is unable to perform the requirements
of the position in a satisfactory manner within a period not exceeding three (3) months
from date of appointment, the employee shall be reclassified to the employee's previous
classification and assigned to the step in the salaty range attained immediately prior to
promotion.
(b) An employee who is demoted and to whom section (a) above does not apply shall be
assigned to a step in the new salary range closest to but less than the rate he/she was
receiving at the time of demotion.
21.10 Where a bargaining unit employee accepts a position with the Employer outside the bargaining
unit, hislher seniority for promotional purposes shall continue to accumulate during such. time as
that employee is outside the bargaining unit only for a maximum of five (5) years.
21.11 It is agreed that vacancies in the positions of C Store Manager and A Store Assistant shall be
posted in accordance with the provisions of the Collective Agreement. The Employer further
agrees not to transfer A Store Assistants to C Store Manager positions or vice-versa.
-
. - > . O. ".. _.
(
5
It is common ground that the board has no jurisdiction to deal with legitnnate
questions of training and development. This dispute involves the relationship on the o~e
hand between s.7 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and Article 21
negotiated under it, and on the other hand s.18(1)(b) of the Crown Employees Collective
I
Bargaining Act. The parties agree that the matter falls to be determined under the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act without regard to recent legislative changes. The
relevant sections of the Act read as follows:
7 Upon being granted representation rights, the employee organization is authorized to bargain with
the employer on terms and conditions of employment, except as to matters that are exclusively the function
of the employer under subsection 18(1), and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, including
rates of remuneration. hours of work, overtime and other premium allowance for work performed, the
mileage rate payable to an employee for miles travelled when he or she is required to use his or her own
automobile on the employer's business, benefits pertaining to time not worked by employees including paid
holidays, paid vacations, group life insurance, health insurance and long-term income protection insurance,
promotions, demotions, transfers, lay-offs or reappointments of employees, the procedures applicable to
the processing of grievances, the classification and job evaluation system, and the conditions applicable
to leaves of absence for other than any elective public office or political activities or training and
development.
18(1) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the
employer to manager, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right
to determine,
(b) training and development, the governing principles of which are subject to review by the
employer with the bargaining unit
and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdictiou of a
board.
The issue in the instant grievance is whether or not the matter can reasonably be
characterized as training and development.
~-
\ I
6
The facts can be briefly summarized. In 1989, the LCBO introduced a program into
retail stores called "point of sales" which was a computer system to record liquor sales and
monies collected. New permanent full-time positions known as help-desk analyst were
created at head office to respond to a multiplicity of telephone inquiries from retail store
personnel experiencing problems WIth the system. The purpose of the position was to
"troubleshoot" for computer problems in retail stores. In early 1990, the employer posted
and filled five full-time permanent help desk analyst positions at head office classified as
System Officer 1 and 2. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that there was a need for
additional help desk analyst 5 up P 0 r t .The grievance arises as a result of the employer's
response to that need.
On July 26, 1990, the LCBO posted what it referred to as a "career development
opportunity" (6 positions) available to retail staff in various districts for secondment to the
position of help desk analyst at head office for an 18 month term. The relevant job posting
reads as follows:
LCB-121190 July 26, 1990
To: ALL PERMANENT FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES AT
HEAD OFFICE, METRO TORONTO REGION AND DISTRIcrs 11 & 14
DQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO
CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNIlY
Resumes may now be submitted for the secondment opportunity to the position of:
Position Title: IMPAcr Help Desk Analysts (6 positions)
Hours: 40 Hours Per Week
Department: IMPAcr Help Desk
~ 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. - Weekdays
7:00 a.m. to 1~):30 p.m. - Saturday
-
I /
( I
7
Location: Head Office
Duration: Approximately 18 Months
"
Your skills and knowledge are required to provide frontline support by using your thorough experience
of retail store operations as the initial contact for IMP ACT Trainer Installers and store personnel
experiencing problems arising from the installation, conversion and operation of the IMP ACT System.
Specifically your duties will be: logging problems into the database; determining if the problem is related
to hardware, software or procedural errors and following through the problem resolution procedures with
the store involved; Iiaising with Technical Support, Retail Accounting, Category Management, Pricing
Administration and Inventory Control; participating in software acceptance/regression testing; being
involved in the coordination of new software releases, user documentation distribution and contributing
to the content of the Help Desk newsletter.
You will playa leading role in the implementation of the LCBO's new corporate direction and gain an
extensive knowledge of the end to end operations of the Board which affect all retail stores.
Qualifications: thorough experience in LCBO retail store operations; superior verbal and written
communications skills together with sound problem solving and conflict resolution skills; strong
interpersonal and organizational skills; ability to work under pressure as a team player; meet deadlines,
schedule events and handle problems with a minimum of supervision; knowledge of the IMP ACT System
is an asset but not mandatoiy as training is provided.
Successful candidates will retain their permanent poSitions in their parent departments and be expected
to return to them at the end of the assignment.
Persons wishing to reply should submit a RESUME fully outlining qualifications and experiences relating
to this position. Please indicate your current store or department and location.
Please submit resumes in confidence to file #LCB-121t90 before August 13,1990 to:
Human Resources SeJVices
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Toronto Star Building \j
One Yonge Street, 12th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSE lES
Dedicated to Employment Equity
On October 22, 1990, six retail employees classified as clerk 3 commenced work
pursuant to the term appointments. The employees were paid their regular salaries as clerk
3 as well as $1.20 per hour acting pay and travel allowance where applicable. Of the six
original term appointments, Serge Diamanti and Robert Cummings received promotions,
while Lori Root, Julie (Hopkins) Clarke and Judy Haverkort are still working in the same
.
( I
(
8
position.
On July 7, 1991, another "career development opportunity" was posted for
secondment to the position of help desk analyst at head office for a 12 month term. Four
employees commenced work on September 30, 1991 under the 12 month term appointment.
Mary Long and Mark Lamantis received promotions while Gerrard Frosolone and Rad
Kuzeljevic returned to their respective retail stores after working for approximately 18
months. It is interesting to note that despite the posting, Frosolone's individual secondment
agreement was for a six month term while, in fact, he worked for 18 months.
On October 3, 1991, a further "career development opportunity" was posted for
secondment to the position in question for a six month term. On January 20, 1992, Sharon
Strachan and David Chong commenced work as help desk analysts under six month term
appointments. Both employees ended their secondments on April 1, 1992. There was no
evidence as to why the secondments ended prematurely and no evidence as to what work
either employee is currently performing.
Some six months after the grievance was filed, Larry Moreau and Richard
Baliwonczyk were appointed on September 13, 1993 for six months under a career
development opportunity posting on July 8, 1993
As of the final hearing day on January 10, 1994, there were five employees in the
( (
9
positions in question, namely, Moreau, Baliwonczyk, and the three employees appointed on
October 22, 1990 Root, Clarke and Haverkort. All seconded employees were classified as
clerk 3 with the exception of Mark Lamantis who was a clerk 4 By all accounts, seconded
employees on term appointments were performing essen.tially the same work as permanent
employees. At the hearing, Lori Root, Julie Clarke and Judy Haverkort were accorded
third party status.
LCBO vice-president Gordon Anderson testified for the employer He explained the
rationale for the secondment program. In his words, it was "to imprpve computer literacy
of those individuals so they could take it back to the retail store network" and "to share new
found knowledge with peers in the store." Mr Anderson candidly acknowledged "some
degree of mismanagement on our part" in that a number of seconded employees had
overstayed their respective term appointments. He went on to explain that in 1992 the
installation of new software produced by the LCBO had caused serious problems, but that
there had been substantial improvement in the testing of software in the past year and a
half. In his opinion, six months was a reasonable period of time for employees to acquire
sufficient skills to transfer back to the retail network. He went on to testify that the goal
of the LCBO was to train employees from the top 100 stores, said to represent 60% of the
business. In Mr Anderson's words, "the training is. very much peer sharing, advice and
consultation." Further, he testified that there was a mentor system in place for the benefit
of new secondees on the help desk.
~ ~
( (
10
Gerrard Frosolone is a permanent full-time clerk 3 at the LCBO Eaton Centre store.
His first involvement with the help desk analyst job was in August 1991 when he filled in
for an employee who was then on vacation. As previously indicated, Mr Frosolone
commenced work on September 30, 1991 on a secondment basis under a 12 month career
development opportunity posting, and returned to the retail store on March 31, 1993 after
some 18 months on the job According to his evidence, he had no prior computer
experience and received no training. He testified that he learned the duties of the position
by working on the job, by asking questions and by reviewing the data base. Mr Frosolone
testified that it took him "about a month" to feel comfortable in the job, although he
acknowledged that he did not learn the job within that time frame. Mr Frosolone testified
that he was unaware of any mentor program at the help desk.
Julie Clarke testified on behalf of the third parties. Her evidence was to the effect
that it took her "six months to a year to learn the job" She testified that she was assigned
by her supervisor to train Gerrard Frosolone. She acknowledged that she never told Mr
Frosolone that fact and assumed that her supervisor had done so. Mrs. Clarke testified that
she had the benefit of a number of techmcal training courses made available to permanent
employees to enable her to perform the job
Briefly stated, the union contends that the employer did not carry out the
assignments in a bona fide manner, that there was no real training and development within
the meaning of s.18(1) of the Act. and that under Article 21, the employer was obliged to
! (
11
have posted all term restricted posItions. By way of remedy, Ms. Mitchell requested a board
order requiring the employer to post five further full-tune positions. The panel was referred
~
to the following authorities. Re Horton Steel Work Ltd. and United Steelworkers. Local
3598 (1973), 3 L.A.C. (2d) 54 (Rayner); Re Polymer Corp. Ltd. and Oil. ChemIcal and
Atomic Workers. Local 9-14 (1974), 5 L.A.C. (2d) 344 (Rayner); Re Air Canada and
Canadian Air Line Employees' Assoc. (1975)" 8 L.A.C. (2d) 239 (Brandt); OPSEU
(Geraldine J. Brick & Leslie Roth) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications,
GSB 244/82, 245/82, 326/82 (Roberts), Ontario Public Service Employees Union and
Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 672/84 (Palmer); OPSEU (Union
Grievance) and Ministry of CorrectIonal Services. 534/88 (Wright); Re InternatIonal Union
of Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers. Local 542 and RCA Victor Co. Ltd. (1971),22
L.A.C. 329 (Simmons); Re United Automobile Workers. Local 636 and Gardner-Denver
Co. (Canada) Ltd. (1969), 20 L.A.C. 161 (Palmer), and Re Gabriel of Canada Ltd. and
International Association of Machinists. Local 1295 (1978), 20 L.A.C. (2d) 168 (Kates).
The employer maintains that the secondments were bona fide training and
development opportunitIes under s.18(1)(b) of the Act. Mr LIttle argued that the issue was
not what happened in the past, but rather whether or not six month term appointments
would be appropriate ~or the future. Alternatively, Mr Little contends that the employer
has the authority to set qualifications for fixed-term appomtments.
On behalf of the third parties, Mr Ryan argues that the positions in question were
.
,.
I
12 i
permanent positions, and that since Lori Root, Julie Clarke and Judy Haverkort have been
incumbents for in excess of three years, it would be inequitable that they be removed and
forced to reapply We cannot agree that there are grounds for an estoppel. There is simply
no evidence of any representation that the third parties would be guaranteed jobs. Rather,
there appears to have been a continuation of their employment in the secondment positIons
on a month-to-month basis after the initial term expIred. In the absence of a clear
representation, there can be no detrimental reliance.
In OPSEU and Minis1:ly of Transportation and Communications, supra, Vice-Chair
Palmer was faced with a similar issue of training and development, although admittedly
under a different collective agreement and different facts. At pp. 21-22, Mr Palmer deals
with the jurisdictional issue.
A resolution of this matter must start with an analysis of the Crown Emplovees Collective Bargaininl! Act.
R.S.O 1980, c.l08 [hereinafter called "the Act"]. There, as pointed out by the Union, generally speaking,
pursuant to Section 7, all matters relating to the representation of employees within the bargaining unit
are subject to collective bargaining and, when a collective agreement is reached, such is deemed to cover
all aspects of the employment relationship between the parties and is binding upon and enforceable upon
employees within the bargaining unit. The only exception to this position is that such is subject to the
limitations imposed by Section 18(1) of the Act, the relevant parts of which read:
18. - (1) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive
function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, includes the right to determine
(b) training and development The governing principles of which are subject to
review by the employer with the bargaining agent.
and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction
of a board.
It is trite to obseIVe, therefore, that this Board does not have jurisdiction to deal with questions of
"traming and development", even though such affects members of the bargaining unit as is argued by the
Employer in the case here. No one can dispute the underlying proposition. The problem for this Board
---- -
(
13
I
is whether the present factual issues disclose that we are dealing with a case of "training and development."
,
I
In our view a determination of this issue, in a positive sense, requires us to examine what the Employer
was requiring these employees to do and to assess whether such can be reasonably characterized as
"training and development" If it can, this Board must conclude it has no jurisdiction to deal with this
grievance; if it cannot, we must "proceed to examine the question of whether these actions constitute a
breach of the governing language of the collective agreement.
The decision goes on to make a number of general obselVations which apply with
equal force to the facts before this panel.
First, it is our view that whether employees undertake work voluntarily is irrelevant to the present issue.
While such might affect individual relief, it cannot validate an otherwise obvious violation of the collective
agreement. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that some form of agreement between
employers and individual employees cannot supercede the governing collective agreement: Svndicat
CatholiQue des Emnlove's de Mal!:asins de Quebec v Compal!:Die PaQuet Ltee. [19591 S.C.R. 206, 18
D.L.R. (2d) 346, 59 C.L.L.C. 15,049 In short, an employee's agreement to violate the collective
agreement does not justify the violation.
Second. the question of whether an assignment is "temporary" is not dispositive of the present issue. While
it may be the case that training assignments are, by their nature, temporary. not all temporary as..~gnments
are in the nature of training.
Third, we do not accept the view that the "intent" of the Employer is conclusive of the issue before us.
Such intent is obviously relevant to issues of bona fides The objective facts are what determines whether
a person is receiving "training" or "development"; wishing does not make it so.
Vice-Chairman Palmer then addresses the meaning of the words training and
development in s.18(1)(b) of the Act. We would agree with the rationale of Mr Palmer at
pp. 23-24 where he states:
What, then, is meant by the term "training and development"? The resolution of this matter is not an easy
one, but it is essential to determine whether we have jurisdiction in this case. Fortunately, there are a
number of areas where support if found.
First, we would note the obvious: "training" must be considered as something different than
"development." Norman canons of interpretation suggest that, If possible one should not find redundancy
in the use of words: e.g., Re De Havilland Aircraf!, 11 L.A.C. 350, at p. 352 (Laskin, 1961). In this case.
~'_._-
.. (
14
the distinction is clear. "Training", in our view, relates to a process where a person is developing the skills
to dc.S a job; "development" to processes for the enhancement of existing skills. Obviously, there is a
possibility that the former might be subsumed by the latter. but the conjunction of the two suggests such
a result. Also the definition of the former fits easily into the well-known distinction in arbitral jurisdiction
between "familiarization" and "training" periods for jobs: e.g., Re RCA Victor. 22 L.A.C. 329 (Simmons,
1971).
The problem with both these terms is that. while the former term may have a more limited connotation,
in one sense the latter always exists. Jobs, it seems, are always changing. It follows that one must always
be "developing" old skills and learning new ones in order to be able to adequately perform the work of
an existing position. It follows, in our opinion, that for the Employer to make use of the exception of
Section 18(1) of the Act one of two situations must exist: either persons must be undergoing "training"
to prepare themselves for existing jobs; or they must be undertaking "development" activities in relation
to or in conjunction with an existing position.
On the facts of the instant grievance, we are satisfied that the employees in question
were not involved in "training" in the sense expressed by Vice-Chair Palmer Indeed, there
was no formal training period and at best the supervision was minimal. It would appear
that the seconded employees began performing the job of help desk analyst with a minimum
of assistance and direction. Apparently, the intent was that seconded employees were to
return to the retail stores, and it cannot be said that they were learning a job that they
would assume at some later date.
Rather, the objective sought to be achieved by the employer would appear to relate
to "development" In our VIew, the methods followed by the employer would seem
inconsistent with any reasonable characterization of the facts as development. The extensive
periods of time that many of these employees remained in these positions weighs heavily
against the employer's contention that they are development positions. It is unrealistic to
conclude, we think, that a true development opportunity was taking place within the
meaning of s.18(1) for extended periods in excess of three years.
~----- ~- -=--=:...::::- ----
- "1~
(i -
:i
(
15
The nature of the job performed by the seconded employees is for all intents and
purposes identical to that of a permanent full-time help desk analyst. The one exception I
appears to be that seconded employees are prevented from acting as senior help desk
analysts.
I
I
The stated intent of the secondment program to return employees to the retail I
network has not often been carried out in practice. Of the ten seconded employees who
have worked under various term appointments from the date of the program's inception to
the filing of the grievance, only three have returned to the retail stores. In addition, it
would appear to us that the employer's goal of training personnel in the top 100 stores by
this method of term appointment is both unrealistic and unachievable.
In sum, we would agree that the positions in question are permanent positions which
should have been posted under Article 21 of the collective agreement. We are satisfied that
they cannot reasonably be characterized as training and development opportunities under
s.18(1) of the Act.
The real issue is the appropriate remedy in these unusual circumstances. In our
view, the remedy granted in the Palmer decision would not be appropriate in the instant
matter There was no finding of bad faIth on the facts before Mr Palmer On the evidence
adduced in the case before us, we must conclude that the employer has made no meaningful
attempt to carry out the stated intent of the secondment program, despite legitimate
-"-
)
.~"1
/.<,t
A
- -~
.
~
=--~~
.' -. (Ii
(
16
complaints from the union. Intent is relevant to the issue of bona fides. By Article 21 of
the collective agreement, the parties have agreed upon certain procedures to be followed
where a vacancy exists. In our view, there can be no real training and development
opportunities in circumstances where Article 21 can be said to apply In these particular
circumstances, we reluctantly conclude that the employer has circumvented the provisions
of Article 21 by filling vacancies under the guise of training and development
In the result, the employer shall be required to post full-time positions of help desk
analyst which have been improperly occupied by seconded employees. .However, we leave
to the employer the authority to determine the complement of additional full-time
employees required. We shall retain jurisdiction during the implementation of this award.
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 14. day of Ap r i 1 ,1994
--==-- . .
\. -~ - - <" ~.........................
R. L. VERI1Y, Q.C. - VICE-CHAIRPERSON
. "LYONS.~~3Ld........................ r
~~~
C. LINTON - MEMBER
)
1
I I~
--.-