Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThorn Group 20-04-201 In the matter of an Arbitration pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1995 Between: Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 454 and The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Group Grievance of Michele Thorn et al. and Policy Grievance Andrew Tremayne, arbitrator Appearances Darryl Korell, Michele Thorn, and Mélanie Rochon for the union Celine Delorme, Fabienne Lajoie, and Amy Bennet for the employer Hearing held on January 31, 2020 (in person) and March 24, 2020 (by videoconference) Award released on April 15, 2020 at Ottawa, Ontario 2 1. The union filed two grievances on December 3, 2019, complaining about the way in which the employer dealt with four employees who were affected by layoff notices. One grievance is a group grievance filed on behalf of the four affected employees, and the other grievance is a union policy grievance. The union maintains that the employees, who were given the opportunity to choose from a list of vacant positions for which they were qualified when their positions were abolished, should also have been given the opportunity to displace employees with less seniority. 2. The employer resists the union’s interpretation of the parties’ collective agreement. In the alternative, argued the employer, if the language in the collective agreement is unclear, the parties’ past practice supports the employer’s interpretation. In the further alternative, the union is estopped from asserting a right in these circumstances to displace employees with less seniority until the next round of bargaining. 3. The outcome of these grievances turns on the interpretation and application of Schedule “I” to the parties’ collective agreement. For reasons which are set out below, I find that the language in Schedule “I” is clear and unambiguous. Based on the evidence before me, the employer has the right to assign the four affected employees to vacant positions for which they are qualified. Displacement of an employee with less seniority would have been allowed only if there were no suitable vacant positions for the affected employees. As a result, the grievances are dismissed. Facts 4. The parties agreed to present the case based on an Agreed Statement of Facts. This was supplemented by viva voce evidence to address the parties’ positions on past practice and estoppel. A copy of the Agreed Statement is attached to this award at Schedule “A.” I will highlight the facts that are particularly important to my analysis and the parties’ submissions. I will also refer to some of the documents that that parties included with the Agreed Statement. I will also summarize the viva voce evidence very briefly to provide background and context. 5. The parties further agreed that this award would be binding on the four grievors, and that it would otherwise be used as guidance for the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the collective agreement. 6. The facts which led to the filing of the two grievances can be summarized. In the fall of 2019, after an internal review, the employer abolished four Overflow positions and replaced them with an equal number of bilingual Same-Day Response positions. There was no reduction in the workforce, but the grievors were in the Overflow positions, so they were directly affected by the employer’s decision. 3 7. On October 8, 2019, the employer’s Director of Human Resources, Amy Bennett, met with Michele Thorn in her capacity as local president, and Nelson Ross Laguna, the OPSEU staff representative, before initiating the restructuring to provide them with notice of upcoming changes. 8. During this meeting, Ms. Bennett indicated that it was the employer's past practice to offer a list of available vacancies at the same level and classification to the affected employees before resorting to the displacement of another employee. Ms. Bennett communicated that only if there were no vacant positions, would the affected employees be permitted to displace the employee that was last hired with the employer. 9. Ms. Thorn and Mr. Ross Laguna told Ms. Bennett that it was the union's position that when the process is triggered under Schedule "I" of the collective agreement, an affected employee should be given the option to be reassigned where there is an opportunity for the employee to displace an employee with less seniority, as an alternative to selecting a vacancy. They also communicated that it was the union's view that the collective agreement provided for that right and option. 10. On November 28, 2019, the four affected employees each received a letter from the employer advising them that their Overflow position with the Intake 4 team was being eliminated and replaced with a bilingual Same Day Response position. Each employee was given an option sheet with five vacant positions in the same classification for which they were qualified. 11. The four affected employees would have preferred to displace other employees with less seniority rather than accept one of the vacancies offered by the employer. However, they accepted positions notwithstanding that the grievances were filed on their behalf and without prejudice to the union's position in these proceedings. 12. The main issue in these grievances is, therefore, the interpretation of Schedule "I" of the Collective Agreement. In their submissions, the parties focused on sections 5 and 10, which I have underlined: SCHEDULE “I” - LAY-OFF PROCESS The Society identifies positions related to program reductions. These positions become the surplus positions. An affected employee is any of the following: i) an employee who occupies a position which is identified as surplus; ii) an employee who is displaced by an employee with more seniority; 4 iii) an employee who is identified for lay-off. The Seniority lists which are established within the organization and officially posted will be used within the process to establish the last in - first out basis. PROCESS 1. As part of consultation process, the Society agrees to discuss employee lay- offs with the Union prior to implementation, and to seek alternate options to achieve this goal. 2. The Society will notify the Union President in writing and meet with the JCC regarding the lay-off plan - affected services, surplus positions and present incumbents and the time frame for implementation. 3. The Society is responsible to determine the skills, competence and efficiency of affected employees and make an assessment, including a review of the employee's file and seniority, for a particular position. a) where the skill, competence and efficiency for a particular position are relatively equal, seniority shall govern. 4. The assessment will be based on the job description and the skills and abilities profile of the particular position and the employee will need to meet the educational, linguistic, experience and other stipulated requirements of the particular position to qualify for reassignment. 5. Affected employees will be initially assessed in relation to other positions across the Society at the same classification and level and reassigned accordingly where the position is either vacant or where there is an opportunity for the employee to displace an employee with less seniority. If the employee is assessed as not meeting the job description and skills and abilities profile for the same classification and level, or if there is no vacant position, or if there is no opportunity to displace an employee with less seniority, the affected employee will be assessed in relation to other positions across the Society at the same level. Failing the ability to be reassigned at the same level, the affected employee will be assessed in relation to other positions at a lower classification and level and reassigned where the position is either vacant or where there is an opportunity to displace an employee with less seniority. 6. Where an affected employee has been reassigned in a lower classification and level, this employee will be given consideration to return to their former 5 classification and level within a one year time frame provided a vacancy becomes available. This employee shall retain their salary for the first four (4) months of the reassignment. This employee would be priority listed and this list would be used in conjunction with the recall list. The return would be by meeting the criteria of the job description and skills and abilities profile and seniority. An assessment would be done only in the case when an affected employee would be considered for a position with a different job description from the position description they occupy. 7. Before implementation, the Society will share the results of the employee(s) assessment(s) with the Executive of the Union. 8. When the affected employee does not meet the requirements of the position or cannot displace an employee with less seniority than themselves, the employee will be laid off. 9. Prior to actioning the lay-offs, regular employees identified for lay-off will be given an opportunity to fill temporary assignments to the extent that such are available and that the employee is deemed to have the skills and abilities to perform the duties of the assignment. When an affected employee's lay- off is immediately extended by a temporary assignment, with no employment interruption, the employee's benefits will not be affected for the duration of the temporary assignment. 10. This process is considered least disruptive to service and clients and is fair to employees by appropriately recognizing seniority and the concept of last in first out. 11. The Society is prepared to assist the laid off employee in the following manner: - Depending on the availability of funds, provide for comprehensive outplacement counselling and/or individual assessment of need by an external consulting firm. - Establish a Resource Room to provide an area where the employee can prepare for job search. This room would only be established when there is justification that it would be utilized. - Arrange for employee counselling through Human Resources Development Canada with respect to EI benefits. - Provide employee with booklet/material on career search. - Issue mailings of jobs/postings which may be of interest. 6 - Provide EAP Information Session and Counselling if necessary. - Provide verbal/written reference if requested by the employee. 13. The group grievance alleges the following: Contrary to Article 22.01 and Schedule I (paragraph 5) of the Collective Agreement, and any other articles, statutes or legislation which may apply, the employer is refusing to allow me the opportunity to displace an employee with less seniority, despite the fact that I have just received a layoff notice, stating that my only option is to choose from vacant positions in my classification. 14. The policy grievance alleges the following: Contrary to Article 22.01 and Schedule I (paragraph 5) of the Collective Agreement, and any other attic/es, statutes or legislation which may apply, the employer has advised that they will not allow employees the opportunity to displace employees with less seniority, when affected by layoff notices, stating that the employee must choose from vacant positions for which employees qualify when such vacancies are offered. 15. Ms. Bennett testified at the hearing on behalf of the employer. She has been with the Society for approximately ten years, first as a Human Resources Advisor, and since 2015 as the Director of Human Resources. There have been many restructurings at the Society over the years. In her current role, Ms. Bennett is responsible for rolling out the human resources plan once a change has been approved. In her previous role, she and her colleagues assisted the Director of Human Resources with the same work. 16. When a restructuring triggers Schedule “I” of the collective agreement, Ms. Bennett communicates this to the local union president. Next, she presents the human resources plan to the Joint Consultation (JCC), which is composed of five representatives from the union and five representatives from the employer. She prepares a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is given to the local union president. Minutes from the meeting and the presentation are later posted on the Society’s intranet. Ms. Bennett’s presentation includes information about the employees who will be affected, vacancies that have been identified, and the timeline for notifying staff. 17. This is followed by meetings with the affected staff, which Ms. Bennett conducts with union representatives present. Each employee is given an “options sheet” that sets out the vacant positions for which the affected employee is qualified. Employees are given a week or so (and more time if they request it) to review the options, speak to their colleagues, and rank their choices. When Ms. Bennett receives the completed sheets, the 7 most senior employee is given their first choice, and she works her way through the seniority list assigning the affected employees to their new positions. 18. Ms. Bennett estimates that she has been through this process about ten times since she has been with the Society. At the hearing, she identified a similar set of documents for each restructuring, including copies of the PowerPoint presentation to the JCC, copies of the letters to the affected employees, and copies of the completed “option sheets.” Her role in each of these restructurings depended on whether she was a Human Resources Advisor or the Director of Human Resources at the time. 19. In May 2019, there was a restructuring that affected some positions in Family Support. Two of the affected employees selected the same vacancy, and the employee with more seniority was reassigned to it. The less senior affected employee was not satisfied with the other vacant positions that he had been offered, particularly with the hours of work, and he wanted to be able to displace another employee who was in a position with hours of work that was more suitable for him. 20. Ms. Bennett testified that this was the first time that the union had taken the position that an affected employee should have the right to displace an employee with less seniority (or “bump”) a more junior employee and not just be required to select from a list of vacant positions under the Schedule “I” process. Ms. Bennett was surprised that the union had taken this position because she had only ever looked at what vacant positions were available for affected staff. When similar circumstances had arisen before, there had never been a discussion with the union about bumping. In any event, another solution was found that was satisfactory to the affected employee, so the issue that the union had raised about bumping rights was no longer pressing. 21. In October 2019, the Society was planning another restructuring. Ms. Bennett met with Ms. Thorn and Mr. Ross Laguna to provide them with notice of upcoming changes. During this meeting, Ms. Bennett indicated that it was the employer's past practice of offering a list of available vacancies at the same level and classification to the affected employees before resorting to the displacement of another employee. She said that only where there are no vacant positions would the affected employees be permitted to displace the employee that was last hired. 22. Ms. Thorn and Mr. Ross Laguna communicated the union's position, which is that when the process is triggered under Schedule "I" of the collective agreement, an affected employee should be given the option to be reassigned where there is an opportunity for the employee to displace an employee with less seniority as an alternative to selecting a vacancy. They also communicated the union's view that the collective agreement provides for that right and option. 8 23. The union called five employees to give evidence at the hearing, including Ms. Thorn, who is also the local union president. All of the employees had been directly affected by restructurings at the Society, and they testified about their individual experience with the process. They believed that their only option was to accept one of the vacant positions offered by the employer. None of them were told by Ms. Bennett or anyone else in human resources that bumping was an option. Some of the witnesses vaguely recalled discussions about whether they could bump into other positions, but these discussions were either with other employees or with members of the local union executive. There was no evidence that the possibility of bumping was ever raised with the employer until Ms. Thorn did so in May 2019 in the context of the restructuring that affected Family Support. Submissions of the Parties 24. When I interpret Section 5, argued the union, I should consider the entire context of the collective agreement. I should also read the words in the collective agreement in their entire context and apply their ordinary meaning. I should then test the results of my analysis by asking whether the interpretation is plausible, effective, fair, and reasonable. In all cases, the goal is to give effect to the intended agreement of the parties, as that intention is reflected in the words of the agreement they reached. 25. The union submitted that seniority is an essential element of the collective agreement and the ability to displace an employee with less seniority is the only way that seniority can be used by affected employees. As a result, argued the union, employees are denied an important protection under the collective agreement if they are not allowed to exercise their seniority in these situations. Even if there is an ambiguity in Section 5, any language with respect to seniority must be allowed to function to the benefit of the affected employees. Tung-Sol of Canada Ltd. v. U.E., Local 512 (1964) 15 L.A.C. 161, and Re: Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. and U.A.W., Local 1525 (1983) O.L.A.A. No. 107 (Picher). 26. Section 3 of Schedule “I” requires the employer to assess the skills, competence, and efficiency of an affected employee. Where those factors are relatively equal, the employee’s seniority governs. That assessment is used to determine whether the affected employee qualifies for reassignment. If the employer is only considering whether affected employees qualify for vacant positions, then there is no need to consider the employee’s seniority, because that would only be necessary if the affected employee is allowed to bump another employee. 27. The keyword in Section 5 is “or” argued the union, and I should read “or” in this case as being conjunctive and inclusive. While there is a presumption that “or” is disjunctive, that presumption is displaced where the context is appropriate. Here, Section 9 5 provides two options for affected employees: to be reassigned “where the position is either vacant or where there is an opportunity for the employee to displace an employee with less seniority.” Unless both opportunities are made available to the affected employee at the same time, the employee will be deprived of the ability to exercise their seniority, which is why that inclusive interpretation of “or” is appropriate. Burlington Steel v. U.S.W.A., Local 4752 (1983) CarswellOnt 2452 (Swan), and Domgroup Ltd. v. R.W.D.S.U., Local 414 (1988) CarswellOnt 3845 (Joliffe), 28. The union argued that the language in Schedule “I” is not ambiguous and that the employer should be held to its clear meaning following the principles set out above. If I find that the language is ambiguous, there was never a representation by the union that it would not avail itself of the right to bump when Schedule “I” was triggered. The evidence suggests that there was never a consistent message to the employer and that, in most cases, affected employees were satisfied with the vacant positions that they were offered, so there was never a need to insist on that option until May 2019. 29. The employer argued that the language in Schedule “I” is clear and unambiguous. The employer has the right to assign affected employees to a vacant position for which they are qualified, and the displacement of an employee with less seniority is allowed only when there is no suitable vacant position for an affected employee. 30. The union focused on Section 5 and the meaning of the word “or,” but I must look at the entire Schedule to determine the parties’ intent, submitted the employer. Section 10 shows that the parties intended to create a process that balances two important considerations: being least disruptive to service and clients, and fairness to employees. Bumping is always disruptive. It affects the continuity of service to clients, which is very important given the nature of the Society’s work. Bumping also causes stress and uncertainty among employees. If bumping rights are put on the same level as assigning employees to vacant positions, then the process is no longer the least disruptive to service and clients. 31. The word “reassignment,” which appears in Sections 4 and 5, must also be carefully considered, argued the employer. An affected employee must qualify for reassignment, and the employer makes that assessment. If an affected employee does not qualify for a position, then the employee does not have access to a vacancy, nor is the employee allowed to displace an employee with less seniority. Similarly, “reassignment” implies that the employer is making the decision. Article 5 - Management Rights provides that it is the exclusive function of the Society to “hire, promote, demote, classify, transfer, lay off, and suspend employees.” Even if “reassignment” is not explicitly mentioned, it was held to be a management right in Bell Canada v. Unifor, Local 34-0, 2016 CarswellNat 1358 (Surdykowski). 10 32. Seniority is recognized as part of the process, the employer submitted, because it is a factor when the employer assesses the skills, competence, and ability of affected employees, and seniority governs when those factors are relatively equal. If more than one affected employee chooses the same vacant position as their first option, seniority becomes a live issue. And of course, when there is no suitable vacant position for an affected employee, they can displace an employee with less seniority. Overall, the process as it has been applied by the Society strikes a balance of recognizing seniority while minimizing disruption to service and clients, argued the employer. 33. The employer added that there was no reduction in the workforce in the case before me. Suitable vacancies were available for the four affected employees. In other words, these were not lay-offs as that term is understood in the caselaw (York-Finch General Hospital v. O.N.A. [1993] O.L.A.A. No. 30, and Toronto East General Hospital v. O.P.S.E.U. [2009] O.L.A.A. No. 167). As a result, submitted the employer, there was no compelling reason to allow employees to bump when there were suitable positions available. Moreover, nothing in the collective agreement gives an employee the right to a specific work assignment. All of the affected employees are in the same classification: Child Protection Worker. Analysis and Decision 34. The test for whether an arbitrator can use the conduct of the parties, commonly referred to as past practice, as an aid to interpretation, is whether the provision in question is ambiguous. In that case, if the conduct of either party is based on one interpretation of the collective agreement and the other party acquiesces, then an arbitrator is justified in attributing that particular meaning to the ambiguous provision. If the provision in question is not ambiguous, then there is no justification for considering evidence of the parties' past practice. In this case, I find that I am able to determine the clear meaning of Schedule “I” without that evidence. 35. A careful reading of Schedule “I” shows that the parties have carefully negotiated a sophisticated process to address specific situations. The process provides for consultations between the parties, to the extent that when lay-offs are contemplated, the Society is required to seek alternate options to achieve its goals. The parties also chose to include a statement that describes the process as “the least disruptive” to service and clients, and “fair to employees.” 36. In my view, this statement shows that the parties intended to carefully balance their respective interests. They also implicitly recognized the unique role that the Society and its employees perform for their vulnerable clients and the importance of continuity of service. Practically speaking, the process itself is the result of a compromise, so that when the process is engaged, the interests of one party should not overwhelm the 11 interests of the other. Some disruption to service and clients is acceptable, as is some use of seniority, but a careful balance must be struck. This is one of the keys to interpreting Schedule “I.” 37. The same careful reading of all of Schedule “I” also makes it clear that the Society directs and governs the process. The Society identifies the surplus positions, creates the lay-off plan, notifies the union, and presents the plan to the JCC. More significantly, the Society determines the skills, competence, and efficiency of the affected employees and decides whether the affected employee qualifies for reassignment to a particular position at the same classification and level. While the process provides for initial consultations with the union and requires that alternative options to achieve the Society’s goals be considered, it is nevertheless clear that the Society is identifying and assessing the affected employees. 38. This sets the stage for the next part of the process, where Section 5 says that affected employees will be “reassigned accordingly.” To pause briefly, despite the use of the passive voice, it is clear that the Society does the reassigning. This is because assigning and reassigning employees are generally understood to be functions of management. First, “reassigning” closely resembles the management rights in the Society in article 5.01(b): to “hire, promote, demote, classify, transfer, lay off, and suspend employees.” Second, an employee cannot reassign themself. It is a unilateral action by the employer. Third, I see no reason to depart from the decision in Bell Canada, where the arbitrator determined that the right to “reassign” rests with management even if this is not specifically stated in the collective agreement. 39. In this context, it is not necessary to depart from the presumption that “or” is disjunctive. The Society assesses affected employees and determines whether they qualify for reassignment. The Society then “reassign[s] accordingly” where the position is either vacant or where there is an opportunity to displace an employee with less seniority. The Society directs and governs the process, and it is the Society that decides where the opportunities for reassignment lie, all with an eye to an outcome that is the least disruptive to service and clients while appropriately recognizing seniority. In other words, if the Society determines there are sufficient vacant positions available for the affected employees at the same classification and level and that it would be overly disruptive to service and clients to allow affected employees to displace others, then this is an appropriate outcome of the process. 40. In my view, the union’s concern that this outcome is not sufficiently respectful of employees’ seniority rights is addressed when more than one affected employee indicates a preference for the same vacant position: seniority governs the outcome of that dispute. The displacement of one employee by another is inherently disruptive. On the facts of this case, there was no overall reduction of staff, and no employee was facing a loss of 12 work. The union described seniority as a protection, and in line with the balanced approach of the process, that protection did not need to be deployed. There was a sufficient number of vacant positions available, and all affected employees could be accommodated without resorting to the inherently disruptive effects of bumping. Disposition 41. For the reasons set out above, I find that when the process in Schedule “I” is engaged, if a suitable vacancy exists, the employer is not required to allow an affected employee to displace an employee with less seniority. The grievances are dismissed. Signed at Ottawa, Ontario on April 20, 2020 Andrew Tremayne 13 Schedule “A” Agreed Statement of Facts Background 1. This matter involves two grievances filed on December 3, 2019. 2. The first grievance (Tab 1) is a group grievance (2019-0454-0023) filed on behalf of four (4) employees of the Intake 4 Overflow Team; namely Justin Petitpas, Melanie Rochon, Eric Schanbacher and Michele Thorn (the "Affected Employees"). 3. The Group Grievance alleges the following: Contrary to Article 22.01 and Schedule I (paragraph 5) of the Collective Agreement, and any other articles, statutes or legislation which may apply, the employer is refusing to allow me the opportunity to displace an employee with less seniority, despite the fact that I have just received a layoff notice, stating that my only option is to choose from vacant positions in my classification. 4. The second grievance (Tab 2) is a policy grievance (2019-0454-0024) filed by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 454 ("OPSEU"). 5. The Policy Grievance alleges the following: Contrary to Article 22.01 and Schedule I (paragraph 5) of the Collective Agreement, and any other attic/es, statutes or legislation which may apply, the employer has advised that they will not allow employees the opportunity to displace employees with less seniority, when affected by layoff notices, stating that the employee must choose from vacant positions for which employees qualify when such vacancies are offered. 6. The Collective Agreement is appended at Tab 3. Schedule "I" is at page 78. There were no changes made to Schedule "I" during the parties' last round of bargaining nor were any proposals submitted by either party pertaining to this schedule. 7. The classifications of the Affected Employees are Child Protection Workers (CPW) II. The CPW job description is appended at Tab 4. 14 8. Their seniority dates with the Employer are as follows: Employee: Date: Justin Petitpas May 3, 2016 Melanie Rochon July 16, 2007 Eric Schanbacher December 28, 2013 Michele Thorn January 29, 1996 9. In the fall of 2019, the Employer conducted an internal review and determined that there was a need within the Intake 4 team for bilingual Same-Day Response positions and no longer a need for general overflow positions. 10. It was determined by the Employer that the overflow positions in Intake 4 would be abolished and replaced with four (4) bilingual Same-Day Response positions. 11. The primary issue in these grievances is therefore the interpretation of Schedule "I" of the Collective Agreement. 12. On or around October 8, 2019, the Director of Human Resources for the Employer, Ms. Amy Bennett, met with Ms. Michele Thorn in her capacity as Local President and Mr. Nelson Ross Laguna, the OPSEU Staff Representative, prior to initiating the restructuring to provide them with notice of upcoming changes. 13. During this meeting, Ms. Bennett indicated that it was the Employer's past practice of offering a list of available vacancies at the same level and classification to the affected employees before resorting to displacement of another employee. Ms. Bennett communicated that only where there are no vacant positions would the affected employees be permitted to displace the employee that was last hired with the Employer. 14. At the same meeting, Ms. Thorn and Mr. Ross Laguna communicated that it is the Union's position that, when the process is triggered under Schedule "I" of the Collective Agreement, an affected employee should be given the option to be reassigned where there is an opportunity for the employee to displace an employee with less seniority, as an alternative to selecting a vacancy. They also communicated that it is the Union's view that the Collective Agreement provides for that right and option. 15. Recognizing that the parties had two different interpretations of the provisions of the Collective Agreement, they decided to try to discuss the issue at mediation. 15 16. A mediation was held with Michelle Flaherty on November 12, 2019. 17. On November 28, 2019, the four (4) Affected Employees received a letter from the Employer advising them that their overflow position with the Intake 4 team was being eliminated and replaced with a bilingual Same Day Response position. Each employee was given an option sheet with five (5) vacant positions in the same classification for which he/she was qualified. 18. Mr. Petitpas' letter and option sheet are appended at Tab 5. Ms. Rochon's letter and option sheet are appended at Tab 6, Mr. Schonbacher's letter and option sheet are appended at Tab 7. Ms. Thorn's letter and option sheet are appended at Tab 8. 19. The four (4) Affected Employees preferred to displace other employees with less seniority rather than accept one of the vacancies offered by the Employer. 20. Mr. Petitpas is temporarily occupying a Bilingual CHEO Liaison position. There is a Letter of Agreement in place with Mr. Petitpas stating that so long as he is successful in passing the requirements for his French language testing by June 19, 2020, then he will become permanent in this position. As such, the employer offered to Mr. Petitpas to defer his selection of deployment options until June 19, 2020 once the results of the language testing are known. As Mr. Petitpas is the least senior of the four (4) affected employees, the deployment for the English Child Protection Worker position on the West team which was not selected by the more senior employees remains available to him should he not be successful in his current bilingual position. Any new permanent vacancies that may be in existence at the time that the Letter of Agreement expires will also be made available to Mr. Petitpas. There is therefore no confirmation letter at this time for Mr. Petitpas. 21. Ms. Rochon opted to take a Bilingual Child in Care Child Protection Worker position. The letter December 6, 2019, confirming this deployment is appended at Tab 9. 22. Mr. Schonbacher opted to take the English Ongoing Child Protection worker position. The letter December 6, 2019, confirming this deployment is appended at Tab 10. 23. Ms. Thorn opted to take the Bilingual Child Specific Recruitment position. She will, however, continue to be accommodated in her current position on the Intake 4 team completing social histories and providing backup support to the Telephone Intake team, given her role as Union Local President. She will transfer to the Bilingual Child Specific Recruitment position at the point in time that she is no 16 longer in the role of Union Local President. The letter December 6, 2019, confirming this deployment is appended at Tab 11. 24. The four (4) Affected Employees accepted the above position notwithstanding that the grievances were filed on their behalf and without prejudice to the Union's position in the present grievances. 25. The parties agreed on December 4, 2019 to submit this interpretation issue to arbitration with Andrew Tremayne on January 31, 2020. The parties agree that this interpretation issue is submitted without prejudice to whether future similar situations would trigger the process under Schedule "I" of the Collective Agreement.