Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0995.Union.12-05-31 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB#2011-0995 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Union) Association - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Michael Mitchell Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Paul Meier Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARING March 28, April 12 and May 17, 2012. - 2 - Decision [1] The Board is seized with a policy dispute wherein the association alleges that the employer has contravened the collective agreement in a number of respects in carrying out surplussing of positions on August 2 and 30, 2011. The allegations are as follows: 1. That the employer failed to apply the memorandum of Agreement on “Transition of Employees Impacted by Transformations and Transfers” which is appended to the collective agreement to the affected employees. 2. That the employer failed to comply with article 12.12 3. That the employer failed to comply with article 27.5.2(a) and 27.5.3(a) 4. That the employer failed to provide pre-notices in compliance with the collective agreement by defining “work unit” and “job function” too narrowly. 5. That the employer violated article 27.5.2(a) by failing to give “as much notice as possible” when surplus is less than full complement. 6. That the employer contravened article 27.5.2 by failing to provide pre-notice in writing in less than full complement surplus situations. 7. That the employer is in violation of a September 2008 Memorandum of Agreement by employing fee for service consultants in work units or branches where employees had received pre-notice that their positions are being eliminated. 8. That the employer contravened article 27.14 and Interpretive bulletin No.4 dated June 14, 1996 by failing to provide accurate information to employees about job security entitlements. 9. That the employer violated article 27.14.1 by failing to provide complete information on (a) severance entitlements and (b) employment insurance eligibility at group training sessions. [2] At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the Association advised that the Association was withdrawing allegations 7 and 8, on a without precedent and prejudice basis. [3] Following submissions, I ruled that in order to maximize efficiency, the remaining allegations, except for allegation no.4, would be dealt with together, and that allegation no,. 4 would be heard separately on subsequent dates, once disclosure/particulars are completed. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded on allegations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. [4] Counsel stated that it was not the Association’s goal to have the surplussing process that it claims was not compliant set aside or voided. Rather, the intention was to have the Board rule on the employer’s obligations under the various provisions at issue, as guidance for the future. Therefore, the Association`s remedial request is limited to declarations of violation. - 3 - [5] In order to determine the disputes between the parties, the Board must interpret the relevant provisions of the collective agreement and apply them to the surplussing process that took place. The facts relating to that process was presented largely through documentary evidence. The only viva voce evidence was tendered by the Association through its Director of Dispute Resolution, Mr. Rob Smalley. Mr. Smalley testified about the employer`s process, and the difficulties that process posed to the affected employees and for the association in pursuing rights under the collective agreement. [6] In undertaking the task at hand, the Board must and will have regard to some fundamental and well settled rules relating to interpretation of collective agreements. The ultimate goal in interpreting a provision of a collective agreement is to ascertain, as best as it can be done, the intention of the parties. In this regard, arbitrators have often cited and relied upon the following passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England relating to interpretation of written instruments: The object of all interpretation of a written instrument is to discover the intention of the author, the written declaration of whose mind it is always considered to be. Consequently, the construction must be as near to the minds and apparent intention of the parties as is possible, and as the law will permit. But the intention must be gathered from the written instrument. The function of the Court is to ascertain what the parties meant by the words they have used; to declare the meaning of what is written in the instrument, not of what was intended to have been written: to give effect to the intention as expressed, the expressed meaning being, for the purpose of interpretation, equivalent to the intention. [7] It follows from the foregoing that there is a presumption that the parties intend what they have expressed. Where there is no ambiguity in what the parties have expressed, effect must be given to that notwithstanding any unfairness or inefficiencies that may result. A related principle is that in interpreting collective agreements, it must be presumed that all of the words used are intended to have some meaning and are not intended to be mere verbiage without significance. (See generally, Brown & Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, at 4:2000). With the foregoing principles in mind, I turn to the specific disputes. - 4 - [8] Allegation No: 1 A Memorandum of Agreement dated April 27, 2009 titled “Transition of Employees Impacted by Transformations and Transfers” (“MOA”) is appended to the collective agreement. Its preamble reads: The parties have agreed to work collaboratively to facilitate the transition of employees who will be directly impacted by transformations and transfers. Pursuant to Article 27 of the Collective Agreement the parties have agreed to the following to facilitate the successful transition of AMAPCEO represented employees: Thus the preamble indicates that the goal of the MOA is to make provision for the successful transition of employees “who will be directly impacted by transformations and transfers”. Section 1 titled “Definitions.” defines “Impacted employee(s).” as follows: Impacted Employee(s) shall mean AMAPCEO represented regular employees from Transformation Programs who will be declared surplus as a result of the transformation. “Transformation program(s)” in turn is defined as follows: Transformation program(s) refers to programs and/or services that will transform in such a way that 50 or more OPS employees, of which 10 or more are AMAPCEO represented employees, will be declared surplus, and disclosure identifying the Impacted Employees has been provided to AMAPCEO, and does not include a “sale of a business” pursuant to section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. [9] For the present purposes it suffices to observe that this MOA confers on employees that come within its ambit, certain rights over and above the rights accorded to surplussed employees under the collective agreement. The dispute is whether the employees who were impacted by the surplussing process here, are entitled to the benefit of the MOA. [10] The evidence indicates that in the 2009 Ontario budget the government announced that it would be acting to make “the OPS more efficient by reducing its size by five percent over three years through attrition and other measures”. On March 26, 2009, the Deputy Minister accordingly announced that the existing cap on the size of the OPS will be reduced over the next year by 3400 full-time equivalents, and that efforts would be made - 5 - “to achieve these reductions through attrition such as retirements and other measures”. A very similar announcement was made by the Secretary of the Cabinet. [11] The evidence indicates that based on historical attrition rates, the government expected that the announced reduction target could be achieved through attrition. However, subsequently the government realized that attrition alone may not be sufficient. Thus, on May 2, 2011, the ADM Employee Relations Division of the Ministry of Government Services, wrote to AMAPCEO President, inter alia, as follows: The government hoped that the EFT reduction target could be met through attrition, which would include voluntary resignations, retirements and recent divestments. We have noticed that attrition rates have decreased for each employee group in the OPS. For example, the attrition rate for the AMAPCEO bargaining unit was 3.7% in 2009/10, compared to 5% in 2008/09, 4.5% in 2007/08 and 4.1% in 2006/7. Therefore, decisions with respect to program and service delivery will need to be made to ensure that the target is met by March 31, 2012. [12] On May 4, 2011, a large number of surplus notices were issued, covering positions in several ministries. There is no doubt that the total number of notices in the various ministries meets the threshold of “50 or more OPS employees, of which 10 or more are AMAPCEO represented employees” contemplated in the MOA. Therefore, the numerical requirement for the application of the MOA is met. [13] The disagreement between the parties boils down to this. It is AMAPCEO’s position that the definition of “Transformation Program” in the MOA has only one requirement. That is the numerical threshold. Counsel submits that transformation has been defined in terms of numbers and that whenever there is a surplussing that meets the numerical threshold, there is a “transformation of programs”. He submitted that the MOA does not envisage a transformation of programs and the numerical threshold as a condition of its application. [14] The employer’s interpretation of the MOA is very different. Counsel points out that the preamble to the MOA envisages that it would have application only where employees are “directly impacted by transformations and transfers”. Moreover, the definition of - 6 - “Impacted Employee” clearly contemplates that the employee must be declared surplus “as a result of transformation”. Then the definition of “Transformation program” is said to refer to “programs and services that will transform in such a way” as would result in the declaration of the specified number of employees as surplus. Based on the foregoing language, Counsel submits that not all initiatives that result in the surplussing of the specified number of employees would trigger the MOA. He points to section 7of the MOA as supporting that conclusion because it makes separate provision for “initiatives not captured by this agreement”. It provides: For other initiatives not captured by this Agreement, the ACERC Co-Chairs may explore opportunities for the application of all or part of this Agreement based on mutual agreement. [15] I conclude that the language supports the employer’s interpretation. It clearly indicates that only surplus declarations of a certain magnitude that result from transformations of programs or services trigger the MOA. For the MOA to apply, there must be a causal connection between the surplussing and the transformation of programs or services. [16] I agree, based on the evidence, that the surplussing initiatives by the various ministries were undertaken in an effort to meet the central decision to reduce the size of the OPS. A ministry may reduce the size of its workforce by resorting to measures such as divesting, discontinuing or reducing its programs and services. Where that occurs the MOA would apply. However, the evidence does not establish that the surplussing in question was a result of such steps. There is no evidence of transformation of programs as contemplated in the MOA. Rather the decision was to provide the existing programs and services with less staff. [17] I cannot accept in the face of the language used, that the existence of the numerical threshold ipso facto also satisfies the requirement for “transformation”. If that was the intention, the parties need not, and would not have included the transformation language. They would have simply set out the numerical requirements for the MOA to apply. Accepting AMAPCEO’s interpretation would be to ignore that language and render the reference to transformation in the MOA redundant and meaningless. As noted earlier, it - 7 - is a fundamental rule of interpretation that it must be presumed that all words used by the parties have meaning. [18] For the foregoing reasons I find that allegation No. 1 is not substantiated and is dismissed. [19] Allegation No. 2 This involves an allegation that the employer contravened article 12.12.1 of the collective agreement which reads: Except as provided in article 12.12.2, not less than two weeks prior to a formal public announcement or announcement to employees of a decision involving changes to the workplace affecting AMAPCEO-represented employees, including transfers or dispositions or reorganizations, the Employer will disclosed the decision to the President of AMAPCEO. The President will be provided with the information including the reasons for the decision, when the decision will be implemented, the number and locations of employees affected, and the impact, if any, on employees (surplussing, transfers, reclassifications, hiring, etc.). The Employer has the discretion to make the disclosure earlier than the two weeks set out above. (Emphasis added) [20] There is no dispute that the issuance of the pre-notices to employees identified for surplussing is an announcement that triggers article 12.12.1. The dispute is about the extent of the obligation in article 12.12.1 to provide information relating to the “reasons for the decision”. The Association relied on five disclosures by the employer to its president which it alleges do not meet the requirement in article 12.121. The five impugned disclosures are as follows: A. Ministry of Community & Social Services The disclosure informs that a decision has been made by the Ministry to adapt a new learning model to support employees in developing and enhancing their skills and program knowledge. The AMAPCEO president is informed that as a result of this decision, 9 Learning and Training Consultant positions would be eliminated, and 9 employees surplussed. - 8 - B. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services It is disclosed that pursuant to its on-going investigation of ways to find efficiencies and improve alignment of resources, “15 AMAPCEO positions within the Operations Division, Regional and Corporate offices will be declared surplus”. C. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services The disclosure informs that following “an internal review” of a number of specific positions “it has been determined that these positions have become redundant and will be eliminated as the nature and scope of their responsibilities no longer meet the needs of the Ministry and do not align with our client’s needs or our partners in Infrastructure Ontario/Ontario Realty Corporation”. D. Ministry of Government Services In a disclosure relating to the surplussing of 7 AMAPCEO represented employees, it is stated that “Following an internal review of the positions listed in the chart below, it has been determined that these positions have become redundant due to a reduction in project work and funding and will be eliminated”. E. Ministry of Revenue This disclosure included the following information: - While assessing potential organizational structure options, the Ministry identified a number of opportunities to combine common functions. As a result of this initial internal organizational review, the Ministry identified 8 positions in the following Divisions and Branches in the current structure that will be declared surplus and eliminated from the Ministry. - There are 4 positions identified for reduction as a result of internal Ministry financial pressures within the Central Agencies I & IT Cluster, Services Management Branch and the Central Agencies I & IT Cluster, Customer Solutions Delivery Branch. - It has been anticipated for some time that the work of the ONT-TAXS project team would come to a conclusion. As the project work is nearing completion, the Ministry is proceeding with issuing surplus notice to 14 AMAPCEO-represented employees [21] The issue then is whether the foregoing provides adequate information about the reasons for the respective surplussing that occurred. In my view they do not. That requirement, - 9 - it is reasonable to presume, was put in by the parties for a purpose. As Mr. Smalley testified, information as to why a particular position or positions were identified for surplussing is required for the Association to assess whether the surplussing initiative was a legitimate exercise of management rights, and to properly advise affected members. It is not possible, nor is it appropriate, for the Board to attempt to provide a comprehensive code of the information that must be provided in order to satisfy the requirement in article 12.12.1. However, in the Board’s view, some general principles could reasonably be discerned when the language is given a purposive interpretation. It is not reasonable to expect that the employer would provide every relevant detail related to the decision to surplus. However, from the fact that the parties went to the trouble of negotiating the requirement, it is reasonable to conclude that parties intended that the employer would provide the reasons why a particular position or positions were identified as dispensable. [22] This has not happened in the instances relied upon by the Association. Thus in (A) above, the “reason” set out is the adoption of a new learning model. However, there is no explanation as to how that change led to the conclusion that the positions in question were no longer needed. In (B) there is no causation indicated between the employer’s investigation of ways to improve efficiency and improve alignment of resources and the selection of the particular positions for surplussing. In (C) similarly, there is no indication as to what the findings were in the internal review, and how those findings led to the identification of the positions. The reference in the disclosure that the positions “no longer meet” the needs of the ministry suggests that there had been some change that rendered the positions redundant. There is no information as to what changed. In (D) there is a reference to “reduction in project work and funding”. However, there is no information as to what project work and what funding was reduced and when, and how those reductions impacted on the work of the positions identified for elimination. Similarly, in (E) there is no causation identified between what took place and how that led to the elimination of the positions in question, although in the third case, it may be inferred that the incumbents of the positions in question were performing work related to the named project and that the completion of the project would render the positions redundant. - 10 - [23] Although employer counsel did not explicitly concede that the “reasons for the decision” provided were inadequate, such an acknowledgement appeared to be inherent in his submissions. Thus, he did not simply take the position that all of the information the association president was entitled to under article 12.12.1 was contained in the disclosure. Rather, he argued that the Board should consider “the context” within which the disclosure was made. The context he relied on was that there is an AMAPCEO Dispute Resolution Officer who has responsibility for each ministry, who has knowledge of on- going surplussing issues and has a close relationship with HR staff responsible for surplus initiatives within the Ministry. He argued that the respective DRO’s were not called to testify that they were not aware of the reasons for the surplussing of the positions. Counsel pointed out that the disclosure letters to the AMAPCEO president also provided the name, and contact information of a particular individual who the president was invited to consult if he had any questions or concerns. He submitted that these parties are very sophisticated and had on-going consultation through various committees. [24] With respect, those submissions in essence are tantamount to stating that officials of the association are either privy to the reasons for the surplussing or at least had the means of obtaining that information. Assuming that to be the case, however, that has no bearing on the requirement in article 12.12.1. That provision imposes an explicit positive obligation on the employer to provide specific information to a specific individual, the association president. The fact that the president may have other means of accessing the information does not relieve the employer from the explicit obligation it has undertaken in article 12.12.1. For the foregoing reasons the Board finds that allegation 2 is substantiated. [25] Allegation 3 Article 25.5.2(a) provides: Where less than the full complement of positions within an administrative district or unit, institution or other such work unit will be declared surplus: (a) the employees in the work unit will be given as much notice as possible that reductions will occur and will be informed of the probable impact on staff. Not less than three (3) weeks prior to the declarations of surplus the - 11 - employees will be advised of the number of positions that are to be reduced; notice shall also simultaneously be given to AMAPCEO. (Emphasis added) The association has identified a number of instances where employees received pre- notice of surplus, but AMAPCEO did not receive simultaneous notice as required by the last sentence of article 27.5.2(a). [26] The employer acknowledges that AMAPCEO was not given notice at the time the pre- notice letters were issued to the employees affected. However, counsel argued that the association president received the information that positions would be surplussed “better than simultaneously” through a letter sent well in advance of the issuance of the pre- notice to the affected employees. However, the evidence is that this letter only indicates an intention to surplus. As a result of representations by the employee and/or the association, or as a result of a change of mind on the part of the employer, the intended surplus may not materialize. The requirement is intended to ensure that when the intention is actually acted upon by the issuance of the pre-notice to the employee, the association is entitled to notice at the same time. [27] Employer counsel also relied on the fact that the pre-notice letters issued to employees are “cc’d” to the association president. However, the clear and unchallenged evidence is that despite the “cc”, the association president did not receive is a copy simultaneously. It was received in some cases two weeks later. Counsel for the employer accepted this fact, but submitted that the “cc” indicates that the employer intended to provide simultaneous notice. However, intention to comply is not sufficient. It is clear that the association was not given notice simultaneously. Therefore, I conclude that allegation 3 is substantiated. [28] Allegation No.5 This allegation also relates to an obligation under article 27.5.2(a), which provides: Where less than the full complement of positions within an administrative district or unit, institution or other such work unit will be declared surplus: - 12 - (a) the employees in the work unit will be given as much notice as possible that reductions will occur and will be informed of the probable impact on staff. Not less than three (3) weeks prior to the declarations of surplus the employees will be advised of the number of positions that are to be reduced; notice shall also simultaneously be given to AMAPCEO. (Emphasis added) The association claims that the employer has, as a practice, limited the notice to two weeks whereas article 27.5.2(a) requires that employees be given “as much notice as possible”. [29] In determining this dispute, regard must be had to the balance of article 27.5.2 which provides various alternatives and options to employees upon receipt of a pre-notice as follows: (b) all employees in the work unit will be offered the opportunity to volunteer for pay-in-lieu options under Article 27.7.1, alternate work arrangements, and/or unpaid leaves of absence, or other workforce measures in order to avoid or minimize surplus notices. Employees will be advised that they must complete their portion of the employee portfolio within one week if they have not already done so; (c) requests to exercise a pay-in-lieu option under Article 27.7.1 from employees in the job functions to be reduced will be approved on the basis of seniority up to the numbers required; (d) the Employer shall give all reasonable consideration to requests for alternate work arrangements, unpaid leaves of absence or other proposed workforce measures; and (e) any additional employees in the unit who have indicated their willingness to take a pay-in-lieu option may register pursuant to Article 27.4. (f) where an employee who will be the subject of a surplus notice irrevocably declares that he or she chooses not to accept a direct assignment, a bump, or to remain available for direct assignment or where an employee volunteers to take pay-in-lieu or a retirement pension bridging option (excluding Surplus Factor 80), the Employer will not seek a direct assignment or bump for that employee. For clarity, this will not affect an employee’s other entitlements including pay-in-lieu, retirement/pension bridging options (excluding Surplus Factor 80) in his/her surplus notice. - 13 - [30] It is apparent that the intention in sub-section (a) is to afford affected employees as much time as possible to make their choices and decisions pursuant to sub-sections (b) to (f). The employer’s position is that since article 27.5.2(a) does not set out or guarantee any specific time period, it is open for the employer to determine a period of reasonable notice in exercising its management rights under article 3. [31] With respect, I disagree. The position advanced by the employer would have merit if the requirement was simply “to provide notice” or “to provide reasonable notice”. However, the parties have described the notice required in terms of “as much notice as possible”. The parties have in effect defined what is reasonable in terms of ‘as much as possible’. In the circumstances the management right is circumscribed by the obligation to provide “as much notice as possible”. Obviously, what is “possible” in some cases may be two weeks. In others, it may be more or less. While what is possible in a given situation must be viewed from an objective test of reasonableness, notice of two weeks as a matter of practice in all cases does not comply with the obligation to provide “as much notice as possible”. Therefore, allegation No. 5 is substantiated. [32] Allegation No. 6 To determine this issue, the articles 27.5.2(a) and 27.5.3.(a) of the collective agreement are relevant. They provide: 27.5.2 Where less than the full complement of positions within an administrative district or unit, institution or other such work unit will be declared surplus: (a) the employees in the work unit will be given as much notice as possible that reductions will occur and will be informed of the probable impact on staff. Not less than three (3) weeks prior to the declarations of surplus the employees will be advised of the number of positions that are to be reduced; notice shall also simultaneously be given to AMAPCEO. 27.5.3 Where the full complement of positions within an administrative district or unit, institution or other such work unit will be declared surplus: (a) the employees in the work unit will be given as much notice as possible that reductions will occur and will be informed of the surplus decision. Not less than two (2) weeks prior to the declarations of surplus, the identified employee(s) will be advised in writing that their position(s) will be declared surplus; notice shall also simultaneously be given to AMAPCEO. (Emphasis added) - 14 - [33] Counsel for the association concedes that while article 27.5.3(a) requires explicitly that in full complement situations employees “will be advised in writing”, in less than full- complement situations, article 27.5.2(a) does include the words “in writing”. However, he points out that article 27.5.2(a) requires that simultaneous notice be given to the association president, at a given address or facsimile number. The notice to the president, therefore, has to be in writing. Therefore, he argues that the parties would have intended that the advice to the employee would also be in writing because that “makes good sense”. [34] I agree with the association counsel’s view that “it makes sense” in the circumstances to provide advice in writing to employees. However, that is not what determines the obligation under the provision. Just as much as an arbitrator is not entitled to ignore the clear expression by parties because he/she is of the view that such provision is unfair or leads to inefficiency, an arbitrator is not entitled to ignore the clear expressed intention of the parties because he/she thinks that another way makes better sense. The parties have used the words “in writing” in article 27.5.3(a) relating to full complement situations, but excluded those words in the provision immediately preceding, which deals with less than full complement situations. In the absence of any other indication in the collective agreement, it must be presumed that the distinction is intentional, and that if the parties so intended, they would have stated advise “in writing” in article 27.5.2(a), as they did in the article immediately following. They have not done so. The Board is therefore driven to the conclusion that article 27.5.2(a) does not require the contemplated advice to be in writing. Therefore, allegation no. 6 is not substantiated. [35] Having decided the legal issue, I observe my agreement with the association counsel`s view that verbal advice would leave room for disagreement and disputes as to what was or was not verbally communicated. The evidence is that in some instances the employer does advise employees in writing in article 25.5.2(a) situations. Despite the absence of a legal obligation to do so, the employer may wish to consider whether it is desirable to do so in every case. - 15 - [36] Allegation No. 9 Article 27.14.1 provides: Group sessions and written material will be offered to AMAPCEO unit employees about their job security entitlements, including how to complete an employee portfolio, information on severance, pension entitlement and employment insurance. More detailed information shall be given, as early as possible, to employees to be declared surplus. This provision requires group sessions and written material relating to job security entitlements to be offered to affected employees. The association’s allegation is that the employer failed to comply with its obligation under article 27.14.1 to provide information on “how to complete an employee portofolio”, “severance” and “employment insurance”. [37] The employer concedes that no group sessions or written material were offered on employment insurance. The evidence on the information offered on employee portofolios is limited to the following. Employee portfolio: Article 27.3.7 – 27.3.10 . Employees will be provided with information on who can be contacted for assistance in completing their EP and provided with information on where to send their completed EP. . Where an EP is not completed by the required date, employees are considered to have waived any right to bumping and to direct assignment to vacancies as per Article 27.3.10. . Employees will be provided with information on who can be contacted for assistance in completing their EP and provided with information on where the send their completed EP. . Where an EP is not completed by the required date, employees are considered to have waived any right to bumping and to direct assignment to vacancies as per Article 27.3.10. [38] The evidence indicates that the information provided on severance relied upon by the employer as meeting the obligation under article 27.14.1 is contained in a form letter to the impacted employee which advises that his/her position is declared surplus effective a specific date. That letter typically includes information to the following effect. For payroll and benefits inquiries or questions, please contact Antonietta (Netta) Forchione, A/Benefits Advisor at (416) 212-2591. Advise them that you have received a notice of surplus and that you have questions related to your specific insured benefits entitlements or payout. - 16 - If you elect not to take a pay in lieu option at this time, you will be required to complete and submit an Employee Portfolio and Addendum within two weeks, as per Article 27.3.7. Please submit your completed Employee Portfolio and Addendum no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 3, 2011 to Angie Doufexis, Human Resources Advisor. Angle Doufexis is available to assist you in completing the Employee Portfolio and can be reached at Angie.Doufexis@Ontario.ca or by telephone at (416) 327-3829. Under Article 27.3.10, if you fail to return the Employee Portfolio it will be deemed that you have waived any right to displacement (bumping) or direct assignment to vacancies. If such is the case, when you receive your surplus notice you may choose a pay-in-lieu option in accordance with Article 27.7.1 for choose to work until the end of the notice period. An electronic WORD version of the AMAPCEO employee Portfolio, Addendum and Guides are available on the MYOPS-Employee Services-HROntario Services-Employment Transition program website or you can contact Angle Doufexis, HR Advisor directly to request an electronic version of these documents if you are not able to access them from a home computer. [39] The Board concludes that the employer has failed to comply with its obligation under article 27.14.1 in all three areas. With regard to employment insurance, the employer concedes that there was no information whatsoever offered. On “severance” and “how to compete an employee portofolio”, the employer has provided information as to how the affected employee may access the information, for example by contacting a particular individual or researching a web-site. That falls short of the employer’s obligation which contemplates that it would offer to the employee information on severance and how to complete an employee portofolio, not merely information on where such information could be found. Therefore, allegation 9 is substantiated. [40] In summary, the Board finds that allegations 1 and 6 are not substantiated. The Board declares that the employer was in contravention of the collective agreement in relation to allegations 2, 3, 5, and 9. The Board remains seized with jurisdiction with regard to all issues outstanding in the policy dispute, including allegation no. 4. Dated at Toronto this 31st day of May 2012. Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair