Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThomson 18-03-19IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Algonquin College (“the College”) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“the Union”) Classification Grievance of John Thomson - OPSEU # 2017-0414-0003 ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims APPEARANCES: FOR THE COLLEGE: Brianna Sutton – Labour Relations Consultant and College Spokesperson Andrea Barton – Human Resources Business Partner Betty Baxter – PMO Manager Connie Powers – Acting Manager, Organizational Effectiveness FOR THE UNION: Jan Strickland – Steward and Union Spokesperson John Thomson – Grievor Veronica Attard – Union Representative and Observer Hearing held in Ottawa, Ontario on March 1, 2018 AWARD 1. The grievor holds the position of Project Lead/Project Management in the Program Management Office (“the PMO”) of the College‟s Information Technology Department. He filed a grievance dated April 27, 2017 alleging that the Position Description Form (“the PDF”) pertaining to his position did not reflect position duties, that the position was improperly classified at Payband K, and that it should be classified at Payband L. 2. There were no objections regarding my jurisdiction or the arbitrability of the grievance. 3. Communication was the only factor in dispute in these proceedings. The College rated this factor at level 4, regular and recurring. In the Union‟s submission, it should be rated at level 5, regular and recurring. Further, while the content of the PDF was no longer in and of itself in dispute by the time the hearing was convened, the Union was of the view that one of the examples of “obtaining cooperation or consent” included under “Communication” reflects “negotiating” and should be recorded accordingly. 4. The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) describes levels 4 and 5 Communication as follows: Level 4: Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to instruct, train and/or gain the cooperation of others. Level 5: Communication involves imparting information in order to obtain agreement, where interests may diverge, and/or negotiation skills to resolve complex situations. 5. The Manual provides the following definitions Explain – provide details or examples to help others better understand the information. Negotiate - exchange views and proposals and obtain agreement with the aim of reaching agreement by shifting possibilities, proposals, and pros and cons. Issues are complex and outcome could be contentious. 6. The Notes to Raters state as follows: 2 To clarify the differences between “gaining cooperation” in level 4 and “negotiation” in level 5: The assigned communication and interpersonal skills needed at both of these levels are at an extremely high level. “Gaining cooperation” refers to the skills needed to possibly having to move others to your point of view and gaining commitment to shared goals. The incumbent works within parameters determined by the department or College and usually there is a preferred outcome or goal. The audience may or may not have divergent views. “Negotiation” refers to having the authority to commit to a solution or compromise. An incumbent who communicates at this level also works within broad parameters and the preferred outcome is also broadly defined. The incumbent needs to have the skills/tools to reach an agreement that is then binding on the College. Normally, the audience will have divergent views or opposing objectives. Some people use the word “negotiation” for making arrangements that are relatively straightforward (e.g. negotiating a meeting date). In those situations, that type of communication would typically be considered an exchange of routine information. The use of the word “negotiation” is therefore quite specific in this factor. 7. The Position Summary found in the PDF sets out the following “concise description of the overall purpose of the position:” Reporting to the Manager, Project Management Office, the Project Lead/Project Management role is a key member of the Project Management Office (PMO) and is responsible for the planning, execution and delivery of the IT Infrastructure portion of larger projects being managed by a consultant Project Manager. The Project Lead, in conjunction with the consultant Project Manager assigned to the larger project, ITS management, ITS and client staff delivers on the IT scope for the project. The incumbent is responsible for coordinating, monitoring and reporting on the IT infrastructure components of the project. The Project Lead/Project Management Incumbent is accountable to delivering the identified IT infrastructure project requirements aligned with the larger project schedule and within budget. The incumbent is responsible for validating IT Infrastructure project requirements and for managing the project work as a matrixed reporting structure. The Project Lead is responsible for coordination of the moves, adds and changes (MAC) that occur to the College‟s structured IT cabling infrastructure as well as ensuring the service requests related to these activities are managed and fulfilled. 3 As a Project Lead/Project Management, the incumbent is occasionally called upon to manage a large, complex infrastructure project without another consultant Project Manager overseeing the incumbent the IT requirements (sic) and is capable of managing expectations and stakeholder interests that span several areas of the College. The Project Lead/Project Management incumbent is responsible to deliver the Infrastructure requirements and manage all infrastructure related project work. 8. The PDF further describes in part as follows the position‟s “significant duties and responsibilities:” Approximate % of time annually Moves, Adds and Change Coordination 50%  Coordinates the moves, adds and changes (MAC) that occur to the College‟s structured Cabling infrastructure as well as ensuring the Service requests related to these activities are managed and fulfilled.  Assesses and investigates current cabling situations and designs the solution . . . .  Creates and issues work packages that identify specifications for cable contractors  Procures contractor to complete relevant parts of the MAC work package  Communicates required timelines, tracks and manages the contractor work delivery  Manages the MAC budget allocation and performance  Tracks and reports on MAC activities Stakeholder Management and Communication 25%  Communicates project objectives, requirements, deliverables, dependencies, and timelines to the project stakeholders and team members.  Provides project progress updates. . . .  Keeps the PMO and key stakeholders aware  of progress on each project.  Advises and escalates concerns and risks. . . . .  Ensures that the status reporting process adhered to . . . .  Coordinates with and/or manages external resources and vendors . . . . 4 Project Initiation and Delivery 10%  Collaborates with College and project stakeholders to define project objectives and requirements and to complete all required project management documentation . . . .  Identifies human resource requirements and collaborates with the PMO and Resource Management Office . . . .  Organizes, manages, prioritizes and is accountable for all project deliverables.  Manages the team members‟ completion of project work and manages and resolves resource allocation conflicts.  Ensures that the project objectives . . . align with the strategic goals of the College.  Assesses and manages risks and issues . . . and follows . . . escalation procedures . . . .  Ensures that project deliverables adhere to quality and customer-service standards.  Ensures that . . . project deliverables adhere to . . . appropriate approval process and follow . . . project management framework. . . . .  Engages in contingency planning. . . and recommends solutions.  Maintains. . . project records. . . .  Conducts . . . status meetings. . . . Develop Project Management Office (PMO) Processes, Standards and Tools 5% . . . Budget Control 5% . . . Performs other related duties as assigned 5% 9. The PDF describes as follows the Communication skills required by the position: Communication Skill/Method Example Audience Frequency (D, W, M, I)* Exchanging routine information, extending common courtesy Discusses status of work performed and work in progress. Collecting project deliverable status information for status reporting. Clients, College Community, Managers, support staff and contractor D 5 Communicating during project meetings. Distributing project information and status. Requesting approval for project deliverables. workers Explanation and interpretation of information or ideas Review, create and communicate a plan for a proposed change to the College’s technical infrastructure to generate agreement and signoff. Communicating the risks and issues and the associated mitigation or action plans. College Community W Imparting technical information and advice Provides project information and guidance on the direction of the project. Trains the process as required to new staff on how to perform infrastructure coordination tasks. Project delivery teams, Managers and technology user groups I Instructing or training Obtaining cooperation or consent The incumbent participates in the creation of work packages for vendors/contractors for IT infrastructure requirements. The incumbent is responsible for securing agreement and commitment on schedule, scope and budget for projects from vendor/contractors and must manage the stakeholder’s interests to ensure that agreement is obtained. Product and Service vendors Clients Senior Managers Team members W Negotiating 10. The parties delivered pre-hearing Briefs in accordance with article 18.5.3.4 of the collective agreement, and the grievor and PMO Manager Ms. Baxter gave evidence in the hearing. 11. While the facts underlying the grievance were largely undisputed, how those facts should be characterized was contentious. The Union argued that the Project Lead/Project Management 6 engages in “negotiation,” while the College argued that Communication “to gain the cooperation of others” is required. 12. The grievor described his role in the initiation, planning, execution and delivery of the IT infrastructure portion of larger projects managed by a consultant Project Manager, the occasional management of large, infrastructure projects without another consultant Project Manager, and the coordination of Moves, Adds and Change (“MAC”) to the College‟s structured IT cabling infrastructure. 13. There was no dispute that the parameters of large projects, including scope, schedule and budget, are determined by a Steering Committee. The grievor sometimes sits as a Committee member, and he makes recommendations to the Committee. His evidence was that the Steering Committee formulates a “wish list” and that he then works within the parameters established by the Committee through a planning phase, and determines the required resources. If it becomes apparent that a project cannot be undertaken within the defined parameters, he goes back to the Steering Committee. 14. Both the grievor and Ms. Baxter described the grievor‟s responsibility for creating work packages. The Analysis and Problem Solving section of the PDF states in this regard that the position develops “a work package for the vendor/contractor to meet the target scope and perform the work within budget and time constraints.” 15. Ms. Baxter noted that there are procurement guidelines in place and predefined vendors with which the College works, as well as guidelines as to how much such vendors bill for specific work. The grievor testified that the College is party to a contract with Bell which sets out agreed upon rates associated with certain types of work performed by Bell or its subcontractors. He described as well that when work to be undertaken by Bell or its subcontractors is beyond that 7 encompassed by such contract, or where vendors other than Bell or its subcontractors perform work, he obtains quotes and submits them to Finance for approval. The grievor testified that once quotes are thereby approved, he authorizes a contractor to proceed with work. He expressed the view that he thereby binds the College to payment. 16. The grievor and Ms. Baxter both described that he “makes sure that the right people are in” to safely perform the work as scheduled. The grievor testified that he “monitors and controls” projects and schedules, and negotiates with external contractors to ensure successful project completion. He testified that this involves “constant communication” and that he provides feedback to the Steering Committee. The PDF as it relates to Guiding/Advising Others states that “the incumbent guides other ITS staff and external contractors to ensure that infrastructure related projects are completed satisfactorily.” It states as well that the incumbent is “responsible to assign duties to the infrastructure team (IST), recommending an appropriate course of action and following up to ensure tasks are completed,” that he “assigns tasks/work plans to external partners with detailed instructions explaining completion success criteria,” and that he oversees implementation “to ensure successful task/project completion.” 17. The grievor testified that projects sometimes “go off the rails” and that he addresses revisions in scope, schedule and budget of larger projects with the Steering Committee through the project change request process. The PDF relating to Service Delivery reflects that the grievor communicates and resolves “daily project issues” that “can vary from simple to detailed and complex.” The grievor described that if a project is behind schedule, he might negotiate with the vendor to work different shifts. He testified that if the projected schedule is to be impacted by ten per cent or more, he refers this to the Steering Committee through the project change request process. 8 18. The grievor gave evidence that he “signs off” once work is complete before payment is issued by the College. 19. The grievor and Ms. Baxter addressed the Mobile Learning Project. This involves the preparation of classrooms each summer for the school year. The grievor noted the evolution of his role with this project over the past six years, and testified that there is no “external manager.” 20. The grievor and Ms. Baxter addressed the position‟s responsibility for MAC coordination. The grievor noted that there is no Steering Committee for smaller projects, and that he “runs the whole project from start to finish.” He is involved in approximately 250 of these projects in a year. Upon receipt of a client request, he “figures out” what is needed. He obtains and provides to the client estimates for the work involved. Ms. Baxter emphasized, and the grievor accepted, that there is no negotiation involved in obtaining such quotations for requested work, and that the client decides whether to proceed or not once the quote is provided. If the client chooses to proceed, it provides the grievor with the cost centre to which the work is to be charged, and the grievor then assigns the work package to a contractor. The grievor stated that he thereby binds the College to pay for the work involved. The grievor coordinates time lines with contractors and ensures that work is completed. At the end of each month, the contractor sends its bill, and the grievor‟s evidence was that he “authorizes” payment. Ms. Baxter characterized this differently, stating that the grievor confirms completion of work before payment is issued. She gave evidence that neither she nor the grievor has authority to bind the College to contractual commitments. 21. While the parties agreed to enter in evidence a work package relating to a cable drop, the grievor noted that even “smaller” projects can be “beefier.” He described his role in 9 coordinating with vendors to ensure completion of work within project parameters, indicating that he draws on his good working relationships in doing so. 22. The Union outlined in its Brief examples which it suggested reflect negotiation required in the grievor‟s position. Example # 1 addresses the grievor‟s role in coordinating MAC. The evidence established that the grievor gathers information regarding client requirements, and provides clients with cost estimates for the work contemplated. If the client then chooses to proceed with the project, the grievor obtains funding cost center information from the client, and creates work packages for external cabling contractors. The grievor suggested that he thereby “binds” the College to pay for services and later “authorizes as correct” monthly bills received from vendors and paid through the College‟s Budget Officer. Again, Ms. Baxter disputed the Union‟s characterization that the grievor binds the College to contracts with vendors, and suggested that he does not have the authority to do so. She accepted, however, that he validates the completion of work based on predetermined parameters. 23. Example # 2 in the Union‟s Brief addresses the grievor‟s role associated with the installation of an outdoor emergency phone at the College‟s Perth campus. The grievor provided the client with “rough quotes” for the work in question, and once “given the go-ahead to move forward,” obtained quotes from contractors and instructed them to proceed. In the Union‟s submission, he thereby bound “the College to payment.” The Union suggested that the grievor in these circumstances negotiated not only with respect to the scheduling of the work, but also with respect to contractor availability and to correct performance of the work. 24. A third example included in the Union‟s Brief pertains to “decanting exercises to accommodate construction of the new „Dare District.‟” The grievor described his responsibility for managing what he characterized as a massive and challenging undertaking. He gave evidence 10 that he worked closely with cabling contractors and with 300 affected staff members and students, and that this involved a lot of “juggling” and coordination. He testified that he “chunked” work into 23 different work packages and negotiated where there were “different points of view regarding how to do things.” He further testified that he negotiated with contractors to ensure that the necessary resources were made available. He described such “negotiation,” indicating that he requested specific individuals to perform the work in issue, specific numbers of workers, and specific timing. The Union noted in its Brief that “cabling contractors have other customers throughout Ottawa” and that “to get them to give up these resources to come to Algonquin takes skillful negotiating. . . .” Ms. Baxter acknowledged a need for coordination and communication to “get the right people in at the right time” but suggested that this reflected a need to “gain the cooperation of others.” 25. The Union noted that the PDF states that the grievor is “responsible for securing agreement on schedule, scope and budget.” It referred to a dictionary definition of “negotiation” as “a discussion that is set up or intended to produce a settlement or agreement.” In the Union‟s submission, the grievor is responsible for “securing agreement and commitment . . . which is binding on the College.” It argued that he thereby negotiates and “re-negotiates” to ensure that projects “stay on track.” The Union asked me to find that the grievor negotiates agreements with “outside vendors” with respect to “delivery of services/hardware/software/timelines/scope” and with respect to required resources. The Union asserted as well that the grievor negotiates with “external contractors to work extra hours/modify work hours” to meet scheduling needs, and that he “re-negotiates” timeline and budget with vendors, contractors and internal stakeholders to keep projects on track. It referenced in this regard the “project change request process.” It further stated that the grievor negotiates with “internal clients where agreement from all is 11 required,” and with Functional Managers to ensure that internal resources are matched to appropriate projects, with “multiple, competing projects running concurrently.” 26. The Union emphasized that the grievor solves problems when “planned changes will not work,” and argued that he engages in negotiation in doing so. It noted in its Brief by way of example that the grievor devised a “solution to keep . . . Security‟s equipment up and running” during construction, insofar as he “negotiated” to “have one switch running in construction zone” until a new conduit was “installed to new Telecom Room.” The Union described as well in its Brief “negotiation” with contractors to “accommodate changing schedules by using workarounds.” It stated that the grievor “negotiates” or “authorizes” changes when required. It offered as an example in its Brief conduits not fitting in a wall as per plan. In the Union‟s submission, the grievor “negotiates” compromise such as reducing conduit size, or changing conduit style or location. 27. The Union‟s representative argued that the grievor chooses the subject matter expert and looks at what needs to be done. The Union acknowledged that the position does not determine overall project parameters, but argued that it engages in negotiation once projects, small or large, are underway. It emphasized that the grievor is accountable for project deliverables, and ensures that work is completed on schedule and within budget. The Union noted that the grievor solves problems encountered along the way to ensure that projects are completed, and that budget may require re-negotiation by “going back” to the Steering Committee. The Union‟s representative acknowledged that negotiation may not be required when all “goes smoothly,” but suggested that “something always comes up” so that the grievor must negotiate with “different personalities” to ensure that projects are completed within defined parameters. The Union argued as well that the 12 grievor “binds” the College to payment of external contractors “at least within his level of authority.” 28. The Union suggested that the Communication role in this position goes beyond gaining the cooperation of others. In its submission, the term “negotiation” as used in the Manual is broad. The Union emphasized that the grievor makes decisions and recommendations, and negotiates solutions, schedules and “what is needed” in doing so. It urged me to find that negotiation is required in the grievor‟s position and that on that basis, Communication should be rated at level 5. 29. While Ms. Baxter noted the grievor‟s “excellent” work, the College emphasized that the scope of projects in which he is involved, including budget, is predetermined. The College stated that he neither enters into nor signs contracts binding the College, and that he has no authority to do so. It asserted in its Brief that the position does not negotiate with outside vendors, or with internal clients. It suggested that there is a “preferred outcome or goal” to be attained in the projects undertaken, and that the grievor‟s role is to assist in reaching that goal. He plans and coordinates to do so, and engages in a high level of Guiding/Advising, as reflected by the level 5 rating assigned to that factor. The College acknowledged that the grievor may seek shared commitment or agreement to scheduling changes, and that certain “back and forth” may be required in the execution of projects, but it disputed that this reflects negotiation as contemplated by a level 5 Communication rating. It argued that the level 4 rating of this factor should be confirmed. 30. The PDF and the evidence before me must be assessed in the context of the factor definitions set out in the Manual, the relevant terms defined therein, and the Notes to Raters. 31. Level 4 Communication, according to the Manual, “involves explaining. . . information . . . to gain the cooperation of others.” The Notes to Raters state that “gaining cooperation” refers to 13 “the skills needed to possibly having to move others to your point of view and gaining commitment to shared goals.” The Notes further state that “gaining cooperation” contemplates that the incumbent works within parameters determined by the department or College and that there is “usually” a “preferred outcome or goal.” The audience may or may not have “divergent views.” 32. The Union emphasized that the PDF includes as an example of “obtaining cooperation or consent” the position‟s responsibility “for securing agreement and commitment on schedule, scope and budget” and for management of “stakeholder‟s interests to ensure that agreement is obtained.” I note that it includes as well as an example of “explanation and interpretation of information or ideas” the position‟s responsibility to “review, create and communicate a plan for a proposed change to the College‟s technical infrastructure to generate agreement and signoff.” 33. The position‟s duties and responsibilities were addressed in some detail by the parties through their Briefs and through their largely uncontested evidence in the hearing. The grievor is responsible for planning, execution and delivery of the IT Infrastructure portion of “larger” projects, and for the coordination of MAC projects and the management of related contractor work delivery. The parameters of larger projects, including budget, scope and schedule, are determined by a Steering Committee to which the grievor may make recommendations. The grievor described as well the process by which budget/funding approval is obtained from clients prior to undertaking work. Once there is a decision to move forward with a project, the grievor is responsible for ensuring that the “right people are in” to perform required work on schedule. While matters such as requested budget increases on larger projects are referred back to the Steering Committee, the grievor is expected to address and resolve many of the issues that may be encountered once projects are underway. As the grievor noted, projects sometimes “go off 14 the rails” and he seeks solutions. The grievor‟s evidence established as well that he “signs off” completion of work before payment is issued by the College. He is accountable for “project deliverables.” 34. Having considered the PDF and the parties‟ evidence regarding the Communication role associated with the grievor‟s position, including the specific examples addressed by the Union, a level 4 rating as defined in the Manual appears to be a good fit. The evidence demonstrated that the grievor communicates to gain the cooperation of others, both in the context of larger projects with parameters determined by Steering Committees, and in coordinating MAC projects. It established that he seeks commitment to what is best described as “shared goals,” whether those involve scheduling logistics, solutions to problems encountered in the execution of projects, resource allocation issues or other matters. In doing so, he works within predetermined project parameters, with a “preferred” project outcome. 35. I have considered the Union‟s argument that “negotiation” is required in the position, and that level 5 is on that basis the appropriate rating for Communication. The Union emphasized that the PDF reflects a role in “securing agreement and commitment.” The Manual notes that “some people use the word „negotiation‟ for making arrangements that are relatively straightforward (e.g. negotiating a meeting date),” but that the word “negotiation” is “quite specific in this factor.” Insofar as the Union relied upon a dictionary definition of “negotiation,” it is the definitions set out in the Manual and the Notes to Raters that guide my determination here. 36. While both the PDF and the evidence adduced in these proceedings underscore the position‟s responsibility for project coordination, and while the grievor was clear in describing 15 the communication challenges inherent in that role, a requirement for “negotiation” as defined and described in the Manual, was not demonstrated. 37. In so concluding, I have considered each of the examples relied upon by the Union. I noted in particular the grievor‟s description of his role in the recent “decanting exercises.” The grievor described challenges in ensuring that the right people and the right number of people were on the job at the right time, so as to permit the project to proceed as planned. While I do not minimize what was involved, and while I am mindful of the language of the PDF relied upon by the Union, the evidence did not reflect the “exchange” of “views and proposals” and “reaching agreement by shifting possibilities, proposals, and pros and cons” where “issues are complex” and “outcome” possibly “contentious” as contemplated by the Manual‟s definition of “negotiate.” Rather, it reflected Communication to “gain the cooperation of others” as that is described in the Manual. The same must be said of the other examples relied upon by the Union. 38. The Notes to Raters are helpful in distinguishing between Communication to gain the cooperation of others and negotiation. The Notes are clear that negotiation contemplates “having the authority to commit to a solution or compromise,” with the incumbent working within “broad parameters,” with a “preferred outcome” that is “broadly defined.” They state as well that the incumbent needs the “skills/tools to reach an agreement that is then binding” on the College, and that the audience “will have divergent views or opposing objectives.” 39. “Negotiation” so described was not reflected in the evidence here. On the evidence before me, parameters of larger projects with which the grievor works are predetermined, and there is “usually” a preferred project outcome. While the grievor‟s project management, monitoring and problem solving roles were addressed in the context of both larger projects and smaller MAC projects, the evidence did not demonstrate “the authority to commit to a solution or 16 compromise” within “broad parameters” and with only a “broadly defined preferred outcome.” The evidence reflected the grievor‟s responsibility for addressing significant scheduling challenges, particularly with respect to the “decanting exercises.” It did not, however, establish a communication role beyond one of gaining commitment to shared goals. Nor did it establish that the relevant audience had “divergent views or opposing objectives.” The grievor described as well his role in engaging contractors to perform work once budget or estimates have been approved through required mechanisms, and his role in “signing off” the completion of work in accordance with predetermined project parameters before payment from the College issues. While I considered the Union‟s argument that the grievor thereby “binds” the College within the scope of his authority, the evidence did not demonstrate “the authority to commit to a solution” within the parameters contemplated at level 5. Nor did the evidence reflect within those parameters a need for “skills/tools to reach” agreements binding on the College, as addressed by the Notes to Raters. 40. Accordingly, having considered the PDF, the evidence and the submissions of the parties in their entirety, I am not satisfied that a level 5 rating is warranted for Communication. Rather, I am of the view that Communication is appropriately rated at level 4, regular and recurring. 41. I therefore confirm the College‟s rating of Communication at level 4, regular and recurring, and dismiss the grievance. 42. I thank both parties and the grievor for their assistance in these proceedings. DATED at TORONTO this 19th day of March, 2018 “M. Tims” __________________________________________ Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator tiCip/ O C � M t0 OD ry N W N W Dr t0 po v O D 2 O =F n to Z fFIN v �• 0 a� In or ' r � rt v A rn O n @ 3 o th (Q i% AA 7 fD Q .. tiCip/ O C � M t0 OD VN W N W Dr t0 po v► O D 2 O =F n to Z c v �• 0 m m OL CL @ O In or ' .. v D M rn O n @ 3 o th (Q p7 AA 7 fD Q .. a o 0:53., Q a �c = a _ m t° a n a; m W N A W •p Ul W .!a O N •A 'B :3 -9 Wcr V O O 0 CD t0O NO Z) O O O 00 N 00�. V m ai £" U) ? c 3 m © 0 3Im K O 0 v c a O :3=' 3 A O 7 LA N 7 .B U) rt (� 70 N a cr m v� M A n <cn y cr c (A m 3 •o i4 rt [C CD n r� 0 O m :3 CCD v W d S m CD 4 G3T A C a� l0 CD D m 3 d (Q a) Q O afb �c = a m t° a n a; m O d c a n (D cr :3 -9 O CD O 0 CD Z) o H rtD C m ai £" U) ? 3 3 m © 0 3Im K O 0 c a O :3=' 3 A O 7 N 7 er d U) rt (� Gy` N a cr m v� M A n <cn y o c (A m 3 •o i4 rt [C n 0 O :3 CCD v W d S m CD 4