The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-1234.Adamo.95-11-22 r~'" 1 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO . _ GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE .i ~ riJ')' 11111 ~EULI;MENT REGkEME~T ',' F \i"'~\()\fO~ 2>jl\l\<b BOARD ( D'ES'G'RIEFS 'i ,';'; "~' r'W";'~' . ~ , ~ , # i j . .. ? i 1 <,~ .~ I ISO DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (4..16) 326-1388 '189 RUEptlNOAS OUEST BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTtR]O) M5G lZ8 "'Z :-,r ;. FAqSIM1lE/T;ElECOPIE (416) 326-1396 r 1Pi" - GSB # 1234/93 , . l:iiec;r"'T~;'ED . P. OPSEU ,# 93.F400-416 - <t" 0-,....,.... . . ~ - .... ~ "".1- -;J". ..... I - IN THE '~T-T,ER OF .AN ARBITRAT;IO~, j >.; ~ I " 4_,;' ,r,/ .J .- .. ~ Under.... .f !. r - eRG f'" iEEC' OI3I.EV/~ ;~LC:: ~.J.:}TLEi\ji=NT E, CROWN- EMPL'O:YEES, COLLECTIYE BARGA+,'NING (A:CT BOAHD .., "t .p'. <"! ~ .. 'Before" ,i , ~..~ r THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARP BETWEEN ,- .~ 'O'PS:EU CAqamo ,et pI) ~ Grievor '- .;...J. - and:, - eji .j .The,'"^:Grown in;" Right of Onta~ io . -. ;;J~ ., (Ministry of Correctional services) .~ , ;' ~ Employer ~ .- -. .f Vlce-Chairperson BEFORE W Kaplan ; - .' j--.... :FOR THE ; A RydEar' t' ." f " -' GRIEVOR f CQunsel ")" 'R~der; Wright, B>lair & Doyre J<.-., _;::...r- Barrister & Solicitor ~ - -. , - EOR THE J .smith " EMPLOYER Counsel ;;;>;l:, Lega1 ~erv~GeS Bran~h C, ~ Mana~ement Board Secretariat '" HEARING Nov~mQer ~, 1~95 !;; ~ i .~ - :':"... I , ,. , i . '" .~ 2 , Introduction This case involves seventeen grievances filed by unclassified correctional officers employed by the Ministry in Sault Ste Marie at the Northern "- Treatment Centre (hereafter "the NTC") The 'grievances are identical I and they allege a violation of Articles 3, 4 and 18 of the Collective Agreement. The remedy sought in each instance is the same (1) A declaration, (2) a direction that the employer staff the NTC in accordance with the Collective Agreement .and, (3) a direction that this staffing be restricted to past and present unclassified employees of the NTC. ~ In brief, while the union placed ,a :number of issues before~ the Board, and these issues are considered below, it is fair to say that underlying this I case is '3 - union allegation- that ~he employer, through an elaborate scheme - designed to avoid the consequences of Articles 3 15 1 and 3 15-2 of the Collective Agreement, transferred positions between the NTC and the Sault - Ste Marie Jail. The purpose of these transfers, simply put, was to rearrange staffing between the two institutions in order to ensure that none of the positions held by the' grievors were converted into full-time \ jobs. For its part, the employer takes the position that not only was there no such scheme, there was no evidence establishing the existence of such a scheme, and what evidence there was indicated that the employer acted properly, in good faith, and for sound instituti(~nal reasons. A t the outset it should be pointed out that these grievances initially came_before another panel of the Board on June 30, 1994 As some of the issues raised in this case were then before a different panel in another case, the parties agreed to adjourn pending the outcome of that other case. The award in that case, Union Grievance 803/91 (Dissanayake) was released on December 19, 1994, and the instant case was, some time thereafter, scheduled for hearing j 3 I .", 1 r ~ ' t " Issues to Be' Determined ! i '. ~ '- '""i t J ,; ~ t, . . ~ '.. . ~ the partie$ were, more brless, agreea a'l)6ut the isslies to be determined .(-~ . f ~..; "i ~ r I .""" '\.: ~ Articles 3. i 5"'" and 3 15 2 provide" ~ ~+ Effective April 1, 1991, where the;'sa01e woXt<,.;has;peen ! '-:'1 .perfqrme<:fqy ar) ~mployee in the Uncla~sified._~erviGe for' ~, a period of' at ;Ieast twd (2) con'secutfv~ yEfc1rs\ rand where ., "l' the"tMiAistry has determined that-..thefe, is a 'continuing ..i f. " ,need for that work M>' be PEifformed qJ' -a t;~I~:tim~ basis, the ministry shall' establish a position witnilr1" the -. 'Clas$ified, Service topedorm -~that work,; 'and"shall post a ,~ ....~ - > v~GaQGY in ,acc,orqance" w.ith .Articl~. 4 (Post!Il9 and Filling of VacanCies t or 'New :Positlonsr ~ ~ -I t. ~ - ,;...",.. . , fj' I "" ." , " ~,Jp~ the purP9se< c;>f lhi~ s~ction, "full-t.Jme" ..~hall m~an a 1~ minimum of one thousandseveh hundred cfiid"ithirty-two j ~ [':'~ I and,three quarter (" ;7'32 7:5) stra'ight.;;time .hours' or"one 'i I t~opsan9 nip,e h\,m<;ired ~od t~~lve (1.,9) 2) ~tr~igh~-tin1e hours in each year, as applic3ole, including authorized ,~<,. ie-aves of :absenoce~~ However;~',all hours 'worked by an; ... ""i-':;'" ;;,~... ,unclas~ifi.ed employe.e while h~ is replacing a classified <- employ'ee who is ~6n an '~authorj'zed leave of abse-nce shall f'~ ~:nbt 'berincluded' in cdmput~ng the annual hO'urs worked by , ..r- the uo'cla,s,sifie,d,. emp{oyee ,~ ~ ...' .v '.. .! 't '" The first issue to be determrne'~ in thi~ case wa;' whethe-r, in- applying the , .<'- - - - above-noted provisions, the hours' of unclassified."emplo~ees -who had been '_ "';"~'-"--.t'"-, S"''' :A. ~' .:... used' to replace classified employees on a secondrftent should 'be included .'f "'; . 'i r. . J-; :Lf Th'e union takes the position that these nours snollid b~ included as a .' secondment is not ~ leave of aD~ence, whil~ the- emplbyer takes the position that these hours should not be included. In either case, the ~afties requested that the Board simply issue a declaration as to the proper ~ interpretation and remain seized should the parties prove' unable to agree on l-' \ "\' ',( ~ J( tr the appropriate number of full-time positions, assuming, of course, that the ::..:. ;... ~ ~ grievances succeeded on their merits. 'i' 4 The second issue in this case, assuming that tre grievances succeeded on r ... their merits,i~ )tVhat qate should l?eselected for the implement(!tion of the ...:.! fl ...j , '\ union's requested remedial measl,lr'~~'l namely a posting r _ ..,I} .. ~ Ba'ckgroufld Facts " i ( ~ ", ~ ,. , ~-, ~, the partje$ were, rno~~, or less,. agreed as to the",oackground facts. The ~ ~' ~ instant grievanoes werer filed in. July,,'1993 ;Fhey ,proceeded, as noted above . to a hearing i,n ~t1e summer 9f 1 9~4 That hea!.in~ wa~ adjourned pending .,.. 1( :t' -the 'rel~ase -of, a decision inano,~her case In AUgust , 994, an institutional' , - post audit took place at .t~~,.~TC. The audit recommended that the ~~I ~_ ~ t classified correctional officer complement be increased from 52 to 57 It - , I ' ~ w~,~ d~ciq~;,-d t6" fm these jobs:..,~y tran~fe~ring~ fU~,-time correctional officers from the"'~ault Jail;- .:One Qf thes,e t(ans.fe(~, was assigned to a "'" \ f" ;jJ> n.ewly ~reated position of float officer, and used~the'. employer stated, to .. , , diminish :thenred. for' .unclassified personnel" I,n ,a~(:tdition, two full-time " officers from the Sault Jail were transferred to 'fill 'two vacancies at the -' ' . , "...... . -::""!'" .. . NTC. At the same time, eight of the grievors were trransferred from the NTC r. , ,~ to the Sault Jail. These figures were particularly noteworthy to the union becaus~ based on it~ calcl,llations of th~ number of ~~urs ,^:orked by '.I ..or unclassified correctional officers at the NTC divided by the number of hours _" - .. . r'- ". constituting ~ full-time job in Article 3 15 2, approximately seven of the .,... - f jobs of the grievors should have been converted and then posted at the NTC there being, the ~.mion, asserted, ~ continuing and obvious need for those positions . ~ The Evidence . - !' ~ ~ " Mr Rick Wood, the NTC's Acting Superintendent, testified 01) behalf of the ~ r employer and reviewed the circum~tances leading to tbe classified I S complement being raised 'from S2 to S7'~ Moreove'r, as 'pah':df the review accompanying the release of the audit report,some flaws in tne staffing schedule were identified and the local union, and local union president, ~ ! i {'~:.... ~., } w~re involvedin,;,de,viSing: a new ~chedu,1e., \y.hich w~s subsequently ~. :implemented "'The:';five dassiftea ccirrectional officers who transferred to. ~~ 1 1 ~~ ...~ ~' . ~\ ~ ;:~. 1 the NTC :w~r~;l e.xercising ,~tlejr ~Artiq_l~r 24, rignts. ~ d.~pisioh having been ". ,~A . ~ ! r~~~hed a'~ trye" Sa4,~t Jail to r~.duce the 'number or classified employees: . ~'r' _.:. " ,- " ..i.... ,Mr Wood' was1askeCJ a numberofq~estions. 'i'ri cro~s-examination lie agreed {( '-- -.I :' "') ,- ...," i.,) that the union was not involvedAn ,either the, audit> or the recommendation. -- . ~ - r..' ,. ~ r_ ~... . -... ... J)..'" . . (;r ~ , . .~).,r He 'alsQ'agreed t~at whEm th~ decision to implement that recommendation ~ . -H [~.1 ! 'c- .~ J ^ ( wa~,rpade~jt:management was 'aw~re...:of the~ in?tantgri,evances and the relief which was b~Jng soug~t.,Mr Woog pointed ~out that the local union was also . ..3 i. . ; ... well aware o,f~these ;develo'pments, al,thQl)gt) he a,gr~ed that no one called _ union counse'f to' i~form 'him' of these neW positions' 'or of the new schedule ...- #"- ~ " . - In any event, 'M.r 'WoOd too~ tne pos,ition that ,\the s,urplus fights of classified employees took pre~ede_nce over the right~, if any, of the unclassified I ~ -!"~' .~j .\. grievors. He agreed that there was no''<reO.!.Jotion ip,the number of hours worked at the NTC (although some recent cost saving initiatives. and other developments have changed this), but stated that there was a reduction in the.' number of hours worked by unclassified: employees. - J '/ { ^\ .3 Union ArgUQie!it The union took the position, with respect tq the first issue, that a secondment was not a leave of absence, and that the hours worked by an r uridassified employ~e replacing' an employee on secondrtlent 'Were properly induded in the calculation onder Article 3 1 5 2' Union' counsel cited Union - " - 6 Grievance, supra, in support of this submission In that c()se, the Board , . i I I h Id e ~ ..,.; 'i t - . ~ ~ ~ , ... r. . If the parties intended to exclude all repiacement hours frorTl' the computation they ,could have j 'si'mplyhave said "while, he. ,is ,repl~ci"g ()" <;Iassified employee" They must <have added the words "who is on an authorized leave of - :'aosence" deliberately beG~use ~hey didndt"'intend to ~over all repl~cement. hours. A "Ie~~e of ~bsence" must '-necessarily involve an ~'iabsence"'P A leave' of absence is generally understood to be a period where the employee ~. ,is aw_ay from wor:~. A9 employee w,hq Js absent from,; work due to vacations or sickness, for example, would be { on "'an autH'orrzedleave bf',ab'sehce" "\However~ where an ,.employe,~ is reas$igneq to perform. duties_ot~er t.han his normal o'r regular duties, he is not on a leave of absence 1 at all He cannot 'be oria '~~Ieave of ab'senc~\.siniply because he is ~not abs~n} - ,he i~ ,at WQ.[k,-, ~Ithough ,_ performing some special or different idtit:ies. Therefore, where an' unClassified e'mpltiyee replac'es, a, classified ~ employee; who is at work in some, ,C;~p'aci~y, thpse . replacement hours are not excluded from the computation for purposes o'f article 3 15 2 (at lvl - 1.12) ~, -~. -.... \o."l:, _ l. !j ~ ' .. To summarize our interpretation then of the disputed phrases~ we find as' 'follows: .... !" ""t -"':<";i _. fro.J I ~.... (c) The onlY replac~,ment ~ours excll,Jdeq trom the computation of hours for the purposes of the definition of "full-time" basis in article 3 15 2, are hours where an unclassified employee is replacing.,.a c1~ssified employee who is absent from work with the employer's authorization (at 12-13) , j-/ Applymg the principles of this ca.se, union counsel arg~ed that secondments , ~ did not and could not fall within t,he defiQitipn. of )eav,es of absence, and " '. . J urged me to issue a declaration to that effect. -.J .. 7 ... \. , ", ,. - '-r' f .I' - With respect to the second issue, unio'n counsel argued that it was obvious " ~. that the ~~R19yer, ~hrovgh, ~ ':~hell game" ,~aQ m~rely rearranged work and ..;ti- ~') .r; '1 ~, "~l ~. '''''.....iV ......I { . \ " qo'1~ ~9f9r the purpose 9f ensuring, tha~ the grievors were precluded from I " i b... ~ '- :+..) ~~nrcisij~g th~ir Colle9-tivp Agreement rig.hts" The fact that ~anagement l;!. \-:, . . 1. /. ,- j ~,_ determined that ~eyen ~dditicmal classified po~ition~ were required at the ... :~} J..~' -;:'"" --; ~ .e I) -- .y; \ '-', '. \: ,I S~p.lt rail d;rppnstr~.~~d that, th~re w~s ~ co~tjnuin~ n~ed for at least seven aqc;iiti(;m~1 ,f~,Il-time classifi~d positions, and, it .~;;tS '~oteyv'ortbY, counsel "&.- ~ I ! I ~ am~ed, that w~en the ~r;\ion djyig,ed ~he nU,I)1Q,er of uncla~~ified hours by ~:... I. I tI, t ~ {!. 1,.912" jt cam~ up '!Vith a!/11ost eXCi,ctly t,t1at same figur~i This too served as , . ~ ~ ' '! 1 ~ eloqu~nt eviO~IJ~e of the ongoing ne~d fP! seven more full-time jobs - jobs, I I -i.:._ _1' ,.; . union, ~o.unsel, arg,ued,!"that_,stlOU!d have b~en post~d l!Qder ~he Collective ....' to..' '" ....r.. "----: .... - ~9reem.ent." .~. , .., ... ~ , ~1 ~ f~ f~J.c~/'" ...:r " ....< ." .! .' i In, his. submission~,union co~nsel dig not ta~e issU(~ w.ith management's \. ; I ---.I 0~, ~ t I , ~ right to ruak,e $taffing d~~isions. However, there, was a limitation on that ......' ~ . _~' _...... '" ;:' i l ~ rigbt, an<~ cqynsel arg~ed .~hat wh~re cha.ngeso q~ thi,s kind wer~ made to ~ t.... _ -....,. ~1 fl.. \; .{ r.f . "0 :~ ~ ..~ d,er,eat ,Ur'1ion:-; ~.n.titl~.rnent~ ;under the Collective Agreement, i~ was only : " . ..J',{", . ~ ~ J ..,appropri~t~, that the c...9~te for tn~ remedial p9rtion ottfle Board's award be .'- t~ . j e..- ..... -".j 1 the date when thegrievaoc~$ w~re_, first brought to the ~ttention of the 1. ...J! "I;r :;: , ~ employer Moreover, c04psel argt,Jed, th~t there was sure!y some formal _ 4 1 responsibility on the part of the employer, when it was making staffin,g changes that it knew could have the eff~ct of~ unqerm,i!n!r'l~ th_e grievors .,..,... .ri~~ts, Plil,(ticularly in, a ca~e of this k.ird where the ~rievors had agreed to the acHournment of th.eir case p~nding the d~termination Qy the Board of a J~ Q .' ~ ) _J...') .related ,case, tp bring the changes and their possible irppac,t to the union's attention in some formal way In additiQn, counsel observed, had the ','~, j' ~ ,grievances proceeded .on sch~9)ule, the grievors mi9ht have obtained a , , ' remedy when there was no surplus list and when they, by virtue of that ----- ~ . 8 fact, would have been the only candidates for the posted positions. ) ..? The whole point of remedies in labour relations, cbun~~1 :;'argued, was to put "'~--c.. - - . the parties in the position they would 'have been in but fot'the breach In the instant case, the grievots, but for the breach, would likely have been the -:- Ii - only candidates for the jobs and they should, therefore, be granted an order ,~ that would limit the new job posting to them. While there waS no guarantee ~ . that the grievors wouldliave got the Ij6'os in July 1'993, one thing was certain, their position in November 1995 Was much worse because of the ( , growth in ttie surplus list. The grievors should not', in the union's r submission, have to bear the brunt of this passage of time particularly . since they had brought their concerns to the employer's attention in a timely way Accordingly, in the union's view, any staffing moves that were made after that date should be regarded as temporary, and should be I rescinded on the assumption that at least 'five of the grievors, and possibly , , as many as seven, would have, as they should have, entered the classified , service at that time Union counsel asked the Board to issue;, a declaration ~ ~. requiring 'management to conduct a job competition for' the new jobs, and to do so, replitatrng asl11uch as possible, the conditions that existed in July 1993 and. In any event, the competition should, in the union's view, be limited to past and present unclassified employees of the NTC. ". Employer Argument - In employer counse"'s submission, management 'had acted properly and there was no baSIS for the union claims. Turning first to the proper \. ~ interpretation of Article 3' 15 2, counsel argued that the term "secondment" I means away from the workplace. Counsel noted that a secondment is an ,- authorized leave and it is one that usually does not last longer than twelve , ~ ) I -.' .... 9 _" z_.., ., . , ~ . - j months. The employer urged me to find that secondments were equivalent ,,~. .{, \...~ ~1.. .:: ~ f t, ,,' ~ ; I ~ to leaves of absence and that any hours worked by unclassified employees h replacing dassifiedemployees away on sljch a leave snoufef not ,be considered for the purpose of making a calculation unqer Article 3 1 5 2 l~ "1 . ",- ,;;...'! t ....... l",. '''', .;....-/r. j ....:t ~.. ,t . ,..,t ~,.......,... With respect to the claim that the' entire process was a "shell game," I ' ~ employer - counse-I took t~e position that' while tHere vJereallegations to '"; ! ~'':'''. ~ 1.,;., _1""" ~ <,.,. " "I. that effect, those allegations were unsupported by evid(fnce 'Indeed, what ~ iC .... t !'}>: -:::-. . "\ r J evidence there was was to the exact oppbsiteeffect~ The personnel ..... .... _..,. it.; . :;..l- . ~ . _t'-'!' changes were made as a result of a bona fide 'process of post audits, and it - , , 'was a process tliat had taken place across the provilic~. 'Counsel noted that two of the transferred classified officers were transferred to fill ,~ . - v ~~ . ~ vacancies, and that one of the other five was intended' f6r a new position of r-, ~ ~. relief officer It was in large part because of the creation of this position r, ..~ ;~~ "'4, .-.;. ~, '~ '. ~ ;_ that the need for unclassified personnel' sigrii'ficantly diminished ; 5. .I.r~ "'r.::. r "'J, : .... L 1-. . i -;: .: ,f , _. .'-. - The employer did not dispute that it implementea the recommendation in the post audit to save money The fact of the matf~r' Was that there was an _ ~ ;- ") ~ (1.- _ ...~ ;:->"';> .'~ fl," overuse of unclassified employees at the NTC. Appropriate ch'anges were .: _, ,...\ r therefore made, and unclassified employees were now 'being used in exactly ~ the way anticipated in the Collective Agreement - namely, on an occasional - '" basis to fill vacancies which did not amounf to a fuli-time job. In this regard, employer counsel argued that there was absolutely no evidence before the Board about what took place at the Sault Jail, and the reasons ~ ~ . .- . for the redeployment of some of its personnel, other than that the classified employees involved were making use of their Article 24 rights Not only was there no management conspiracy to deprive the grievors of their Collective Agr~ement rights, there waS also n6 evidence of such -- - -. 10 activity. It was simply inappropriate, employer counsel qrQued, for the union to allege, a "shell game," but to not elicit any evidence in support of .'e f.. $ its allegation , " I "q (... ~! i \ Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the union succeeded in estab~ishing that the conditions precedent in the Collective Agreement for . t,..~ I ~ ~' a conver~~on were present, counsel argued that ~he effective date of that ! , conversion should be some time after the issuance of this award, and that ~ .... 11 ..... it. should not Qe backdated to the filing of the Qrieva?Ce~.. Too much water, - )-< i COUflseli argued, .had passed under the bridge, and too much disruption would ~e causeq by granting the kind of rem~dial order requested by the union , ~ given ~II, of the ,staffing changes that had taken place in the interim. There - , was, ttle employ.er argued, no need for any additional classified correctional \- {- i: :0.-; f.... .".. '" ~ officers at the ~T~, and the only effect of requiring a posting would be that the . ~uccessful a,pplicants would immediately find themselves placed on the ... t ... ; surplus list. It was noteworthy in any event, and in the employer's view fatal to the unior)'s retroactivity claim, that the union did nothing in the '"" t. .. afterl]1athof t~e restructuring following the post audit. Indeed, the ~ . - evidenc.~ established that it participated in that process instead of saying, as it migh~ have, "hey, this proGess is interfering with union rights." It hardly behQoved the union, in these circumstances, counsel suggested, to subsequently raise an extended retroactivity claim. l \-. Decision ,-- 1 ..:-.. :.. Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, I . have come to the conclusion that the instant grievances must be dismIssed With respect to the first issue, I find that the exception for "leaves of absence" does not apply to the hours worked by unclassified employees ";: a. \ 1 1- ~ FeplaCing:' dassifl!~d 'emplbye'bs- on secoridmen(." If the parties had wished to , broaden' the -Ianguagelof this p(o*ision, they we're, as w~s "noted by the ~ ~ ; Boarcf-hl th~ Union' Grievance, supra, decision:! free to do ~so. 'the satyle ~ , f.indings and" principles",that -applied fh that case equally apply! in this one ,I "The parties decided:'to'flimif the 'hours of an unclassified emp'lO"yee that - could be used' for cakul~tin~fthe 'number of full-time 'poJrtidns' where he or 'she was re'pfaeJn'g irClassiffed employee on a 'leave of absence; They did not , ) \ - '$' , decide to 'limit 'for th'es'e 'pu'rposes' the hours of a unclassified employee ..J le'placing a dassified' empioyee' ~6n a secoliilment. Had they' diosen to do so, i:'they' cdifld" ~have 's'aid 'as"mucn in their Collective Agreeme'nt. Accordingly, r , :and' 'for \vhatever this deciaratlon is worth, given my disposition of this ~' cas~ S,i" the 'me:rit~, I' fi'nd th'at?'the -hours worked by unclassifl'ed employees " repladng classified' employeesLon secondment count in terms' of meeting . die def'iriitidn of "full:ti'me " I ~ , ~ -, .r , ~, , (' I ,- Turning, however," to tfie merits, there is simply no basis -tefind that I anytHin~ .out Orthe ordi'na,y: took place in ,this case. While".'the' union alleged T' ., I an"'el'aborate' 'ishell"game~i and 'pointed to cf super.ficial similarity in numbers , ,'. .-'~".:. '. , I in sup~ort'of 'its 'assertion, ca'refully examined the evidence'i~reveals that I ch~hges' were made as a"'resul~ ,of the proper'exercise of managerial power, ! not as part of any conspiracy or activity directed at denying the grievors I - their rights Manage'tnent was dearly entitled in August 1994 to conduct a I I post audit anq to make staffing changes in the result. The _ ev!d~nce is f uncontradicted that five of the jobs were new classified positions, and two of them were replacement positions. There is no evidence about the circumstances underlying the changes at the S~ult Jail other than that the employees who moved over did so exercising their Article 24, rights .~;< ,. 12 However, even assuming. for th~ sak.e of ar9ument that these grievances su~ceeded on ~heir merits, ,a ,s9mewhat doubtful assumption given the , . . . ~vidence and the' precondi.tio~ of~ 1rticle }, 1 5 J'I r'hict:l requires that the ministry must determine II-ther~ .is ,~cQntinuing ,r;leed .fqr that work to be performed on a full-time .basis", 1 would ha\!e- still decline9 to..award a - . re~e~y in this ,case It is tr:uefenough that, the grievors filed their , grievance in 19,93., and. t,ha~ ~hQse grievances proceeded to, a, .hearing, which . : "" ,~ -- was adjourned, in. 1994- In. the. immediate aftermath of that adjournment certain. events occur:red The ~ni.on \Vas notified"of~ those ,events.. events J . that ,had an obvious impact on the remepy tnat n:)ight ,be, iachi~ved should the gri~vances ulti"'!ately prov~ sUGc:essful.. While union ~ounselsuggested in his, questioning of the management witness who te~tified th,~t; there was '. some obligation to inform counsel of ttlese changes, that C;an hardly be so 1 Any obligation that existed was met when the local union was informed in September 1 994 of the transfers of the classified employees and by its ,participation, in the rescheduling process at which time it could have raised as an objection the impact Of th9seevents on the right$, of the seventeen unclassified grievors. Had _ttle unic;>n taken issue with the changes in September 1 994 that would have been ,ope thing - waitil1g until November . J ! . 1995 i$ quite another (See Whi~eside/Stewart et al 330/9,2 (Kaplan) ) ~ > ~ Accordingly, and for the, foregoing reasons, the grievances are dismissed DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of November 1995 "< '- ,/ Ie.------ : l I . ~L______~___~~ William Kaplan Vice-Chairperson -, I