Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLamure 11-04-07 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: SENECA COLLEGE ~ and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION GRIEVANCE OF PAUL LAMURE BOARD OF ARBITRATION: JANE H. DEVLIN CARLA ZABEK PAMELA MUNT-MADILL CHAIR COLLEGE NOMINEE UNION NOMINEE BRENDA BOWLBY, FOR THE COLLEGE ROBIN GORDQN, FOR THE UNION In this case, the Grievor. Paul Lamure, claims that the College breached Article 12.2 of the collective agreement by denying him leave with pay on January 7, 11 and 19, 2010. On the first of the three days, the Grievor took his wife to a pre-operative appointment for jaw surgery and on the second, he took her to an appointment with a bladder surgeon. The third was the date of his wife's jaw surgery. There was no dispute that the Grievor's wife has significant health issues, Article 12.1 of the collective agreement provides for personal leave without pay and Article 12.2 provides for personal leave with pay. These Articles are as follows: 12.1 Personal Leave without Pay Leave of absence without pay may be granted by the Gollege for legitimate personal reasons. 12,2 Personal Leave with Pay Recognizing the over-riding responsibility to tile students, leave of absence will be scheduled where possible to ensure aminlmumof disruption to the educational programs and services of the College. Reasonable notice shall be given to the Supervisor concerned, Leave of absence for personal reasons, religious leave and special leave in extenuating personal circumstances may be granted at the discretion of College without loss of pay and such requests shall not be unreasonably denied, The Grievor is a General Maintenance Worker whose duties Include hanging pictures, installing shelving and minor carpentry work. He regularly works 2 Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. His immediate Supervisor is Gordon Mickovski, Senior Manager, Operations and Maintenance. Before setting out the events that gave rise to the grievance, we note that in the three years preceding the griavance, the Grievor was granted ~ total of 25 days of leave with pay under Article 12,2 of the collective agreement as a result of medical issues relating to his wife. In 2007, he was granted seven days of leave and he testified that some of the days involved appointments with specialists. In 2008, the Grievor was granted six days of leave and in 2007, he was granted 12 days of leave. The Grievor testified that some of the leave in 2007 related to surgery involving jaw implants and time spent caring for his wife following surgery. Mr. Mickovski testified that when requesting leave, the Grievor usually provided the College with a note or a copy of the card for his wife's rlledical appointment. As to the request for leave in January, 2010, the Grievor testified that his wife required further jaw surgery because a piece of one of her Implants had broken off and they ware waiting for a surgeon to arrive from the United States, The Grievor also testified that his wife was having problems with her bladder and, as a result, she was referred to a bladder surgeon, The Grievor testified that about three months before he requested leave in January, 2010, he mentioned to Mr. Mickovskl that his wife would be having jaw and bladder surgery and that he would let him know when the procedures were scheduled, Mr. Mickovski testified that he did not recall the Grievor mentioning that his wife was having a problem with her jaw. He also did not recall the Grievor ....,.~~.,., ." .... .....-. .........~...> ...-.:> ~ ...--...... o. ...,.." ~_ ...t_, _1~..~.~, .~...".' .........~... ~~....1... ~I.... 3 mentioning further surgery and did not believe that he had done so, Mr. Mickovski acknowledged that he was aware that the Grievor's wife had a variety of medical problems and that he didn't keep track of them all. Mr. Mlckovski testified that three or four years previously, the Grievor had discussed his wife's health problems in detail. The Grievor testified that on December 29 or 3D, 20091 he and his wife were notified of her appointments on January 7111 and 11\11 and were als'o advised that her jaw surgery was .scheduled for January 19\11, The Grievor testified that he was off work at the time, having worked a half day on December 2411i, and that he was scheduled to return to work on January 4,2010. The Grlevor agreed that prior to returning to work, he did not attempt to contact Mr. Mickovski to advise him of his request for leave. While the Grlevor was aware that Mr. Mickovski carried a BlackBerry, the Grievor testified that he does not use or own a computer, nor does he know anyone who owns a computer. The Grievor also testified that he did not have Mr. Mickovskj's cellular telephone number and that he didnotcall and leave a voicemaij message at Mr. Mickovskl's office. The Grievor and his wife live in Whitby and he testified that her medical appointments were at hospitals in downtown Toronto. He also testlfled that his wife could not attend the appointments alone because she doesn't drive and has some difficulty walking. He explained that she can walk to the plaza across the street from their apartment and on a good day, she can be on her feet for an hour to an hour and a 4 half but after that, she would have to rest. He also testified that it is difficult for his wife to take public transit because she can't walk up or downstairs. The Grievor testified that he did not have a family friend who could have taken his wife to her medical appointments or to the surgery that was scheduled on January 19\11, He also testified that their daughter could not get the time off work and that at the time. she only had a learners permit and had to have a licensed driver in the car if she was driving. The Grlevor understood that his wife was not eligible for Wheel- Trans because she did not LJse a wheelchair, The Grievor also testified that because of his wife's education level, he had to complete forms for her when she attended medical appointments. He testified, as well, that because his wife's pacemaker was implanted ten years ago, he was advised to be at the hospital during her surgery in the event there Was a problem. When the Grievor returned to work on January 4, 2010, he left a note in Mr. Mlckovski's file folder in which he Indicated that he was requesting leave with pay under Article 12.2 and he set out the dates and nature of the two appointments and the surgery for which leave was requested. The Grievor acknowledged that he saw Mr. Mickovski on a number of occasions during the week of January 411'1 but did not mention his request for leave. The Grievor also testified that although he had not received a response to his request by January 7th, he took his wife to her pre-operative appointment and did not report for work that day. The Grievor explained that he had 5 always been granted leave with pay in the past and assumed that Mr. Mlckovski was too busy to get back to him, Mr, Mickovski testified that he does not review his Jile folder on a dally basis and did not see the Grievor's note requesting leave until Thursday, January 7th or Friday, January 8\h, Mr. Mickovski also testified that before responding to the request, he contacted Cindy MacDonald, a Labour Relations Officer. According to Mr. Mickovski, she asked whethertha appointments were scheduled and whether the Grievor had considered other arrangements to get his wife to her appointments and to have his work performed, Mr. Mlckovskl testified that Ms. MacDonald provided advice but did not make a decision with respect to the Grievor's request for leave. On January 12, 2010, Mr. Mickovski met with the Grievor and at that time, he advised the Grievor that his request for paid leave under Article 12.2 of the collective agreement was denied. The Grlevor testified that he had only a vague recollection of the meeting although he did recall Mr, Mickovski making some reference to extenuating circumstances. The Grievor also recalled that Mr. Mickovski offered him the opportunity to make up the time by working on weekends which the Grievor didn't think was fair because he would normally be paid overtime for working on weekends. The Grievor testified, however, that he would be prepared to make up time by working alternate hours during the week. The Grlevor also testified that in his view, he ought to have been granted leave with pay for the three days in January, 2010 and he noted that he ". .'".. __ . ,...... ....~... ,.. . ." .... ........~.. . LA 6 had always been granted leave with pay in the past. The Grievor believed that he was entitled to leave under the collective agreement. Mr, Mickovski testified that at the meeting on January 12lh, he advised the Grievor that his request for leave was deniedaod in doing so, referred to the fact that the appointments were scheduled. Mr. Mickovski testified that he was not suggesting that paid leave would be denied for aU scheduled appointments but he wasconcemed about the timing of the Grievor's request. In this regard, he testified that appointments with specialists are usually scheduled in advance and that the Grievor indicated at the meeting that he had been notified of his wife's pre~operativeappolntment on December 24th, Mr. Mickovski also testified that a list of employee telephone numbers is posted in the workplace, and that he can be contacted through security or a voicemail message can be left at his office. Mr. Mickovskl testified, as well, that during the meetlng on January 121h, the Grievor indicated that he had to take his wife to her appointments and did not refer to any extenuating circumstances. Mr. Mickovski's notes of the meeting indicate that the Grievor advised that he didn't have anyone else to take his wife to her appointments, Mr. Mickovski did not ask the Grlevor if the appointments could be rescheduled because he realized that it would be difficult to reschedule appointments with specialists, Mr, Mlckovskl also acknO\yledged that he did not ask the Grlevor for any further details because he beHeved that such Issues were personal and that it was not his place to probe. .~...........,....~.- ....... ...... ~c ...__~ ....u .h.. ~~~" ...,T .. ...-. p~_..-.. ~"'.. ...... .-..-- - - ." < 7 Mr. Mickovski testified that during the meeting OJl January 12lh, he advised the Grievor that he could avoid a loss of pay for the. days in question by taking vacation or working alternate hours later in the day or on weekends. Mr. Mickovski also suggested that where possible, medical apPOintments ought to be scheduled early in the morning or later in the day so that the Grievor could attend work for some of his scheduled hours. Mr. Mickovski testified that, in fact, the Grievor'swork could be performed at any time, including evenings and weekends. During the course of the meeting on January 120\ Mr. Mickovski also referred to the number of days of paid leave granted to the Griavor during the previous year and the impact of his leave on college operations. Mr, Mickovski testified that he was not suggesting that there was an upper limit to the number of days of paid leave that could be granted and that he referred to the earlier leave to encourage the Grievor to consider working alternate hours. In the end, the Grievor decided to use vacation time and advised Mr. Mickovski that he would be filing a grievance. Mr. Mickovski testified that he first learned at the hearing that It was necessary for the Grievor to complete medical forms for his wife, He also testified that either during a grievance meeting or at the hearing, he learned that the Grievor had been advised to be at the hospital during his wife's jaw surgery because of the possibility of a problem with her pacemaker. The issue to be decided is whether the College breached Article 12,2 of the collective agreement when it denied the Grievor's request for personal leave with pay on January 7, 11 and 19,2010. Article 12.2 provides that in view of the overriding ~""d' ,J....~~~.. ~.. ,~""" _. ....~ .~.~....r..._. .~....~.~. .~.... "..... . ~~....... 8 responsibility to students, leaves of absencewllJ be schedull3d, where possible, to ensure a minimum of disruption to the educational programs and services of the College, The Article also requires that reasonable notice be given to the Sup~rvisor concerned. As well, the Article provides thatleaveforpersonal reasons, religious reasons and special leave in extenuating personal circumstances may be granted at the discretion of the College without loss of pay and such requests shaH not be unreasonably denied, Article 12.2 can be contrasted with Article 12.1, which provides that leave of absence without pay may be granted by the College for legitimate personal reasons, The phrase "extenuating personal circumstances" which appears in the second paragraph of Article 12.2 has been Interpreted to mean circumstances Which are extraordinary, unusual, compelling or unforeseen: see Fanshawe Gollege and Ontalio Public SelVlce Employees Union February 15, 2006 (O'Neil (unreported)); Ontario Public Sf;1fvice Employees Union and OentennialCollege of Applied Arts and Technology June 13,2008 (MacDowell (unreported)); and Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology and Onta,io Public SeIVice Employees Union November 23,2009 (Bendel (unreported)). It has also been held that in deciding whether to grant personal leave with pay under Article 12.2, the College must consider the circumstances of the particular case and not base its decision 011 a rigid polley, Accordingly, there must be a genuine exercise of discretion in which the College considers all relevant factors and excludes consideration of extraneous factors. In this regard, reference has been made to the award of a Board chaired by Arbitrator Swan In ReMeadow Park Nursing Home and Service Employees International Union, Local 220 (1983), 9 L,AC,(3d) 137, In addressing the exercise of managerialdis.eret/on in that case, the majority of the Board commented as follows: In particular, we think that the exsrciseof the employer's discretion must be in good faith, must be a genuine exercise of discretion and not merely the application of rigid policy, and must include a consideration of the merits of each individual case, All relevant factors must be considered, but no extraneous or irrelevant considerations may betaken into account. Finally, Article 12.2 of the collective agreelTlent provides that requests for leave shat! not be unreasonably denied. We propose to begin by considering the Grievor's reque.st for leave on January 7 and 11, 2010, The first of two days involved a pre-operatlve appointment for his wife's jaw surgery and the second, an appointment with a bladdersurgeon. A number of awards to which the Boardwas referred have considered requests for leave under Article 12.2 In order for employees to attend medical ordental appointments or to accompany family members to such appointments. In Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology and OntarIo PUblic SelVioe Employees Union May 14, 2007 (Bendel (unreported)), the grievor left work early in considerable pain because she had cracked a tooth the previous evening. She we.nt to her dentist who put on a temporary crown and she was. granted leave with pay for that appointment on the basis that there was some urgency involved. However, the college denied leave under Article 12.2 for a later appointment at which the dentist put on a permanent ., ,'.. ~.. ... . . .. .. .. ~ ~'... I . l . _.,. .'.".., " ,.... ".. ...~.._.."..>- ..--- ~._.. -.' 10 crown. In dismissing the grievance which was med to contest the college's decision, the Board commented as follows: The question we have to examine in this case ther$foreiswhether the grlevor's request for leave under Article .12, 2, as communicated to the employer, referred to circumstances that would justify such a leave. . In our view, that questlon can only be answered in the negative. On its tace, the grievor's request was nothing more than a request for leave to attend a scheduled dental appointment. We do not dismiss the possibility thatif there is some urgency to a medical or dental appointment or If an employee cannot arrange an appointment for outside of working hours a leave under Article 12.2 might be appropriate. However, the general understanding in our s(lciety, in our experience, is that employees cannot expect, and do nOlaxpect, their employers to pay their wages for timenotworked as a result of attendingalLSl.1ch appointments. Since the grievor provided no information t() the employer to suggest that there was any urgency to her appointment or that her appointment could not be arranged outside of working hours or that there was anything else out of the ordinary about her appointment, to allowthis grievance would require us to hold that employees are routinely entitled to paid leave under Article 12.2 wherever they ask for time off work to attend a medical or dental appointment. We are aware of no proper basis for any such conclusion. In On/ado Public Service Employoes Union and Centennial COllege of Applied Arts and Teohnology (supra), the grievor requested leave to attend two medical appointments to obtain documentation to support a change in her work schedule, In dismissing the grievance in that case, the maJorityof the Board found that there was nothing extraordinary, compelling or ilextenuating" about the grievor's circumstances, nor was there evidence that the Grievor had made efforts to avoid or minimize her lost time from work. In Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Tecl1l1ology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (supra), the Grievor sought leave with pay for one day to attend her own medIcal appointment and to accompany her father to an appointment. 11 The grievor's father evidently had certain health issues, including hearing impairment as a result of which it was difficult for him to understand advice or instructions given by , physicians, In that case, the majority of the Board found that whlleemployees may have little control over the timing of medical appointments and partlcularly appointments with specialists, such appointments are not extraordinary or unforeseeable and Instead, are "commonly associated with the vagaries and travails of ordinary life". The majority was not persuaded that the parties intended the college to be responsible for employees' wages for time not worked due to their own routine medical appointments or those of family members for whose care they were responsible. In the view of the majority, a medical appointment did not cease to be routine because it was with a specialist. The majority also noted that In that case. there was an established practice of employees working extra hours to make up time lost as a result of medical appointments, In Sheridan College of Applied Arts & Technology and Ontario Public Set vice Ernployees Union December '1, 2009 (Simmons unreported)), the grievor requested leave with pay to accompany her mother to medical appointments which the Grievor had learned about two nights before, At the time of her request, the grievor advised the college that her mother had two different appointmonts on the day in question, one of which was with a specialist. The grievor also indicated that her siblings were unavailable and that her mother was unwell as a result of a new illness. Although the grlevor provided additional information at the hearing to support her request for . .- -~ ..- . . . ,. ... _ . . _ _. . .. H ....;... ,.... _. _ . __ . .... , . _ _.._.. _ _ _ _ 12 leave, the majority of the Board found that b;;tsed on the information available to the college at the time, its decision to deny leave with pay was not unreasonable. In this case, we are concerned with two medlcalappolntmentsJor the Grievor's wife, one of which was a pre-operative appojnLm~nt and the other, an appointment with a specialist. As in many cases of this sort, the Issue is not whether the Grievor was entitled to be absent on the days in question but whether he ought to be paid for those days. In this regard, the Grievor's wife has significant health Issues which evidently require a variety of medical appointments and, in our view, these factors may properly be considered in assessing his request for leave. It is also appropriate to consider the nature of the appointments Involved and in this case, both of the appointments were scheduled In advance and it was not suggested that there was anything out of the ordinary about these particular appointments. Moreover, even If we consider the Grievor's evidence that hIs wife requires assistance to complete medical forms, in our view, it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances are sufficiently unusual or compelling that it could be said that the College's decision to deny leave with pay under Article 12.2 was unreasonable. It Is necessary, then, to consider the Grievor's request for leave with pay on January 19, 2010, which was the date of his wife's jaw surgery. Mr. Mickovski testified that the Grievor Indicated only that he had to take his wife to the hospital and that she couldn't get there on her own, Mr. Mlckovski also testified that he didn't ... .~... .~..-..-~~ >. '..L -----...~ ~ _, "" . .. .0' 13 bell eve there was any urgency involved and that the Grievordidn't offer anything in the way of extenuating circumstances. While Mr, Mickovski 8greedthat he did not have enough information, he testified that he had to make his decfsion baaed on the information provided. Mr. Mickovski didn't ask the Grievorfor further details because he believed that the issues were personal in nature, A number of Boards of Arbitration have conSidered the extent to which an employee is responsible for providing the College with relevant infornlation to support a request for leave with pay under Article 12,2 ofthe collective agreement. In Seneoa Col1ege of Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public So/vice Employees Union July 11, 2002 (Thorne (unreported)), which was referred to by the Union, the Grievor contested the college's decision to deny him a second day of paid/eave to care for his wife, who was 111, and theIr three and a half year old daughter. At the time of the request, the Grievor briefly mentioned his effortsto make alternate child care arrangements and although the college later asked questions about several aspects of the situation, it did not ask about child care. In the end, however, that was a significant factor in the college's decision. The Arbitrator found it probable that the college would have learned more about the grrevor's efforts to make alternate child care arrangements had it inquired. In considering whether the college ought to have done so, the Arbitrator indicated that it was more likely that the discretion under Article 12.2 would be properly exercised if both the employee and the college saw to it that the necessary information was brought forward. However, the Arbitrator also found that . ~. T d __ " ~'H 0...... ,,""'., .. 0_......,. " or > ~...." <.. ._T.. .-. ... ...... ._w.._. "'..... .. 14 there could be no fixed rule and that each case depended on its particular circumstances. In Cenlennial.College of Applied Arts & .Teclmolo9Y and Ontario Public Service Employees Union February 14, 2007 (Simmons (unreported)), which was referred to by the College, the majority ofthe Board found that in order toquaUfy for leave with pay, the grievor was obliged to explain the nature of the extenuating personal circumstances on which her request was based. In Ontario Public $elVice Employees Union and Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology (supra), the majority of the Board indicated that the onus rests on the employee to identify the basis for his or her claim. The majority also referred to the importance of the employee communicating all of the relevant circumstances so that the college can fairly assess.the situation. We agree that in the normal course, it is up toiha employee to advise the College of all relevant facts to support his or her request for leave with pay under Article 12.2 of the collective agreement. However, In this case, we note that in the three years prior to the events which gave rise to the grievance, the Grievor had been granted a total of 25 days of leave with pay, The evidence indicates that when leave was requested, the Grievor provided the College with either a note or a copy of the card for his wife's medical appointment. According to the Grievor, aU of his earlier requests for leave were granted. ..no ._....~+_+._+ L~..."'..._.., ,.., ~ .. ..-- .~.- - .".""., , . ,..-+-~---. .~.. 15 In January, 2010, the College apparently decided to look more carefully Into the circumstances surrounding the Grievor's request for leave, which it was entitled to do under Article 12,2, However, given the approach that had been taken previously, we are of the view that the College ought to have advised the Grlevor thatit intended to base its decision on the particular circumstances and that it was up to. him to provide all relevant information. As the Grievor had previously been granted a significant number of days of leave based only on a note or a copy of an appointment card, it is difficult to see how he would have known that additIonal Information could have had an impact on the College's decision. In fact, It appears that the Grievor was offered little inthe way of an explanation as to why all of his previous requests for leave had been granted and his reque.st for leave In January, 2010 was denied, While Mr. Mickovski agreed that he did not have much information on which to base his decision, he acknowledged that he did not ask the Grievor for further details, Had the College advised the Grievorin January, 2010 that it intended to take a different approach and to consider the particular circumstances giving. rise to his request for leave, the Grievor might well have Indicated, as he did at the hearing, that his wife's surgery could not be performed until a surgeon arrived from the United States. The Grievor might also have indicated, as he did at the hearing, that he had been advised to be present during the surgery because there was a concern about a possible problem with his wife's pacemaker, In our view\ these are relevant factors which were not considered by the College in reaching its decision. "'~ . .... .~.". ~.l'>'... ____~r~ ~"'Ir~~ ...~_. ...._........+-+-+ ..'_ ..~ 16 The final issue to be addressed concerns the College's submission that the Grievor had an obligation to act reasonably ~nd to consider working alternate hours to make up the time lost. In this regard, the College noted that in Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union November 23, 2009 (Bendel (unreported)), the majority of the Board took into account the fact that the grievor could have made up the time lost as a result of the medical appointments for which leave was requested. In Ontario Publio SrJ/Vice Employees Union and Centennial College of Applied Arts and Teohnology (supra), which also dealt with medical appointments, the majority of the Board found that the college could properly consider the possibility of modifying the grlevor's work schedule. The Union contended, however, that working alternate hours is not .8 prerequisite to leave with pay under Article 12.2 of the collective agreement. The Union further contended that in this case, the College did not deny the Grievor's request on the basis that he could have worked alternate hours and chose not to do $0. Instead, it was the submitted that the Grievor's request for leave was denied for other reasons and that following the denial, he was offered the opportunity to avoid a loss of pay by using vacation time or working alternate hours. As noted previously, in this casol the Grievor was granted numerous days of leave with pay prior to Janu81Y, 2010 and there was no indication of any suggestion by the College on those occasions that he consider working different hours. Moreover, we agree with the Union that Mr. Mlckovski did not advise the Grievor that he was being denied leave with pay in January because he could work other hours. Instead, the - - . .-, 4.. ., ~ H' ....... ~ ....... % I I I If" I . H . ~ ... . ~ ... __ 4 _. . ~. ~ ,.. ,_ .,..." --. ...........". ~"" -".J. .:. > .:. 17 request for leave was denied and Mr. Mickovski then advised the Grievor that he could avoid a loss of pay by using vacation time or working alternate hours. Although the Grievor elected to use vacation time to cover his absence from work on January 19, 2010, as well as his absences on January 7th and 11lh, he indicated at the hearing that he would be prepared to work alternate hours during the week. In the Board's view, this type of accommodation will undoubtedly avoid disputes of a similar nature In the future, As noted previously, In two earlier awards which were referred to by the College, Boards of Arbitration considered the extent to which the employee could work alternate hours to make up the time lost In the result, for the reasons set out, we nnd that the College did not take into account all relevant factors in considering the Grlevor's request for leave on January 19, 2010, In Seneca Colfege Of Appfled Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (supra), where a similar conclusion was reached. the Arbitrator awarded one day's pay, rather than remitting the matter to the College, In our view, that type of remedy is also appropriate in this case. Accordingly, we direct that the Grievor be compensated for the day in question and that the vacation time used on 18 that day be reinstated, The Board shall remain seized for purposes of implementation or clarificaUon of this award. DATED AT TORONTO, this 7th day of April, 2011. ~OW}\ W- Chair "Carla Zabek" College Nominee See Dissent Attached Union Nominee In the three years proc€ledlng the grievancB.theGrlevor had been grantedn number of paid leave days for similar, If not IdentlcalreQsons, to those in lhlsgrlevance. At no time had the Grievor, or the Union. been made aware that the Oollege had changed Its policy wUh regards to such leaves. . . . It wa.s the Colleg(l'~ evidence that tho reasons lor the denial of thesa leave days were principally the lateness of the request, the lack or information cOr'ltalned In the reque$t, and the f~lIura of the Grlevor to explore other options for making up thotlme needed. In evidence the Grievor testified that he rolled on his past experiences or being granted leave In deciding when and how .to .request the leove and.theamount of Informatlon to Include. Furthermore, the evidence suggoststhat If tho Griovorhad known that a dIfferent procedure was now required, he would have provided lhs nddltlonal Information the College required and explorod options to make up the work. . The Collogo'o donlal of the Grl<)vor's request for leavo baGod on a change of policy not communicated to the Grievor or the Ur'llon is clearly an unreasonable exercise 01 Its discretion. The degree of the Grlevor's wIfe's IlIneeees combined with the dlstance$he must travel for care and the lack of alternative family m~mbe($ to assist In the care c1sarly constitutes extenua"ng personal circumstances and refusal 01 the leave resulting from an undIsclosed change in policy 1$ unreasonable. For these reasons1 tho grievance should be allowed and tho Grlevor should be granted the days requested with full compensation.