Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2008.Holder.07-03-29 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under Nj ~ Ontario GSB# 2005-2008 UNION# 05-09 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Canadian Union of Public Employees - Local 1750 (Holder) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) Ken Petryshen Ian Thompson Canadian Union of Public Employees - Local 1750 Gurgi t B rar Counsel Workplace Safety and Insurance Board October 10,2006; January 15,2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision In a grievance dated January 14,2005, Mr. G. Holder claims that the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement when it determined that he did not meet the established minimum requirements for the posted position of Work well Evaluator. The Union takes the position that Mr. Holder did meet the minimum requirements as set out in the posting and that the hiring party based his decision during the screening process on standards that were higher than those set out in the posting. The Employer takes the position that Mr. D. Easson, who at the time was the Assistant Director Safe Workplace Incentives and the hiring party for this competition, made a reasonable assessment of Mr. Holder's qualifications as disclosed in his application and correctly determined that Mr. Holder did not meet the minimum requirements for the position. The Union requests that I direct the Employer to rerun the competition for Mr. Holder. If Mr. Holder is successful after the interview and work sample stage of the process, the Union requests that I direct the Employer to place Mr. Holder in the Workwell Evaluator position and to compensate him for his losses. There was no challenge to my jurisdiction to hear and determine this grievance. The Workwell Program ("Workwell") is an incentive program that operates within the Employer's Prevention Division. Workwell is designed to improve health and safety in Ontario workplaces by levying additional premiums against firms who have a substandard health and safety record. As the title suggests, a Workwell Evaluator performs an evaluation of the occupational health and safety program of selected firms. As part of a comprehensive evaluation, the Workwell Evaluator will meet with the owner, senior management and a worker 3 representative and will complete a Core Health and Safety Audit document. He or she will observe the firm's practices and procedures, tour the workplace and conduct random interviews with workers on-site. A report is prepared which indicates the firm's overall score and identifies areas needing improvement. A firm requires a score of at least seventy-five percent to pass the evaluation. Firms which do not achieve a passing score have six months to improve and are re- evaluated. If the firm does not achieve a passing score of seventy-five percent when re- evaluated, an additional premium charge is applied, ranging from ten to seventy-five percent of the firm's base annual premium, depending on the extent and the nature of the health and safety shortfalls. The surcharge could be as high as $500,000.00. Eighty percent of firms fail the first evaluation and the same percentage of firms pass the re-evaluation by improving their health and safety programs. Following a decision to expand Workwell, the Employer posted for ten Workwell Evaluator positions on November 26,2004. Among other items, the posting sets out ajob summary, the responsibilities of the position and contains a section dealing with minimum requirements. The job summary and listed responsibilities in the posting are as follows: Job Summary: Create and manage a provincial industry cross-sector caseload of high-risk employers requiring health, safety and risk management intervention to achieve the WSIB Corporate Mandate and Vision to eliminate all workplace injuries/illnesses and have Ontario workplaces recognized as the safest in the world. Provide professional health, safety and risk management program auditing, consultation and/or training services for employers to identify opportunities, introduce new management concepts, and advocate the importance of developing or improving their health, safety and risk management systems. This will generate healthier and safer workplaces and the elimination or reduction of workplace injury/illness. Provide professional health and safety training and consultative services and/or act as a resource to provide expert matter advice and guidance to Health and Safety Association Consultants, Ministry of Labour Inspectors, Industry Consultants, Workplace Health and 4 Safety Representatives and to other WSIB staff to increase their knowledge and effectiveness. Lead and/or act on behalf of Branch management on internal and external project teams by providing and contributing a professional level of health and safety expertise to ensure the outcomes help achieve the WSIB Corporate mandate of eliminating all Ontario workplace injuries/illnesses. Responsibilities: Own and manage a caseload of 125 employer accounts from various area sectors province-wide. Conduct on site health and safety audits at a high-risk employers' premises to assess their health and safety programs. Review a firm's trend analysis to determine if the hazard/risk assessment tool was used correctly and if the hazard risk assessment is complete. Provide professional health and safety consultative services and/or act as a resource to provide expert advice, guidance and solutions to other professional health and safety providers such as HAS Consultants, MOL inspectors, industry consultants, employers and/or their representatives and WSIB Prevention Division management. Recommend, plan, design, deliver and evaluate training and educational programs for Workwell firms and their representatives, internal WSIB staff as well as "train-the- trainer" for health and safety consultants, MOL inspectors and employers. Lead and/or act on behalf of branch management on project teams by providing and contributing a professional level of health and safety expertise in planning, designing, setting, monitoring and adjusting goals, objectives and timeframes as required to ensure achievement of corporate prevention strategic goals. Identify and select firms for health, safety and risk management intervention by establishing a selection criteria, identifying priorities, considering impact, reviewing Experience Rating profiles and investigating MOL files. Participate in the development and improvement of workplace evaluation audit tools, processes, and incentive programs. Liaise with SW A's, MOL and other WSIB areas to keep abreast of legislative requirements, exchange information on health and safety program developments, forge stronger partnerships, maintain cooperation between the various programs and provide seamless service to our mutual customers. Lead or assist in the development and/or recommendation of operational standards, procedures and/or guidelines of which WSIB decisions are rendered, and hence are subject to objection and/or appeal (Workwell Audit Template Guidelines). 5 There are ten job requirements set out in the minimum requirements section of the posting. Since Mr. Easson determined that Mr. Holder did not meet the minimum levels for Health & Safety and Program Evaluation, I will only reproduce the references in the posting to these items, which appear as follows: Minimum Requirements: In order to screen into this job competition, applicants must meet the following minimum levels set for this position. Job requirements Level Description Health & Safety 6 Knowledge of FUNDAMENT AL principles and theories in a discipline or subject are sufficient for practical application to varied situations. FUNDAMENTAL: Rudimentary, practical application of specific knowledge. Program Evaluation 6 Knowledge of FUNDAMENTAL principles and theories in a discipline or subject are sufficient for practical application to varied situations. FUNDAMENTAL: Rudimentary, practical application of specific knowledge. Beside the description of Program Evaluation, the posting contains the following example: Measure h&s programs against known standards through audit. Use of evaluation/auditing techniques (doc. reviews, interviews, observations and analysis/assessment). The posting informed potential applicants that a job description was available from the Lotus Notes Job Posting System. It also advised that those who did not meet all of the minimum requirements to submit a current resume. 6 Mr. Holder applied for the position by filing an application and submitting a resume. Mr. Holder's current position identifies his present levels in various categories and there is no dispute that he was not rated at a level 6 for Health & Safety and for Program Management. In order to meet the minimum requirement in these areas he was required to establish that he had appropriate work experience or education. On his application form, Mr. Holder provided the following information relating to how he met the requirements for Health & Safety and Program Evaluation: Health & Safety - Level 6 Education: Certificates in Occupational Health & Safety Awareness WHMIS Basic Health & Safety Practical Application: Investigations - 15 years - Conduct on site claims investigations usually involving inspection of work-site. Inspection to determine cause of injury. H&S evaluation and education is common during workplace visits. Union Exposure - Joint Disability Management Committee Program Evaluation - Level 6 26 years WSIB experience dealing with the review, analysis, and practical application of evidence associated with WSI legislation, policies and procedures in rendering and supporting decisions. My attached resume provides clear examples and practical employment exposure to evaluation/auditing, document review and analysis/assessment, policy and procedure interpretation and impact assessment. Union representative actively involved in committees such as: Traumatic Mental Stress Pilot Program and the standing and working Committee lead for the application and evaluation of the Appeals Automated Scheduling Proj ect. 7 (see Resume for complete information) Mr. Holder has a seniority date of March 20, 1978. His resume refers to the positions he has held with the Employer, an overview of his skills and experience, his accomplishments and his educational background. He elaborated on these matters during his testimony. Mr. Holder started and worked for five years as a Claims Adjudicator. In this position, he made decisions on entitlement for workers claiming a work related injury. In this role, he assessed the nature and cause of workplace accidents which may have occurred due violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act ("OH&SA"), such as when machines were unguarded or protective clothing was not worn. He also made assessments as to whether a worker could return to work, given his or her medical restrictions and the kind of work that was available. Between 1983 and 1986, he was a Policy Development Specialist, Decision Review Branch/Appeals, engaged in research and development of policy and procedures, including the interpretation of legislative changes to the WSIA. This position also involved interpreting and recording new policies in manuals. Commencing in 1986, Mr. Holder was a Claims Training Instructor, Operations, involved in the training of new and existing staff about claims adjudication. He worked on a team with two other employees to research topics and to create training materials. From 1987 until the date of the competition in 2004, he was an Investigator, Operations & Special Investigations Branch. In this position, he investigated claims and then provided a written report of the facts to an Adjudicator or Appeals Officer who would make decisions on the claim. In this role, he would visit work sites, interview employees and witnesses, and review documents for the primary purpose of determining whether a worker's injury arose out of employment. While at a work location Mr. Holder would bring any health and safety issue he noticed to the attention of the firm. He testified that part of the job of an Investigator is to 8 promote workplace safety. His accomplishments as an Investigator included the reorganization of what was then called the "Fraud Unit" and successful prosecutions under the Criminal Code following internal and external investigations. Fora period of about a year between 1992 and 1993, Mr. Holder was a Manager, Operations, where he managed a team of approximately seven Claims Adjudicators. In this excluded position, he performed labour relations functions and he was involved in ensuring compliance with the OH&SA. In addition to his jobs with the Employer, Mr. Holder was the Union Chair of an Organizational and Change Committee for 2001 to 2002. His role on this committee was to ensure that changes in the organization were considered carefully to avoid job losses. Mr. Holder testified that he was on the Joint Disability Management Committee for a while and a unit coordinator on his floor and that both tasks included a health and safety component. Article 5 of the Collective Agreement deals with recruitment, selection, reassignment and transfers. The article commences with the following statement of intent: Statement of Intent To support the WSIB's principle of recruitment from within, and in recognition of the value to the organization of its employees, the parties agree to recognize knowledge, skills and abilities obtained through employment at the WSIB, and will promote internal development of skills essential to the success of the business. Article 5.02 contains the following screening provision: Assessment of Applications After the posting closes, all applications will be reviewed to determine whether the applicant has met the established minimum requirements. This will include a systemic review of each applicant's knowledge, skills and experience gained through WSIB employment. The results of the assessment will be communicated to each applicant prior to the beginning of the selection process. 9 Applicants who met the established minimum requirements were eligible for the selection process and placed on a list of preliminary candidates. In the selection process, they were scored on two selection tools. They wrote a three-hour work sample to gauge their health and safety knowledge. They also participated in a formal interview before a panel. The work sample and the interview each counted for fifty per cent of the final score. Those applicants who met the threshold of seventy-five per cent were identified as qualified for the Workwell Evaluator position. Bargaining unit applicants who met the threshold were selected based on seniority. Internal applicants were considered before external applicants. Mr. Easson received about sixty applications and he assessed them in light of the same criteria during the screening process. For internal applicants who were not at level 6 in Health & Safety, Mr. Easson looked for either the completion of a post secondary program in health and safety or relevant health and safety experience. A certificate from the Ryerson University health and safety program would satisfy the minimum requirement. As far as work experience was concerned, Mr. Easson looked at whether an applicant had a direct involvement in a health and safety program. He focused on their role and decision making authority in a program. He was interested in whether an individual developed a health and safety program, was responsible for the maintenance of such a program or had experience in auditing programs to ensure that appropriate standards were in place. Mr. Easson indicated that some of the external applicants who met the minimum requirement in this category had at least five years of this kind of work experience. He testified that a broad level of health and safety knowledge was required for the Workwell Evaluator position. There is no training program for the position and the successful applicants were expected "to hit the ground running". 10 To demonstrate the minimum level for Program Evaluation, applicants had to have experience in measuring, using auditing techniques, health and safety programs against known standards, either legislative or best practice standards. Mr. Easson testified that to meet the basic requirement in this category it was not sufficient to have had experience in evaluating programs that were not health and safety programs. He indicated that the example was provided next to the description of Program Evaluation to illustrate precisely this point. Mr. Easson reviewed Mr. Holder's application and his resume. Although it was evident that Mr. Holder had a wealth of investigation experience, Mr. Easson concluded that the information that he provided did not demonstrate that he met the minimum levels for Health & Safety and for Program Evaluation. With respect to Health and Safety, one of the most critical areas, the Mr. Easson noted that the internal courses Mr. Holder had taken did not satisfy the minimum level. Although his resume referred to "knowledge of Heath & Safety principles", Mr. Easson noted that there was no indication of how he acquired this knowledge or how it was applied. He felt that the practical experience Mr. Holder gained from working for the Employer did not met the minimum level for Health & Safety. Mr. Easson also concluded that there was no indication that Mr. Holder had any experience in evaluating health and safety programs and therefore fell short of the minimum level for this job requirement. In a letter dated December 7, 2004, Mr. Easson advised Mr. Holder that he did not meet the minimum requirements for the Workwell Evaluator position. Mr. Holder met with Mr. Easson on January 5, 2005, to discuss why he did not met the established minimum requirements. Mr. Holder sent an email to Mr. Easson on January 7, 2005, in which he provided "a brief synopsis of the contents of our January 5, 2005 meeting". The relevant portion of this communication is as follows: 11 The results of my understanding are as follows: Health & Safety - the position requires at the minimum a certificate, Ryerson University, for example provides an 8-course program that will meet the minimum requirements to qualify for writing the work sample. My education and work experience does not provide the sufficient qualifications to meet the level 6 requirement, which is usually, as mentioned above, to include an appropriate H&S certificate. Information Technology Program Evaluation Quality Management - We discussed the information that I listed under these categories and I was able to elaborate further on how my various positions and experience provide the necessary requirements to meet the levels required for the position. It is obvious that I did not provide sufficient detail on the application on the application for you to reach an informed decision. I apologize for this but was pleased that through further discussion we were able to conclude that my past history provides sufficient knowledge and experience to meet the requirements under these categories. Conclusion It would be appreciated if you could review the above information and comment on or add anything that I may have missed or misunderstood. Mr. Easson did not respond to Mr. Holder's email.Fromtheirdiscussion.Mr. Holder formed the view that Program Evaluation was no longer an issue. Mr. Easson's failure to address Mr. Holder's view in this regard served to confirm this perspective. However, as noted throughout this decision, the Employer continues to take the position that Mr. Holder did not meet the minimum requirements for Program Evaluation. Mr. Easson testified that during their discussion Mr. Holder indicated that he had some experience with evaluating noise abatement programs when investigating hearing loss claims. Mr. Easson testified that this was one of about one hundred and twenty elements of a health and safety program and that he never concluded or advised Mr. Holder that he met the minimum requirements for Program Evaluation. He testified that he did not respond to Mr. Holder's email because he was "up to my eyeballs in a recruitment process" and the email "slipped through the cracks". 12 In support of its position that Mr. Holder satisfied the minimum requirements and was entitled to compete for the Workwell Evaluator position, Mr. Thompson submitted that Mr. Easson utilized a higher standard during the screening process than the one set out in the posting. He referred to the requirements under Health & Safety and Program Evaluation, particularly the reference to "fundamental" as meaning "rudimentary". Mr. Thompson referred to a dictionary definition and submitted that "fundamental" knowledge means "basic" knowledge. He submitted that it is clear from Mr. Easson's evidence that he was looking for a more sophisticated and extensive knowledge in the disputed areas when compared to the basic knowledge required by the posting. Mr. Thompson noted, for instance, that the posting did not refer to a post secondary certificate in health and safety. He argued that using a higher standard in this instance had the effect of unfairly denying a senior employee like Mr. Holder the opportunity to compete for the position. Mr. Thompson argued that Mr. Holder did meet the minimum requirements as set out in the job posting. He submitted that knowledge of health ad safety and a focus on prevention are a part of the culture and nature of the work performed by most WSIB employees. In particular, he submitted that it is evident from Mr. Holder's work experience that he has a basic knowledge of Health & Safety. Mr. Thompson argued that Program Evaluation represents a skill set that can be applied to different contexts and that a review of Mr. Holder's work experience amply illustrates that he has a basic knowledge of Program Evaluation. Mr. Thompson also took the position that the Collective Agreement requires the Employer to consider carefully the knowledge, skills and experience gained through WSIB employment. He referred in this respect to the statement of intent and wording in the screening provision. In his submission, this obligation requires the Employer to seek clarification from an 13 applicant if there is some uncertainty in an employee's application. Mr. Thompson submitted that the screening process requires more than simply a paper review. In support of its submissions, the Union relied on the following decisions: Re Cape Breton District Health Authority #8 and CA. W-Canada, Locs 4600 &4603 (2003), 125 L.AC. (4th) 331 (Veniot), Re New Brunswick (South East Regional Health Authority) and C UP.E. (2005), 145 L.AC. (4th) 186 (Bruce) and Re Glen Haven Manor Corp. and C UP.E., Loc. 2330 (2006), 146 L.AC. (4th) 415 (North). Counsel for the Employer argued that Mr. Easson did not inflate the standard set out in the posting when screening applicants for the Workwell Evaluator position. He emphasized that the position involves the evaluation of health and safety programs of high-risk firms, an evaluation that can have serious implications for employees and the firms that employ them. Mr. Brar submitted that in determining what the minimum levels are for Health and Safety and Program Evaluation, it is necessary to review what is set out in the posting in the context of the nature of the position as disclosed in the job description. He argued that when this is done it is clear that the posting requires an applicant to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge in the two disputed areas. Mr. Brar argued that Mr. Holder did not meet the minimum requirements for Health and Safety and Program Evaluation. He submitted that Mr. Holder's primary work experience has been in investigations, which is essentially claims specific. With regard to Program Evaluation, counsel submitted that Mr. Easson was correct in determining that Mr. Holder did not have the kind of experience referred to in the example set out on the posting. Mr. Brar submitted that Mr. Easson's decisions on these matters were reasonable and deserved considerable deference. 14 Mr. Brar also argued that there is no obligation on the Employer to go beyond a review of the application and material submitted by an employee when engaged in the screening process. He did not dispute that the Employer is obliged to consider an employee's knowledge, skills and experience gained through WSIB employment. However, he argued that there is an onus on the employee or any applicant to provide the Employer with all of the relevant information so that it can consider the appropriate factors when deciding whether the minimum requirements have been satisfied. Mr. Brar submitted that, although not determinative in this case, Mr. Holder did not include enough detail about his work experience in his application and resume. In addition to referring to section 6:3100 in Canadian Labour Arbitration, Brown and Beatty, the Employer relied on the following decisions: Re Toronto (City) v. Toronto Civic Employees' Union, [2005] O.L.AA No. 588 (Starkman) and Vaughan (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 905, [2006] O.L.AA No. 334 (Luborsky). As the parties recognized, the primary issue arising from the grievance is quite narrow. That issue is whether Mr. Holder met the established minimum job requirements in the Workwell Evaluator competition. The onus is on the Union to demonstrate that he did meet these requirements, thereby entitling him to be included in the selection process. After considering all of the evidence and the submissions, it is my conclusion that the grievance cannot succeed. I do not agree with the Union's submission that Mr. Easson was obliged to follow up with an applicant during the screening process if there was information that required clarification. Although Article 5 of the Collective Agreement places many requirements on the 15 Employer when posting a vacancy, there is no specific reference to an obligation of the sort articulated by the Union. Indeed, the screening provision merely provides that "all applications will be reviewed" and indicates, in my view, that the review will include a consideration of an applicant's knowledge, skills and experience gained through WSIB employment, as disclosed in the application. Given the existence of a screening process, reasonable employees would understand that it is necessary to provide as much detail as possible about their knowledge and ability and that their failure to do so may have adverse consequences. Mr. Holder did not suggest in his testimony that he expected the Employer to make further inquiries if any information in his application was unclear. In fact, he apologizes as his email of January 7, 2005 to Mr. Easson for not including sufficient detail in his application. In any event, having considered the evidence, it is my view that any additional information or clarification that Mr. Holder could have provided with his application would not have affected Mr. Easson's determination of the matter or the result in this case. There is no doubt that Mr. Easson was required to assess all applicants during the screening process based on the established minimum requirements in the posting. Article 5.02(a) provides that all postings will include, among other items, the established minimum requirements. The screening provision itself compels a review of the application to determine if the applicant has met "the established minimum requirements". As referred to previously, the posting in this instance sets out the minimum job requirements for Health & Safety and Program Evaluation. An assessment ofMr. Holder or any other applicant based on higher standards than those contained in the posting would be inappropriate and contrary to the Collective Agreement. However, even if Mr. Easson utilized a higher standard than the one disclosed in the posting, the onus remains on the Union to demonstrate that Mr. Holder met the minimum requirements referred to in the posting. 16 I will first address whether Mr. Holder met the minimum requirement for Program Evaluation. I agree with the Union's submission that the description of Program Evaluation in the posting indicates, in effect, that basic and not expert knowledge is the minimum level required. However, in determining what basic knowledge consists of, it is necessary to take into account the example set out beside the description. This is the only job requirement where the Employer provided a specific example next to the description, which suggests that it intended to make clear what was necessary to meet the minimum level for this item. To reiterate, the example clearly indicates that basic knowledge of measuring "h&s programs against known standards through audit" was required. Simply having some general knowledge or experience in evaluating non-health and safety programs would not satisfy the minimum requirement. In assessing whether Mr. Holder met the minimum requirement for Program Evaluation, Mr. Easson did apply the standard set out in the posting. He concluded that Mr. Holder's application and resume did not disclose that he had the knowledge from experience that satisfied the established minimum requirement. In my view, his conclusion in this regard was both reasonable and correct. A careful review of the information about the tasks Mr. Holder performed at the WSIB as contained in his application and resume does not indicate any significant knowledge or experience in auditing health and safety programs against known standards. Although he recognized in his January 7, 2005 email to Mr. Easson that it was obvious that he did not provide sufficient detail for Mr. Easson to make an informed decision, the additional information in his testimony also did not demonstrate that Mr. Holder met the minimum level for this job requirement. In one sense, evaluation is a skill set that can be applied to various areas. However, it appears that Mr. Holder had little meaningful experience in evaluating programs. It is certainly the case that he did not have any experience that would 17 provide him with even a basic knowledge of auditing health and safety programs against known standards, which is what the minimum level in the posting required. It is unfortunate that Mr. Easson did not respond to Mr. Holder's email, leaving him with the impression that there was no longer an issue with Program Evaluation. However, the absence of a response from Mr. Easson does not alter the central issue, nor does it alter the clear evidence that Mr. Holder did not meet the minimum level for this item. I agree with Mr. Easson's assessment that Mr. Holder's experience in evaluating hearing loss claims is only one element of over one hundred that may constitute a health and safety program and is not sufficient to meet the minimum level referred to in the posting. By itself, the failure ofMr. Holder to meet the minimum requirement for Program Evaluation is sufficient to cause his grievance to fail. Since it is unnecessary to do so, there is no purpose in determining whether Mr. Holder met the established minimum requirement for Health & Safety. I simply note that there is merit in the Union's submission that Mr. Easson did use a higher standard than the established minimum requirement for Health & Safety set out in the posting. The description in the posting does suggest that a basic knowledge of health and safety is required and not a higher level as reflected by requiring a post secondary degree in health and safety or many years of experience in developing, auditing or supervising health and safety programs. It may very well be that the Workwell Evaluator position deserves the standard utilized by Mr. Easson. If so, this higher standard should have been included in the posting as the established minimum requirement. It is reasonable to assume that any future posting for the position will include a higher minimum requirement. 18 Mr. Holder obviously has some knowledge of health and safety matters. The more difficult question and one I found unnecessary to address is whether his knowledge is sufficient to meet the established minimum requirement in the posting. Mr. Holder is a senior employee, but his seniority standing is not relevant during the screening process. Indeed, seniority does not become a factor in a competition until an applicant is identified as qualified for a vacant position. Although Mr. Holder is obviously a valuable employee, his experience was not sufficient to meet all of the established minimum requirements for the Workwell Evaluator position. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Holder's grievance dated January 14,2005, is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2007.