Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFordyce 07-03-08 v ~ .1 . '" J IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN The Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("the Union" or "OPSEU") AND Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology ("the College" or "the Employer") And in the matter of the grievance of Jean Fordyce ("the grievor"), who contends she has be improperly denied leave to engage in union activities. ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- BEFORE: R.O. MacDowell (Chair) Michael Riddell (College Nominee) Ed Seymour (Union Nominee) APPEARANCES: For the Union: Mary Anne Kuntz (Counsel) Jean Fordyce Marg Rae For the College: Robert Atkinson (Counsel) Linda Ballantyne Sheila Wilson A hearing in this matter was held in London, Ontario, on April 24, 2006, and March 1, 2007. 1 'V . AWARD I - What this case is about - in brief This arbitration proceeding arises from the grievance of Jean Fordyce ("the grievor"), who is the President of OPSEU Locall09. Ms. Fordyce complains that in May/June 2005, the College improperly denied her request for additional time off, to engage in "trade union activity". The "union activity" in which Ms. Fordyce wished to engage, was described as "mobilizing" employees, in connection with the round of collective bargaining that was underway in the summer of 2005. This "mobilizing" involved communicating with employees about the bargaining, and orchestrating the employees' response to an anticipated strike or ratification vote. Ms. Fordyce contends that this kind of "mobilizing" activity is encompassed by Article 5.1.1 of Collective Agreement; and that her request for additional time off should have been granted. Ms. Fordyce also complains about the involvement of the College's Human Resources Department in responding to her request for additional time off. Ms. Fordyce contends that the decision to grant leave - or not - should have been made exclusively by her own local manager, and should not have involved anyone from the 2 ., ~ Human Resources Department. Ms. Fordyce maintains that the involvement of the Human Resources Department smacks of "anti-union animus". * We have used the words "additional leave" in the previous paragraphs because, as President of Local 109, Ms. Fordyce was already permitted to be off work, on union business, for three days per week, as a result of an existing arrangement with the College; and, she was occasionally away from her duties on other occasions as well (to assist at grievance hearings, to go to various meetings, to attend union conferences or training seminars, and so on). Accordingly, the request under review, would have meant that the grievor would be on a full time leave of absence, "for union business", from about May 2005, until the conclusion of collective bargaining, in the fall of 2005. And it was a request for an additional two days off per week, (= full time leave) for an indefinite period, because no one knew how the collective bargaining process was going unfold, or how long it would take to settle the terms of a new provincial agreement. However, it was anticipated that Ms. Fordyce would be off work, on a full time leave of absence, for the whole summer, and most probably into the fall. *** The College replies that the "mobilizing activities" in which Ms. Fordyce wished to engage, are neither contemplated nor permitted by Article 5.1.1 of the Collective Agreement; and thus there was no contractual basis for her claim for additional time off. In the College's submission, Article 5.1.1 simply does not apply to this situation. 3 , The College further asserts that there were legitimate operational reasons for denying Ms. Fordyce's request for additional leave, given the timing of that request, and the escalating work load in the department where Ms. Fordyce worked. The College asserts that, on that ground, too, the request for additional time off was properly denied. *** In summary, then, the College submits that for either or both of these reasons, Ms. Fordyce's grievance should be dismissed; because the College's refusal to grant the requested leave, was not a breach of the collective agreement. II -- Some Mechanics A hearing in this matter was conducted in London, Ontario, on April 24, 2006 and March 2,2007. The parties were agreed that this board of arbitration has been properly constituted under the terms of the collective agreement, and that we have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters in dispute between them. The relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement are as follows (emphasis added): 2.1 Interference The College and the Union agree that there will be no intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint or coercion exercised or practiced by either of them or their representatives or members because of an employee's membership or non-membership in the Union, or because of his/her activity or lack of activity in the Union. 2.2 Union Activities The Union agrees there will be no union activities on the premises of the Colleges, except as specifically referred to in this Agreement or approved in writing by the College. 4 , .... 5. Union Matters 5.1.1 Leaves of Absence Reimbursed by the Union Leaves of absence with pay mav be J!ranted to employees to permit their attendance at conventions. schools and seminars conducted by the Union and to employee(s) who are elected to the Executive Board of the Union or the Divisional Executive. The Union shall reimburse the College for all pay during such leaves and the College will endeavour to bill quarterly. 5.1.2 Leave of Absence - Union Representative Leave of absence with pay may be granted to: employee representatives who attend meetings with the College representatives on provincial matters; employee representatives who are members of the Employee/Employer Relations Committee, the Joint Insurance Committee (Support Staff) , Grievance Scheduling Committee, the CAAT Pension Plan and the Joint Classification Committee for the days of the necessary attendance at meetings of such committee; The Union shall reimburse the College for fifty percent (50%) of all pay during leaves of absence under Article 5.1.2. The College will endeavour to bill quarterly. 5.1.3 Union Negotiating Committee Leave of absence shall be granted to not more than seven (7) employee representatives selected to negotiate in the renewal of the Collective Agreement for necessary time off including travel time, direct negotiating time, and it necessary preparation time. The Union shall reimburse the College for all pay during such leave except for the days of shackled by the parties for direct negotiations and up to a maximum of ten (10) days if required, for meetings of the Union Negotiating Committee to prepare for and to complete bargaining. 5.1.4 Leaves of Absence - Conditions Leaves of absence described in Articles 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 shall not be unreasonably withheld. recognizing the need of efficiency of operations of the CollefIe. Where possible, the employee will 5 ~ ~ provide at least two (2) weeks of notice to the supervisor of the absence requested under Articles 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. 5.2 Time off In addition to time off granted under Articles 5.1 and 18.2.6, the College recognizes that additional time off during regular working hours may be necessary for the purpose of assisting employees and the Local Union in the administration of the collective agreement and the business directly pertinent thereto. In such case, the Local Union may advise the College of up to three (3) employees who may be appointed or designated hereunder, it being understood that any time off granted shall not hinder or interfere with the regular performance of the employee's duties and responsibilities. Unless otherwise agreed, time off for Local Union business hereunder shall not exceed: - a maximum of 18 hours per week where the Support Staff complement at a College is three hundred and fifty (350) or more. - the Local Union shall reimburse the College for twenty-five per cent (25%) of all pay for any leaves of absence granted hereunder on a regular basis as billed by the College. 5.3 Full Time Assignment Upon application in writing by the Union to the Human Resources committee with notice to the affected Colleges, a leave of absence shall be granted to two (2) employees from the Support Staff Bargaining Unit of the CAAT System elected to full-time positions with the union. Such leave(s) of absence shall be for a period of one (1) term of office two (2) years from the date of election) unless extended for a specific period on agreement of the parties. Such leaves of absence shall be without pay and benefits but the employee shall, notwithstanding Article 14.2, accumulate full seniority rights during such leave(s) of absence. * As will be seen: Article 2 of the Collective Agreement begins with the proposition that there will be "no union activities" on the employer's premises, without the written permission of the College, or as provided for in the Collective Agreement 6 .. -... itself. However, the Agreement then goes on to prescribe an elaborate formula, detailing what union activities will be permitted, when they will be permitted, who may be involved, what time may be devoted to these functions, and various formulas by which the College can recover some of the costs when employees are away from work for these purposes. The Agreement also makes it clear, in various places, that the granting of employee time off, should not compromise the operational needs of the College (see the emphasized portions of Article 5.1.4 and Article 5.2). Article 5 of the Collective Agreement ("Union Matters") distinguishes between leaves of absence which are "mandatory" ("shall be granted") and leaves of absence which are a discretionary (" may be granted"); it recognizes the need to balance requests for time off with the operational needs of the College (e.g. Article 5.1.4); and it acknowledges (at least implicitly) that when employees are away from their regular duties, there will be a "cost" to the College - either because their work will not get done, or because the employer will have to "backfill" for the absent employee in some way (by scheduling overtime for other employees, or by using part-timers to fill in, and so on). Moreover, there may be an operational impact, even if OPSEU picks up the wage costs for the person on leave; because covering the wage cost of the absence, does not deal with replacement issues or how to get the work done. * In our view, that is the kind of thing that the bargaining parties were getting at, when they referred in Article 5.1.4 of the Agreement to "the need of efficiency of operations of the College", and in Article 5.2 to "it being understood that any time off 7 ~ 1> granted shall not hinder or interfere with the regular performance of the employee's duties and responsibilities". They were flagging the potential work flow problems that may arise when someone is granted time off for union business. * We will have more to say about the Collective Agreement later. For present purposes, it is sufficient to repeat that Ms. Fordyce's claim is rooted in Article 5.1.1 of the Agreement; and that the College makes a double-barrelled reply: (1) that this provision has no application to the "mobilizing work" in which Ms. Fordyce wished to engage, and (2) that, in any event, Article 5.1.4, permits the College to limit employee time off, if there are good operational reasons for doing so - which the College says there were in the instant case. And, if either of these propositions is established, then this grievance must be dismissed. III - The background in a little more detail In the spring-summer of 2005, the Union and the Employer Bargaining Agency were negotiating for a new provincial collective agreement, that would cover the "academic" and "support staff' bargaining units, at the various colleges across Ontario. That is why the union wanted to have a "mobilizer". The union thought that it needed someone to educate and animate employees in connection with this provincial collective bargaining, and to prepare employees for the anticipated strike or ratification vote. 8 ~ The impetus for having a "mobilizer" came from OPSEU head office, and was based upon a practice which OPSEU had employed in the Provincial Public Service. The amount of "mobizer time" depended upon the size of the college. However, it was left to local union officials to work out the details. Some colleges had "mobilizers", while others did not. We do not know why there were these differences of approach. At Fanshawe College, the mobilizing work was originally assigned to Catherine Lemieux, who works in the book store. Ms. Lemieux was expected to spend three days per week on mobilizing activities. Or put differently: Ms. Lemieux needed a leave of absence for three days, per week, in order to act as "mobilizer". Ms. Fordyce testified that Ms. Lemieux was selected because: she had a history of taking time off for various reasons; she was not reluctant to request leaves of absence; and (as Ms. Fordyce understood it), Ms. Lemieux was not very busy, so that her absence from work could be more readily absorbed. Thus, there were discussions with Ms. Lemieux's local manager, and later with the Human Resources Department, about giving Ms. Lemieux time off, for "mobilizing". Initially, Ms. Lemieux's request for leave was approved. However, the College later had second thoughts about giving Ms. Lemieux three days off per week; so 9 ~ her authorized leave of absence was reduced from three days per week, to one-day per week. This Employer decision was grieved, and that gnevance was later resolved. However, in the result, (from the union's perspective) there were still two days per week of "mobilizing work" left to be done; and Ms. Fordyce decided at that she was the appropriate person to do it. Accordingly, on May 24, 2005, Ms. Fordyce sent an email [Exhibit 4] to her Department Manager, Doreen Whitehead, which reads, in part, as follows: "...Our college would only allow one day a week release for the member our local chose [Ms. Lemieux], citing operation requirements as the reason for the denial. I am requesting that the original mobilizer does it for 1 day release and the additional two days a week, release time be allotted to me so I can act as mobilizer for our local. Along with the original three day release time I have as Local President, this means I would be on full release until further notice. I await your response." [emphasis added] * We might observe, parenthetically, that this reference to Ms. Lemieux's situation is not entirely consistent with the evidence of Margaret Rae, the Union's Chief Steward; because, Ms. Rae testified that the College never asserted any "operational reason" at all for denying or modifying Ms. Lemieux's leave. It appears therefore, that Ms. Rae is mistaken in this regard; and, since both Ms. Rae and Ms. Fordyce adverted to discussions with Ms. Lemieux's manager about this very matter, it is evident that there was at least some consideration of how Ms. 10 " .. Lemieux's requested leave, would impact on the department where she worked. Which is why there is a reference to "operational requirements" in Exhibit 4. * Ms. Fordyce is one of six to experienced counter clerks who work in the College's Financial Aid Office. Their job is to process the documentation that students submit in order to obtain loans or grants, to ensure that the documentation is complete, and to do any necessary follow-up. The counter clerks also assist students in filling out the applications forms; because they are familiar with both the format of those documents, and the provincial rules governing financial aid. It is common ground that the Financial Aid Office plays an important role for the students, and for the College itself. Without the timely delivery of financial support, many students would find themselves in serious difficulty. Ms. Whitehead testified that the six experienced counter clerks playa critical role in helping the students navigate through the rules and forms that pertain to financial aid. Her evidence in this regard, is un-contradicted. The peak workload period for the Financial Aid office is from July to early September, when the bulk of the applications are processed; then again, in January, when there is additional activity pertaining to the second academic term. The work load follows the academic cycle, and is triggered by the filing and cash release dates stipulated by the Provincial Government. 11 .. .. Ms. Whitehead's observations are confirmed by Exhibit 9 - a work load monitoring document, which shows that about 63% of the documentation passing through the Financial Aid Office is processed in just four months: from June to September. That is why the department has a rule that only two counter clerks at a time can take their summer vacation during the normal "summer vacation" period; and no one is allowed to take vacation time off between mid-August to the end of September, or, again, in January (the beginning of the second academic term). The summer is a relatively slow time for the College, but it is a very busy time for the Financial Aid Office. These vacation rules were put in place in order to balance the needs of the students, with the understandable wishes of many employees to take their vacations during the summer vacation period. The rules recognize the operational needs of the College during the peak summer months That said, in the summer of 2005 the challenge facing Ms. Whitehead was more complicated than usual, because one of her regular counter clerks was off on sick leave, two others had regularly scheduled union responsibilities (Ms. Fordyce - 3 days/week, and Kim McCoy - 1 day/week), there was an office relocation that was scheduled to take place in July, and Ms. Whitehead did not have unlimited funds to hire part-time or backup employees. Moreover, Ms. Whitehead knew that even if additional part-time or casual help were available, these employees would require training and monitoring, because they would not have the experience of the regular counter staff. 12 . .. * That was the operational setting in which Ms. Whitehead received Ms. Fordyce's request for an additional two days off, per week - beginning at the end of May, and continuing for an indefinite period thereafter. * Ms. Whitehead testified that, III VIew of Ms. Fordyce's request for additional time off, she reviewed the workload that was likely to arise over the summer, and the human resources that she had at her disposal to meet the needs of the Department. Ms. Whitehead noted that a number of employees - including Ms. Fordyce - had already booked one or more weeks of vacation (the vacation schedule was finalized in March); and that Teresa Green was off on sick leave, and it was uncertain when she would return. Ms. Whitehead further noted that Ms. Fordyce was already away from the department, on union business, for three days per week; that Ms. McCoy (another counter clerk) was away, dealing with health and safety issues, for one day per week; and that both of these employees were often absent, on other occasions as well, as union needs required. And Ms. Whitehead considered whether part-time or temporary employees could fill the gap - eventually getting permission for a temporary position that was posted and later filled by Ms. Stewart, who started to work in July. * However, after considering the needs of the department, Ms. Whitehead concluded that she could neither agree to, nor authorize, Ms. Fordyce's request for an additional two days off per week, for an indefinite period, beginning at the end of May. * 13 .. . Ms. Whitehead testified that, III the ordinary course, she routinely authorizes Ms. Fordyce's requests for time off to engage III unIOn business. Ms. Whitehead does not normally question such requests. Nor, it appears, does she make any inquiry about what Ms. Fordyce is doing, or whether her activities fit within the ambit of the collective agreement. In the ordinary course Ms. Fordyce simply requests time off, and Ms. Whitehead routinely grants it. Indeed, Ms. Whitehead seems to have taken the view that she had no choice in that regard. This time, though, Ms. Fordyce had made a specific request for additional time off(= full time leave); and after considering the situation, Ms. Whitehead concluded that she could not grant that request. Nevertheless, in order to avoid any controversy or collision with whatever understandings Ms. Fordyce had with the College, Ms. Whitehead decided that she should communicate her position to Dave Evans, a recently hired manager in the College's Human Resources Department. Ms. Whitehead testified that she wanted to make it clear to Mr. Evans that she could not allow Ms. Fordyce additional time off during the summer; that granting such leave would negatively affect the work of the department; and that adding an untrained person would not make up the difference. Ms. Whitehead also supplied Mr. Evans with documentation to explain why her decision was necessary, and to show that the department could not "make up the time". 14 (,. . However, in the end, Ms. Whiteheads left it to Mr. Evans to communicate her decision to Ms. Fordyce; and Mr. Evans agreed to do so. According to Ms. Whitehead, Mr. Evans agreed to speak to Ms. Fordyce in order to make sure that she (Ms. Fordyce) understood why the decision was being made. However, Ms. Whitehead does not know what Mr. Evans actually said to Ms. Fordyce about the matter. Nor does Ms. Whitehead know whether Mr. Evans explained the situation to Ms. Fordcye, in the way that she (Ms. Whitehead) had explained it to Mr. Evans. Ms. Whitehead simply assumed that Mr. Evans would do so. * Mr. Evans is no longer an employee of the College, and did not give evidence in these proceedings. * Ms. Fordyce testified that Mr. Evans explanation touched on the practice at other colleges, but that he said nothing at all about the "operational needs" of the College. or the work load concerns of Ms. Whitehead. or the work load pressures at the Financial Aid Office. According to Ms. Fordyce, this assertion (i.e. that there were work- load concerns arising from her leave request) came as a complete surprise to her. Ms. Fordyce testified that the first time that she had heard anything about the work load needs/concerns of her home department was "today" - which is to say, on the first day of hearing in April 2006, almost a year after her request for additional time 15 ... ~ off was refused. Ms. Fordyce testified that Mr. Evans did not say anything about what Ms. Whitehead had told him about the work load situation in the Financial Aid Office. Nor did he canvass any of the reasons for denying the leave, that Ms. Whitehead had so forcefully put to Mr. Evans a day or two before (with supporting documentation), and which Ms. Whitehead repeated in her testimony before this board. According to Ms. Fordyce there was no discussion of work load or back up or fill in employees; or, indeed, (according to Ms. Fordyce) any suggestion at all, that Ms. Fordyce would be missed, or that allowing her full time leave would cause any concern at all. * In the result (according to Ms. Fordyce) the "operational concerns" advanced by the College in this case through the testimony of Ms. Whitehead, came as a complete surprise to her. * The College's official "reply" to Ms. Fordyce's grievance, (in September 2005) flags the College's position that requested leave does not "fit" within Article 5.1 .1 (i.e. "mobilizing" is not a "convention, school or seminar and conducted by the Union"). This "reply" does not advert to "operational considerations". * Ms. Fordyce took her vacation, as scheduled, during the summer of 2005, and, during that summer, she continued to have her regular three days off per week for union business. She was also away for a few days, in the second week of August, in order to attend a pension conference. Ms Fordyce did not do any "mobilizing". As we understand it, Ms. Rae picked up that responsibility. 16 0- " IV-Discussion and Disposition Under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, employees are free to join a trade union and participate in its lawful activities. However, there is no statutory right to engage in "union activity" on employer premises, or during working hours. Nor is that the starting point for employee rights under this Collective Agreement. On the contrary, Article 2.2 of the Collective Agreement makes it clear that such activities must either be authorized by the Employer in writing, or must fall within the parameters set out in the Collective Agreement itself. The Article 2.1 prohibition against "interference" with "trade UnIon activity", has to be read in light of these agreed-upon restrictions in Article 2.2. In the instant case therefore, it was legitimate for the College to consider whether Ms. Fordyce's leave request fell within the ambit of the negotiated provisions pertaining to union leave [Article 5]; and it was also appropriate to consider whether granting such leave would have an adverse operational impact on the College's needs [Article 5.1.4]. The fact that a refusal to grant additional leave might "interfere" Ms. Fordyce's desire or ability to engage in "trade union activity", ("mobilizing", in this case), does not determine whether such refusal is legitimate. Because there is no unqualified "right" to engage in such activities on College premises, or during normal working hours. 17 . . .. ... When the College receives a request for leave under Article 5, it is obliged to consider that request. But there is nothing in the Collective Agreement which confines these Employer considerations to the Departmental Manager to whom a leave request is made. Nor is there anything inappropriate about involving other levels of management - or, as here, the Human Resources Department. Indeed, it may make sense to have such "outsider" involvement, in order to ensure the consistent application of the Collective Agreement across departments, or to permit a detached consideration of the employee claim, by someone removed from local departmental concerns. A senior level of management may have a different perspective on the employee's absence; and may decide to permit such leave, despite the operational consequences or the views of the local manager. The Human Resources Department may also have a perspective on the application of the Collective Agreement, or on the desirability of granting leave. Nor is it irrelevant how other colleges have looked at the issue; because their approach may inform the interpretation of the Collective Agreement (which applies to them as well), and may be something that Fashawe might want to consider, when looking at the same issue on its own campus. There is nothing in the Collective Agreement which gIves the local Department Manager either a veto, or the exclusive right to speak for the College on such matters; nor should any adverse inference be drawn because of the involvement of other levels of management. Likewise, while the College (or a local manager) may choose to ignore the "contractual rules" on leave-taking, it is clearly not improper to consider 18 .. , ' . .. whether, and how, the Collective Agreement pertains to such requests. Or to consider the impact on the workplace and on other workers. Now, no doubt, the 10cal manager's opinion is likely to have significant weight (as we find it did in the instant case); and such 10cal manager may choose not to insist upon the strict application of the Collective Agreement. However, there is nothing sinister about involving the Human Resources Department in such determinations; and that is particularly so, where, as here: Ms. Fordyce's request for additional time off engaged the interpretation of Article 5.1.1; there had already been some controversy (involving Ms. Lemieux) about this kind of leave; and the Human Resources Department had been involved in that controversy as well. Indeed, in the circumstances, it would have been surprising if Human Resources were not involved, when Ms. Fordyce was asking (in effect) for full time union leave, for an indefinite period. * Be that as it may, we find on the evidence before us, that the effective decision maker in this instance was Ms. Whitehead, who went to Mr. Evans to explain why Ms. Fordyce's request for leave could not be granted - even though she was the Local Union President, and even though she was regularly absent from her duties for other union-related reasons. That was the message that Ms. Whitehead told Mr. Evans to deliver; and she left it to Mr. Evans to deliver it. Ms. Whitehead told Mr. Evans that additional leave could not, and should not be granted; and, there is no doubt whatsoever that there were sound operational 19 , . .. ... reasons for that view, given the escalating workload in Ms. Fordyce's department, during its busiest period, and given the other employee absences or limitations that Ms. Whitehead was seeking to cover. And as Mr. Evans told Ms. Fordyce: there was no consistent practice at other colleges, which might have prompted Fanshawe to take a different view. * It is odd that Mr. Evans was not more explicit with Ms. Fordyce about the "operational reasons" for denying her additional leave. And that is especially so, in light of the earlier discussions about Ms. Lemieux's leave of absence, and Mr. Evan's prior conversation with Ms. Whitehead - who, to repeat, had told Mr. Evans, clearly and forcefully, that Ms. Fordyce could not be spared. and that he should deliver that message to Ms. Fordyce. Against that background, it is curious that (at least as Ms. Fordyce recalls it) Mr. Evans did not mention the work load needs of the College at all, nor say anything about what Ms. Whitehead had said to him about the situation in the Financial Aid Office, or the potential work load problems that she thought would arise, if Ms. Fordyce's leave were granted. Moreover it is evident that Ms. Fordyce herself was aware of the possibility operational concerns, both because of the discussions in her own department about past leaves of absence, and because she herself considered such matters when deciding that Ms. Lemieux would be a good candidate for "mobilizer". Ms. Lemieux 20 /0 " y . was picked, in part, because Ms. Fordyce thought that, over the summer, she could be spared from her job in the bookstore. Ms. Fordyce also knew that her own absence from the Financial Aid department could have an impact on service to students. That is why she testified that she took that into account when requesting time off; and that is why she said that she had always "fought for" a replacement, to cover such situations. Because she knew that her time away from the department, could have an adverse effect on students. So perhaps Mr. Evans thought that Ms. Fordyce already knew about the situation in her own department during the peak summer period, or that she was already aware of her own manager's views about the matter. However, we did not hear from Mr. Evans, so we decline to speculate. Because the fact is: there were legitimate operational reasons for denying this particular leave request; and whether or not those reasons were fulsomely communicated to Ms. Fordyce, at the time, we are satisfied that there has been no breach of the Collective Agreement. * Finally, given our conclusion concerning the application of Article 5.1.4 to these circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the leave request (for "mobilizing") fits within the ambit of Article 5.1.1. Nor need we speculate about the ambit or elasticity of that provision. Because, even if it does apply to "mobilizing" (as 21 f" ... ~~ 4l> described above) we are all of the view, that the leave requested by Ms. Fordyce, in this instance, was legitimately refused. * For the foregoing reasons this grievance is dismissed. DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2007 R.O. MacDowell, for the board '\ \ 22