Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDemopoulos 97-11-06 NOV-12-97 15:20 FROM:RWBO 10,416 340 9250 Nov 6/i7E 3/23 IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARSITRA liON BETWEEN FANSHAWE COLLEGE -and- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION GRIEVANCES OF RAI DEMOPOULOS BOARD OF ARBITRA TJON: JANE H. DEVLIN RON HUBERT CHAIR COLLEGE NOMINEe JON MCMANUS UNION NOMINEE APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE: ROBERT J. ATKINSON GAIL P. ROZELL APPEARANCES FOR rHE UNION: DAVID WRIGHT PADDY MUSSON GARY FORDYCE RAI DEMOPOULOS OPSEU FILE NO.: 96A078 HEARING DATES: November 21, 1996 April 21, 1997 Written submissions were received on May 28 and July 16, 1997. lU'''10 .,..'" :::I;":~'" rM'UC. "";..c;~ 1 There are six grievances before the Board, all of which relate to the layoff of the Grievor. Rai Demopoulos, which took effect on July 3q, 1996. The Grievor has been a full-time Professor at the College since 1983 and has taught courses in photography, English as a second language, and women in non- traditional trades. In the two years immediately preceding her layoff. she was assigned a reduced workload while completing her Masters degree in journalism. At the outset of the hearing, the College raised certain prefiminary issues with respect to the scope of the initial grievance filed by Ms. Demopoulos. This grievance alleges that her layoff was "improper, issued in bad faith and ...contrary to the provisions of the Collective Agreement". As to the nature of the grievance, Mr. Wright advised that the Union intended to advance two daims. Firstly, he submitted that the College's decision to lay off the Grievorwas made in bad faith. In particular, it was contended that the Grievor was laid off because she had previously challenged College decisions, both.through the grievance process and otherwise, and because of Union activity. It was further alleged that her layoff was the result of systemic discrimination as she was the only woman teaching full-time in photography or fine arts. In support of the claim of bad faith, Mr. Wright also submitted that there was sufficient work available for the Grievor and. in this regard, referred to a number of courses taught by part4ime and NOV-12-97 15,21 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PACE 5/23 2 partial-load Professors which were alleged to amount to more than a full-time teaching load. .Mr. Wright indicated. however, that as in the years immediately preceding her layoff, the Grievor was prepared to continue to teach on a reduced workload. As to the second aspect of the grievance, Mr.. Wright contended that if the Grievor was properly laid off from her position, she was entitled to displace either Dana Morningstar or Don Johnson, both of whom attended the hearing and were provided with an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. It was the submission of Mr. Atkinson, on behalf of the College, that the collective agreement does not permit an employee alleging improper layoff to claim bad faith in the decision-making process. Instead, the employee is restricted to daiming that he or she has the competence, skill and experience to perform the work of either a vacant position or positions occupied by employees with less seniority. Moreover, when the matter proceeds to arbitration, the grievance may be arbitrated under only one subsection of Article 27.06. In the alternative, Mr. Atkinson contended that if the Grievor is entitled to pursue a claim of bad faith, this claim cannot encompass allegations of discrimination not raised during the grievance procedure. The relevant provisions of the collective agreement are as follows: NOV-12-9? 15.21 FROM.RWBD ID.416 341!l S251!l PAuE 0/23 3 Article 3 RELATIONSHIP 3.02 The Colleges and the Union agree that there will be no intimidation, discrimination, interference, restraint or coercion exercised or practised by either of them or their representatives or members because of an employee's membership or non-membership in the Union or because of an employee's activity or lack of activity in the Union or because of an employee's filing or not filing a grievance including participation in the workload complaint system. Article 4 NO DISCRIMINATION 4.01 A The parties agree that, in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, there shall be no discrimination or harassment against any employee by the Union or the Colleges. by reason of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour. ethnic origin, citizenship, creed. sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or handicap. Article 27 JOB SECURITY 27.06 When the College decides to layoff or to reduce the number of full- time employees who have completed the probationary period or transfer involuntarily full-time employees who have complete the probationary period to another position from that previously held as a result of such lay- off or reduction of employees, the following placement and displacement provisions shall apply to full-time employees so affected. Where an employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the full.time position concerned, seniority shall apply consistent with the following: NOV-12~S7 15,21 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 8250 PAGE 7/23 4 (i) An employee will be reassigned within the College to a vacant full-time position in lieu of being laid off if the employee has the competence, skill and experience to perform the ,requirements of a vacant position. (ii) Failing placement under 27.06 (i), such employee shall be reassigned to displace another full-time employee in the same classification provided that: (a) the displacing employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the reqUirements of the position concerned. (b) the employee being displaced has lesser seniority with the College. (Hi) Failing placement under 27.06 (ii), such employee shall be re- assigned to displace a full-time employee in another classification upon acceptance of the identical employment conditions as the classification concerned provided that: (a) the displacing employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned; (b) the employee being displaced has lesser seniority with the College. (iv) Failing placement under paragraph 27.06 (Hi), such employee shall be reassigned to displace two partial-load employees provided that: (a) the displacing employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned; and (b) each of the partial-load employees being displaced has lesser months of service with the College as determined in Article 26, Partial-Load Employees, than such displacing employee's months of seniority; and NOV-12-9? 15,22 FROM,RWBD 10,416 340 9250 PAGE 8/23 5 (C) it is understood that the College retains the right to assign additional work to the employee. where warranted, subject to the limits prescribed by Article 11 , Workload. (v) (a) Failing placement under 27.06 (iv) or where the employee has waived in writing the right in 27.06 (iv), such employee shall be reassigned to displace one partial-load employee and one or more part-time employees whose assigned courses are as described in 27.06 (v)(b), provided that (i) The displacing employee has the competence. skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned; and (iI) each of the employees being displaced has lesser months of service with the College (as determined in Artide 26, Partial-Load Employees. or Appendix IX, as appropriate) than such displacing employee's months of seniority; and (iii) it is understood that the College retains the right to assign additional work to the employee where required so that the work assignment so created constitutes a full-load assignment in accordance with the limits prescribed by Article 11, Workload. (v) (b) The courses taught by the part-time employees displaced must be: (i) the same as, or (ii) essentially the same as, or (iii) pre-requisite courses to those taught by the partial-load employee concerned. (v) (c) Such employee shall have the layoff notice extended until completion of the assignment so created and shall NOV-12-87 15,22 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 8250 PACE 8/23 6 maintain current salary and benefits for the duration of that assignment. (v) (d) Upon completion of the assignment $0 created. or as mutually agreed between the College and the employee, such employee shall be reassigned to a vacant full-time position if the employee has the competence. skill and experience to perform the requirements of a vacant 1011- time position. (v) (e) Failing placement under 27.06 (v)(d), such employee shall be laid off without further notice upon completion of the partial-load assignment. (vi) (a) Failing placement under 27.06 (v) or where the employee has waived in writing the fight in 27.06 (v), such employee shall be reassigned to displace one partial-load employee and engage in approved retraining activities such that the employee retains current salary and benefits for the duration of the partial- load assignment provided that: (i) the displacing employee has the competence. skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned; and (ii) the partial-foad employee being displaced has lesser months of service with the College (as determined in Article 26, Partial-load Employees) than such displacing employee's months of seniority. (vi) (b) Such employee shall have the layoff notice extended until completion of the partial-load employee's assignment and shall maintain current salary and benefits for the duration of the partial..toad assignment. (vi) (c) Upon completion of the partial-load assignment or as mutually agreed between the College and the employee, such employee shall be reassigned to a vacant full-time position if the employee has the competence, skill and -- -. ----- ._~~'~~WgU (vii)(d) (vii)(a) (vii) (b) (vii) (c) (vii) (d) (viii}(a) 10,416 340 8250 PAll!:;; llO/:'!;j 7 experience to perform the requirements of a vacant full- time position. Failing placement under 27.06 (vi)(c). such employee shall be laid off without further notice upon completion of the partial-toad assignment Failing placement under 27.06 (vi)(a), or where the employee has waived in writing the right in 27.06 (vi)(a), such employee shall be reassigned to displace a sessional employee (who has more than 90 days remaining on the sessional employee's term appointment) provided that the displacing employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned. Such employee shall have the layoff notice period extended until completion of the sessional employee's assignment and shall maintain current salary and benefits for the duration of the sessional assignment. Upon completion of the sessional assignment or as mutually agreed between the College and the employee, such employee shall be reassigned to a vacant full-time position if the employee has the competence, skill and experience to perform the requirements of a vacant full- time position. Failing placement under 21.06 (vii)(c), such employee shall be laid off without further notice. Failing placement under 27.06 (vii)(a), or where the employee has waived in writing the right in 27.06 (vii), such employee shall be reassigned to displace a part- time employee upon acceptance of the identical employment conditions as the part-time employee concerned provided that (0 the displacing employee has the competence, skill and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned; and NOV-12-87 15:23 FROM:RWBO (viii)(b) (viii)(c) (viii)(d) (viii)(e) 10.416 340 9250 PACE 11/23 8 (ii) the part-time employee being displaced has lesser months of service with the College as determined in Appendix IX than such displacing employee's months of seniority. Such a reassigned person shall be deemed to be laid off and eligible for recall in accordance with 27.09 Band 27.09 C, 27.03 E and the rights under 27.09 A. Failing placement under 27.06 (viii) (a), such employee shall be laid off with written notice of not less than 90 caJendar days. Such employee shall be granted release from all or part of the normally assigned duties. for this period of notice, for the purpose of engaging in retraining activities, where such release is feasible given the normal operational requirements facing the College. Where such release is not possible, the notice period shall be extended by up to 90 days to permit retraining and the employee shall maintain current salary and benefits for the duration of the notice period. At the termination of the period referred to in 27.06 (viii)(c), such employee shall be reassigned to a vacant full-time position, if the employee has the competence. skill and experience to perform the requirements of a vacant full-time position. Failing placement under 27.06 (viii)(d), such employee shall be laid off without further notice. Lay-Off Grievances 27.08 A An employee claiming improper lay-off. contrary to the provisions of this Agreement, shall state in the grievance the positions occupied by full.time and non-full-time employees whom the employee claims entitled to displace. The time limits referred to in 32.02 for presenting complaints shall apply from the date written notice of lay-off is given to the employee. 27.08 B If the grievance is processed through Step 2. the NOV-12-97 15,23 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PAGE 12/23 9 written referral to arbitration in 32.03 shall specify, from the positions ordinally designated in 27.08 A, two full-time positions, or positions occupied by two or more partial-load or part-time employees (the sum of whose duti~ will form one full-time position), who shall thereafter be the subject matter of the grievance and arbitration. The grievor shall be entitled to arbitrate the grievance thereafter under only one of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi). (vii), or (viii) of 27.06. Article 32 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 32~ 12 C "Grievance" means a complaint in writing arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this Agreement. The evidence introduced in relation to the preliminary issues raised by the College was as follows: During the period from April 1. 1993 to March 31, 1996, there was an agreement between the parties that no member of the bargaining unit would be laid off. In November. 1995, prior to the expiry of the agreement, the College gave notice of an "extraordinary financial exigency" as a result of which it anticipated laying off some 68 employees. Thereafter, there were meetings of the College Employment Stability Committee (WeESe.) as provided in Article 29 of the collective agreement. The College representatives on the Committee were Gail Rozell, the Manager of Human Resources, and John Sunseth, Vice-President. Academic. The Union representatives were Paddy Musson, the President of the Local, and Gary Fordyce, the Chief Steward. Tom Geldard, a Vice-President of the local, served as an alternate. During these meetings, there was some discussion of the individual employees to be laid off. NOV-12-87 15.24 FROM.RWBO 10.416 340 8250 PACE 13/23 10 In respect of the Grievor, Ms. Musson took the position that the College was required to restrudure or combine courses taught by partial-Joad and part-time employees to create full-time positions. She also reviewed the Grievor's qualifications and there was evidently some discussion of assignments in photography or English or a combination of the two subject areas. According to Ms. Musson, she also questioned why the Grievor was being laid off, rather than Ms. Morningstar. who was appointed Co-ordinator of the Corporate Media Program in the spring of 1996. Ms. Musson testified that when no explanation was forthcoming, the Union concluded that the decision to layoff the Grievor was motivated by favouritism toward Ms. Morningstar (as her father was Chair of another Department) and by anti-union animus. In this latter regard, Ms. Musson recalled that she made specific reference to the Grievor having challenged College decisions through the grievance procedure. She also suggested that Brian Lee. a Department Chair. was "hostile toward Union activists" and the Grievor, in particular. While Ms. Rozell acknowiedged that Ms. Musson made some reference to favouritism in relation to Ms. Morningstar, she testified that no reference was made to anti-union animus or the Grievor's involvement in union activity. She also testified that had such an allegation been made, she would have treated the matter seriously and conducted an investigation. NOV-12-8? 15:24 FROM:RWBO 10:416 340 8250 PAGE 14/23 11 The Grievor's notice of layoff was issued on April 3rd, 1996 and indicated that her layoff would take effect on July 30th. As of May 1 st, she was released from her assigned duties to engage in retraining activities. The initial grievance which is the subject matter of this award was filed on April 26th and the evidence indicates that the grievance was identical in form to grievances filed by some 55 other employees who challenged their layoffs. The meeting at step 1 of the grievance procedure in connection with Ms. Demopoulos' grievance took place on May 3, 1996. In attendance at the meeting were the Grievor, Ms. Musson and Terry Boyd, the Chair of the General Studies Division. During the meeting, there was some discussion of the Grievors qualifications and the courses to which the Union claimed she could be assigned. In this context, Ms. Musson also suggested that the College was required to combine courses in order to create full-time positions. As to the matter of bad faith, Ms. Musson alleged that there was systemic discrimination, primarily against women, an allegation which was advanced on behalf of a number of employees subject to layoff. Ms. Musson testified that she also claimed that the Grievor was capable of teaching in the Corporate Media Program; that her qualifications were superior to those of Ms. Morningstar; and that the College had exhibited favouritism toward Ms. Morningstar because of her fathers position. While Mr. Boyd agreed that there was a discussion of the Corporate Media NOV-12-97 15.24 FROM.RWBO 10.416 340 9250 PACE 15/23 12 Program, he could not recall Ms. Musson having alleged favouritism toward Ms. Morningstar. However. he did not appear to dispute that such a claim may have been made. Ms. Musson also testified that during the course of the step 1 meeting, she referred to the Grievors union activity although she was not sure how the subject came up. She acknowledged that the clearest reference to union activity was made during CESC meetings. In any event. Ms. Musson believed that at the step 1 meeting, she suggested that Mr. Lee's lack of co-operation in finding the Grievor an assignment in photography related to her union activity. Mr. Boyd, however, disputed Ms. Musson's evidence in this regard and testified that the step 1 meeting focused on the Grievor's qualifications to perform the work available and that no reference was made to union activity. He also testified that had such an allegation been made, he would have recorded it (which he did not) and advised the Manager of Human Resources. The step 2 meeting took place on June 5. 1996. In attendance at that meeting were the Grievor and Ms. Musson, Mr. Sunseth and Ingrid Vankemenade, a Human Resources Consultant. The evidence indicates that . during that meeting, there was discussion of a number of issues, including the Grievor's qualifications as well as courses available in photography and the NOV-12-97 15,25 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PACE 16/23 13 Corporate Media Program. As at the step 1 meeting. Ms. Musson also claimed ~~~~~~~~ro~re~~in~~~~~ positions. However. no reference was made ~ bad faith, favouritism or union activity. Ms. Musson testified that she did not believe it was necessary to raise these issues as the primary purpose of the meeting was to endeavour to resolve the grievance. She also testified that at no time did the College request particulars of the allegation of bad faith set out in the grievance. The first issue to be decided is whether the Grievor is entitled to challenge the College's decision to lay her off on the ground of bad faith. In addressing this issue, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Article 27.06 of the collective agreement. This Article sets out the placement and displacement provisions which apply when the College decides ~ layoff or reduce the number of full-time emptoyees who have completed their probationary period. The introductory paragraph of the Article further specifies that where an employee has the skill, competence and experisnce to fulfill the requirements of the full-time position concerned, seniority shall apply consistent with the procedure set out in the subparagraphs which follow. This procedure contemplates initial assignment to a vacant position, failing which the employee shall be reassigned to displace another full-time employee in the same classification and then in another classification. Thereafter, provision is made for the displacement of partial-load NOV-12-97 15,25 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PAGE 17/23 14 and part-time employees provided in each case that the displacing employee has the skill, competence and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position and greater seniority than the employees being displaced. Article 27.08 ~ which is.headed "Lay-Off Grievances", provides that an employee claiming improper layoff contrary to the provisions of the agreement. shall state in the grievance the positions occupied by full-time and non-full-time employees whom the employee claims entitled to displace. Article 27.08 B provides that if the grievance is processed through step 2, the referral to arbitration shall specify from among the positions initially identified, two full-time positions or poSitions occupied by two or more partial-load or part-time employees (the sum of whose duties will fonn one full-time position), which shall thereafter be the subject of the grievance and arbitration process. This Article further provides that the Grievor shall be entitled to arbitrate the grievance under only one of the subsections of Article 27.06. As indicated previously, in this case, the Union alleged that the College's decision to layoff the Grievor was made in bad faith and that there was work available in the form of courses taught by partial-load and part-time employees which amounted to more than a full-time teaching load. The Union further contended that even if the Grievor was properly identified for layoff. she NOV-12-97 15.26 FROM,RWBO 10.416 340 9250 PAGE 18/23 15 was entitled to displace either Ms_ Morningstar or Mr. Johnson. In the Board's view, however, Article 27.08 B of the collective agreement circumscribes the scope of a layoff grievance which may be dealt with at arbitration and requires the employee to choose one subsection of Article 27.06 under which the grievance will be arbitrated. Moreover, if the Union were correct in its interpretation, by alleging bad faith, the Grievor could identify positions occupied by both full-time as well as partial-load and part-time employees which is directly contrary to the provisiOns of Article 27.08 B. Accordingly, although in the Board's view, it is open to the Grievor to allege bad faith, such an allegation cannot alter the scope of the grievance which can be processed to arbitration. Although the Union also submitted that both Article 32 of the collective agreement and the deemed arbitration provision of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Ad entitle an employee to challenge the decision-making process on the ground of bad faith, these provisions provide for the arbitration of differences relating to the interpietation, application, administration or alleged contravention of the agreement. In the Board's view. these provisions cannot be construed as conferring rights in addition to those set out in the agreement The Board further finds that the issue raised in this case is similar to that dealt with by the Board in The Geol"Qe Brown College of Applied A$ and NOV-12-97 15,26 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PACE 19/23 16 Technology and Ontario Public Servic_e Employees Union December 29. 1995 (Burkett (unreported)). In that case, it was also alleged that the Grievor's layoff was carried out in bad faith and the Union submitted that it was entitled to have that issue determined prior to identifying positions as required by Artide 27.08. In respect of this submission. the Board commented as follows: We start with the Union contention that it is entitled to grieve that the lay-off was carried out in bad faith and to have this claim disposed of before having to identify specific positions. Whatever might be said about the extent of the Union's right to challenge the bonafldes of management decision-making, these parties have circumscribed that right in respect of any decision taken to lay-off. Article 27.08 is very clear in focusing any layoff grievance and subsequent referral to arbitration on specific positions. These parties have agreed that the test of whether or not a lay-off decision is in conformity with the collective agreement is whether, under its substantive provisions, a laid off employee can claim a position( s) occupied by another employee. Under Article 27.08 A an employee claiming improper lay-off.....shall state in the grievance the positions occupied by full-time and non-full-time employees whom the employee claims entitlement to displace," and under Artide 27.08 B the referral to arbitration"... shall specify from the positions originally designated in 27.08A two full-time positions ..." There are no other type of lay-off grievances contemplated. Accordingly, we must reject the Union's initial argument. This collective agreement, and more specifically Articles 27.08 A and B, does not permit a grievance to be filed that simply alleges bad faith in the decision making process. Similarty, in this case, we find that an allegation of bad faith cannot give rise to an independent claim although it may be advanced in support of a claim which conforms to the requirements of Article 27.08. NOV-12-97 15,27 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PAGE 20/23 11 As to the nature of the bad faith in issue, there was no dispute that during the meeting at step 1 of the grievance procedure, Ms. Musson alleged systemic discrimination against women. Although she testified that she also suggested that the College had exhibited favouritism toward Ms. Morningstar, Mr. Boyd could not recall such an allegation. Nevertheless. he acknowledged that there was a disc~ssion of the Corporate Media Program and he did not appear to dispute that such a claim may have been made. In the circumstances, therefore, we find that it is open to the Union to pursue the allegation of favouritism in the context of the Grievor's claim to displace Ms. Morningstar. The final issue, then, is whether it was alleged that the Grievors layoff was motivated by anti-union animus. In the Board's view, such an allegation does not automatically flow from the claim of bad faith set out in the grievance. particularly as that claim appeared on a standard form which was used on virtually all of the grievances filed in connection with layoffs which took place in the summer of 1996. Moreover, an allegation of discrimination on the basis of union activity is extremely serious and one would expect it to be advanced clearly. In this case, although Ms. Musson testified that the clearest reference to the Grievors union activity was made during CESC meetings (a matter which was disputed by Ms. Rozell), we find that discussions during CESC NOV-12-97 15.28 FROM.RWBO 10.416 340 9250 PAGE 21/23 18 meetings cannot assist in determining the scope ota grievance which had not been tiled when those meetings took place. Accordingly. it is necessary to consider what occurred during the grievance procedure. In ~is regard. there was admittedly no reference to union activity or anti-union animus during the step 2 meeting and even Ms. Musson had difficulty recalling precisely what was said or how the subject came up during the meeting at step 1. Although her notes of the meeting contain a reference to "bad faith detailed", there is no indication of the nature of the atlegations and clearly other allegations of bad faith were advanced during that meeting. Mr. Boyd also disputed that any reference was made to the Grievor's union activity during the step 1 meeting. In the result, having considered the evidence as a whole. we find that an allegation of discrimination on the basis of union activity was not cleany raised during the grievance procedure. Accordingly, to permit the Union to advance this allegation at arbitration would constitute an expansion of the grievance. In the result, the Beard finds that although bad faith may be alleged in a grievance claiming improper layoff, that does not alter the scope of the grievance that may be processed to arbitration in accordance with Article 27.08. In this case. for the reasons set out. the Union shall be confined to allegations of systemic discrimination and favouritism provided these allegations relate to the Grievor's claim under Article 27.06(ii) which is the subsection of Articie27.06 under which Ms. Demopoulos has chosen to arbitrate her initial grievance. In NOV-12-97 15,28 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 9250 PACE 22/23 19 other words, such allegations may be pursued only to the extent that they bear on the Grievor's claim to the positions occupied by Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Johnson. The Grievor may not chaUenge the decision making process on the ground of bad faith and thereby advance an additional claim to partial-load and part-time positions. The Board shall remain seized pending final determination of the grievances of Ms. Demopoulos. DATED AT TORONTO, this 6th day of November, 1997. 5o..u~ \-\ ~ Chair "Ron Hubert" College Nominee See Partial Dissent Attached Union Nominee NOV-12-87 15,28 FROM,RWBO 10,416 340 8250 PAGE 23/23 DEKOPULIS 96A078/ OPSEU - AND - F ANSHAWE COLLEGE PARTIAL DISSENT WHILE I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY THAT MS. DEMOPOULIS IS ENTITLED TO PURSUE HER CLAIMS OF SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION AND FAVORITISM, I MUST DISSENT FROM THE FINDING THAT IIS.DEIlOPOULOS IS TO BE PREVENTED FROII PURSUING HER CLAIMS OF ANTI - UNION ANIMUS OR FROM ALLEGING THAT THE COLLEGE ACTED IN BAD FAITH BY LAYING HER OFF AND INSTEAD ASSIGNED WORK TO PARTIAL/LOAD AND PART/ TIME EMPLOYEES. I DISAGREE THAT THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT I S THAT NO GENERAL RI GBT TO FILE A GRIEY ANCE ALLEGING TIfAT A DECISION TO LAY AN EMPLOYEE OFF WAS IN BAD FAITH. IN MY VIEW THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 27.08 IS THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO LAYOFF GRIEVANCES WHERE THE GRIEVOR IS SEEKING TO BE PLACED IN A EXISTING POSITION. IT DOES NOT PREVENT GRIEVANCES ALLEGING THAT THE LAYOFF SHOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. I All PARTICULARLY TROUBLED BY TIlE DECISION OF THE IIA.JORITY TO LOOK BEHIND THE GRIEVANCE FORM ITSELF, AND CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE GRIEVANCE STEPS. THE GRIEVANCE CLEARLY STATED THAT BAD FAITH WAS BEING ALLEGED. THE COLLEGE NEVER SOUGHT ANY PARTICULARS OR CLARIFICATION OF THIS UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE THE BEARING. TO PERMIT THE COLLEGE TO SIT BACK IN THIS "AY,AND THEN LIIIIT THE SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF TIlE DISCUSSIONS AT THE GRIEVANCE STEPS I S A GRAVE ERROR. ALLOWING TUI S TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO ME UNDEIUIINES THE PURPOSE OF THE STEP MEETINGS 1IBERE THE PARTIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK FREELY AND OFF THE RECORD ABOUT THE NA TUftE OF THE GaIEV AKeES AND POSSI BLE SETTLEllKNTS. IF TBI S TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED, THE PARTIES BY START TAPING OR MAKING TRANSCRIPTS OF TIlE STEPS MEETINGS. IN lit VIEW THE RESULT MAKES FOR BAD LABOUR RELATIONS. JON MCMANUS. UNION NOMINEE