Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Allen 12-05-13
IntheMatterofaLabourArbitrationpursuanttotheOntarioLabourRelationsAct Between: NORTHERNONTARIOSCHOOLOFMEDICINE -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEES'UNION anditsLocal677 GrievanceofCindyAllen OPSEUFileNo.2011-0677-0010 Arbitrator: Appearances FortheUnion: FortheEmployer: Hearing: RandiH.Abramsky DavidWrightCounsel GalthO'NeillCounsel May3,2012inThunderBay,Ontario AWARD AtissueiswhethertheEmployer,theNorthernOntarioSchoolofMedicine, violatedthecollectiveagreementwhenitrefusedtoconsiderthegrievoreligiblefora VoluntaryExitOptioninJune2011.ThegrievanceallegesthattheEmployeracted unreasonablyandviolatedArticle10.2oftheparties'collectiveagreement.Article10.02 states:"TheEmployeragreesthatinadministeringtheCollectiveAgreementitwillact inareasonablemannerconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheCollectiveAgreement." TheEmployerraisedapreliminaryobjectiontothejurisdictionofthearbitratorto hearthismatter,butboththeobjectionandthemeritswerepresentedbythepartiesatthe hearing. Facts ThepartiesproceededbywayofanAgreedStatementofFact,andsupporting documentation.Tabreferencestothedocumentshavenotbeenincluded. . NorthernOntarioSchoolofMedicine("NOSM")isanincorporatednot-for-profit entity,folxaedasajointinitiativeofLaurentianUniversity(Sudbury)and LakeheadUniversity(ThunderBay)astheFacultyofMedicineforboth Universities.itwasthefirstnewmedicalschoolinCanadainoverthirty(30 yearswhenitwelcomeditsfirstclassofundergraduatemedicalstudentsin2005. . NOSMemploysapproximately240personsatitsLakeheadUniversity, LaurentianUniversitycampusesandothernorthernOntariolocations.Although NOSMemployeesworkersattwomainlocationsaswellassatellitelocations,it operatesasasingleschool,withsystemsandprocesseswhichsupporttheSchool asawhole. 2 . NOSMemployeesaredividedintoportfoliosandunitswhichprovideserviceto theSchool.EmployeeswhoreporttoaUnitSupervisorworktypicallyoutofone ortheothercampuslocation,butmayberequiredtotraveltotheothercampus locationfromtimetotime. 4 OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion("OPSEU")anditsNorthernOntario SchoolofMedicineLocal677-StaffUnit-isthesoleandexclusivecollective bargainingagentforalloffice,clerical,administrative,technicalandservice employeesworkinginandoutoftheNorthernOntarioSchoolofMedicine,save andexceptsupelMsors,personsabovetherankofsupervisor,executiveassistants andpersonsemployedinaconfidentialcapacityinmat:tersrelatingtolabom' relations,studentassistants,co-opstudents,studentteachingassistantsand personscoveredbyasubsistingcollectiveagreement(ClarityNote:Student assistants,co-opstudentsandstudentteachingassistantsmeansfull-timestudents atauniversityofcollegewhoarealsoemployedbytheNorthernOntarioSchool ofMedicineinthecapacityofstudentassistant,co-pstudentsorstudentteaching assistant). 5.ForthepurposeofthisGrievance,thepartiesagreethattherelevantversionofthe CollectiveAgreementistheoneknownas"Summary#13". , Throughtheearlymonthsof2011,NOSMadviseditsemployeesthi'oughaseries ofemailsandmemorandaofa"reshapingInitiative",designedtoaclfievethe goalsofitsStrategicPlaninacontextoffiscalpressm'esandstructuralfunding challenges.ThisReshapingInitiativewouldincludeaneworganizational structurereducingthenumberofNOSM"portfolios"fi'omninetofiveanda school-widereductionofmanagementandstaffpositions. , FollowingaseriesofmeetingswithrepresentativesofOPSEU,NOSMadvisedits Unit2membersbymemorandumthatitwasmakingavailabletosomeofits employees,aspartofits"reshapinginitiative"a"VoluntaryExitOffer"(VEO), consistingof: a.Three(3)weekspayperyearofservice(includingpartialyears),plus b.Anadditionalone(1)week'spayperyearofcompletedselwice. EmployeeswereadvisedthattheVEOwasequivalenttothe telmination/severancepackagesbeingofferedtostaffwhowerereceivingnotices oflayoff,andelectedvoluntaryresignation.Employeeswereadvisedasfollows, regardingeligibilityfortheVEO: "Continuingfull-andpart-timeOPSEUStaffUnionemployeeswhohave notreceivedanoticeoflayofftodaymayself-identifytobeconsideredfor theVoluntaryExitOption." 3 TheVEOwasaNOSMinitiative,andthoughthetermsofeligibilityfortheVEO werenotnegotiatedbythepatties,theunionknewofthecontentsoftheVEOon orbeforeMarch31,2011,whenthedetailswerereleasedtothemembersofthe bargainingunit. , OnoraboutMarch31,2011,fourteen(14)employeesreceivedNoticeofLayoff, andwereadvisedbyletteroftheiroptionsundertheCollectiveAgreement. CindyAllen(the"Grievor")receivedaletterdatedMarch31,2011,from JonathanBarrett,DirectorofHumanResources.Theletterexplainedthatthe Grievorhadthreechoices: a.Toacceptenhancedseverance(calculatedinthesamemannerastheVEO optionforthosewhowereeligible). b.Toelecttobumpintoacontinuingposition,or e.Toacceptthelayoffandremainavailableforrecall. TheGrievorwastocompleteandreturnanOptionSelectionFormtotheHuman ResourcesUnitbyApril8,2011.InadditiontotheOptionSelectionForm,the lettertotheGrievorenclosedacalculationsheet,settingoutherestimated entitlements(cashpayouts)undereachofheroptionsunderthelayoffprovisions. . ByMemorandumdatedApril1,2011,JonathanBarrettadvisedNOSM employeeswhohadreceivedNoticeofLayoffthatthedatebywhichtheyhad previouslybeenrequh'edtonotifytheEmployeroftheirselectionundertheir layoffoptions(April8,2011)wouldbeextended. 10.ByemailofApril5,2011,andattachedMemorandumdatedApril5,201t, JonathanBarrettadvisedNOSMemployeeswhohadreceivednoticeoflayoffof certainchangestothebumpingprocess,negotiatedwiththeUnion,andofthe extensionoftheirselectiondatetoApril12,2011. 11.FollowingaseriesofdiscussionsbetweenNOSMandOSPEU,theparties executeda"MemorandumofAgreemehtReLayoffandRecall"onApril5,2011, toaddressquestions,concernsandissueswhichhadarisenduringthelayoff process,andtoclarifycertainmattersforemployeesaffectedbythelayoffs.The MemorandumstatedasfollowingregardtheVoluntaryExitOption: "3.Otheragreedterms: ....(e)VoluntaryExitOption" Thepattiesdidnotnegotiatewithrespecttothetermsofeligibilityforthe VoluntaryExitOption. 4 12.AfurthermemorandumtostaffandfacultywasdistributedonApril5,201t, updatingstaffonthestatusoftheSchool'sReshapingInitiative. 13.TheGrievorsubmittedherOptionSelectionform(updatedApril5,2011)to HumanResourcesonApril12,2011.TheGrievorelectedtobump,pursuantto theprovisionsoftheCollectiveAgreement. 14.Asaresultoftheinitiallayoffnoticesprovidedtofourteen(14)bargainingunit members,oneemployeeappliedforandtookaVEO.Seven(7)ofthoselaidoff workerschosetodisplace(bump)otherbargainingunitmembersinaccordance withtheCollectiveAgreement.Thosesevenworkerswereinturnadvisedoftheir optionsundertheCollectiveAgreement,includingenhancedseverance,bumping, andacceptingthelayoffandretainingtheirrecallrights(i.e.,thesameoptions availabletotheinitialgroupoflaidoffworks).NOSMFacultyandStaffwere alsogivenanupdateofthereshapinginitiative,andwereadvisedofthe reopeningoftheVEO,bymemorandumdatesApril19,2011.Thememorandum stated: "...NOSMisre-openingtheVoluntaryExitOptionforemployees representedbytheOPSEUStaffUnit.Anemailtothiseffect,withrelated information,willbesentdirectlytoStaffUnitmembersearlytomolow. HeldbyHumanResourcesinstrictestconfidence,anymatchesmadeunder theVEOprogramentailthatanemployeewhowouldbeotherwiselaidoff canbedirectplacedintoavacancycreatedbyanemployeeselectingthe additionallyenhanceseverancepackageincludedintheVEO,inorderto pro'sueoptions(e.g.,continuingeducation,newcareeropportunities, retirement)outsideofNOSM." 15.Fm'therdetailsregardingthere-openingoftheVEOwereprovidedtomembersof theStaffUnitbymemorandumdatedApril27,2011. 16.TheGrievorwasadvisedbyletterdatedMay2,2011thatamatchhadbeenfound forherthroughthebumpingprocessinthepositionof"administrativeAssistant, CLS/Phase3",atthesamerateofpayasherweviousposition.Shewasadvised thather"transferdate"intothenewpositionwouldbeJune2,20t1,andwas advisedoftheimplicationsofeitheracceptingordecliningthebump.She submittedher"MatchSelectionForm",acceptingthebump,onMay3,201t,and receivedaletterfromNOSMdatedMay11,2011,confirmingthematchandthe transferdateofJune2,2011. 17.BymemorandumdatedMay5,2011,NOSMStaffandFacultywereprovided withafurtherupdateregardingthestatusofNOSM'sreshapinginitiative. 18.TheGrievorcommencedworkinthenewpositiononJune3,2011. 19.(a)ByemaildatedJune16,20!1toJonathanBarretttheGrievorinquiredasto whethershewouldbequalifiedtoapplyfortheVEO. (b)ByemailtotheGrieverdatedJune16,2011,JonathanGarrettadvisedthe GrievorthattheVEOoptionwouldremainopenuntiltheendofthedayonJune 30,2011,andoftheprocesstobefollowedtomakeapplicationfortheVEO. ThroughafurtherexchangeofemailbetweentheGrievorandJonathanBarrett, Mr.BarrettconfirmedthattheGrievorwouldremaininhercurrentpositionifno matchwasfound.TheGrievorstatedthatshewishedtobeincludedintheVEO. TheGrievorwasadvisedthatamatchwasanticipated. (c)ThroughanexchmageoffurtheremailbetweenJonathanBarrettandthe Grievor,Mr.Ban'ettadvisedtheApplicantthatfollowingfurtherreview,she wouldnotbeconsideredfortheVEOprogramastheintentbehindtheProgram wasthat"employeeswouldhaveasingleopportunitytotakea'cashsettlement' offer,orinthealternative,exercisetheirrightswithintheredeployment/job securitysystem(e.g.,bumping)." 20.Asaresult,theGrievorfiledagrievancedatedSeptember1,2011,alleginga contraventionofArticle14.2oftheCollectiveAgreement. 21.TheGrievorcontinuedinactiveemploymentwithNOSMthroughoutthe layoffandthebumpingprocess,andcurrentlyremainsemployedbyNOSM. 22.Thepartiesagreethatthegrievanceistimely. Thecollectiveagreementrelieduponinthegrievancewastheparties'first collectiveagreement.ItisundisputedthatArticle14.02eitedinthegrievanceisactually Article10.02whichprovidesasfollows: ARTICLE10-MANAGEMENTRIGHTS 10.02TheEmployeragreesthatinadministeringtheCollectiveAgreementitwill actinareasonablemannerconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheCollective Agreement. AlsorelevantisArticle38-LayoffandRecall.Article38,inrelevantpart,states: 38.02(a)WhentheEmployerdeterminesthatlayoffsaretooccur,theEmployer andtheUnionshallmeettodiscusspotentiallayoffs,theimplicationsofthose layoffforEmployees,possiblealternativestolayoff,andopportunitiestominimize theeffectoflayoffsforEmployeesandtheEmployer. (b)AnyagreementbetweentheUnionandtheEmployeraboutthemethodof implementationofthelayoffshalltakeprecedenceoverthetermsofthis Agreement. Theremainderoftheprovisionsetsout,amongotherthings,theprocessforbumpingand recall.ThereisnoprovisioninthecollectiveagreementaboutaVoluntaryExitOption. ReasonsforDecision Asnoted,theEmployerhasraisedapreliminaryobjectiontothearbitrabilityof thisgrievance.ThebasisofitsobjectionisthattheVEOprogramisnotpm-tofthe collectiveagreementandthereforeissuesarisingunderitarenotarbitrable.Initsview, themerementionoftheVEOprogramintheApril5,2011MemorandumofAgreement withOPSEUdoesnotmeanthattheVEOprogramistherebyincorporatedintothe collectiveagreement.TheVEOprogram,itsubmits,doesnotimpactthe"methodof implementationofthelayoff",isnotinconsistentwiththecollectiveagreementandthus cannotbesaidto"takeprecedence"overthetermsofthecollectiveagreement.It submitsthattheVEOprogram,therefore,doesnotbecomeenforceableunderthe grievancearbitrationprovisionsofthecollectiveagreement.TheEmployeralsoraiseda numberofotherarguments. TheUnionsubmitsthattheVEOprogramwasincorporatedintothecollective agreementbyvirtueofArticle38.02(b),andthusisenforceablethroughthegrievance arbitrationprovision.ItcontentsthattheApril5,2011MemorandumofAgreement, whichincludestheVEO,isa"methodofimplementationofthelayoff,"whichminimizes theimpactofthelayoffonstaff,and"take[s]precedence"overthetermsofthecollective agreement.Inthealternative,theUnionassertsthattheEmployerisestoppedbythe April5,2011MemorandumofAgreementfromassertingthattheVEOisnotarbitrable. ItismyviewthatIneednotdecidetheEmployer'spreliminaryobjection.Nordo IneedtodecidethestandardofreviewtoapplytotheEmployer'sdeterminationunder theVEOprogram-whetheritmustbe"reasonable"astheUnioncontendsunderArticle 10.02,ormerely"notarbitrary,discriminatoryorinbadfaith"becauseofthediscretion thattheEmployerhastoadministertheVEOprogram,astheEmployersubmits.Imake thosedeterminationsbecauseevenassumingthattheEmployer'sadministrationofthe VEOprogramisarbitrableandthattheEmployer'sactionshadtobe"reasonable",Ifind thatthegrievancemustbedismissedonthemerits. TheVEOprogram,assetoutintheinitiallaunchoftheprogramonMarch31, 2011,clearlyindicatedtherequirementsforeligibilityandthepurposeoftheprogram. Thememostatesasfollows,inrelevantpart: TheNorthernOntarioSchoolofMedicine(NOSM)ismakingaVoluntaryExit Offer(VEO)availabletoallcontinuingfull-andpart-tinleemployeemembersof theOPSEUStaffUnion.Thisofferisintendedtofacilitatevoluntaryterminations ofemploymentandminimizetheimpactofNOSM'sreshapingbycreatinga vacancyforadisplacedemployee. Itthenexplainsthatbecauseofthereorganization,anumberofpositionswereidentified asredundantandthat"impactedstaffmemberswerenotifiedearliertodayandthesestaff membersarenowreceivingsupportintermsofunderstandingtheiroptionsand entitlements,andmakingchoicesthatsuittheirindividuaicircumstances."TheVoluntary ExitOfferwas"beingmadeavailabletolessentheimpactofthereorganizationon 8 employeedisplacement."Thegoalwastocreateavacancythatanimpactedemployee whohadbeenidentifiedforlayoffcouldfill,therebypreventingthedisplacement(or bumping)ofsomeoneelse. Thememodefined"Whoiseligible"asfollows: Continuingfull-andpart-timeOPSEUStaffUnionemployeeswhohavenot receivedanoticeoflay-offtodaymayself-identifytobeconsideredforthe VoluntaryExitOffer. Itfurtherstatesthat"AcceptanceofVEOrequestswillbeatthesolediscretionofthe School,andmaybeusedtoalleviateafiscalpressure,establishavacancyforplacement ofadisplacedemployee,eliminatetheneedforlay-offofanotheremployee,orforany otherpurposedeemedsuitablebytheSchool."Anemployee'sapplicationforVEOwas "deemednon-revocable." Clearly,thegrievordidnotmeettheeligibilitycriteriafortheinitialVEO program-shewasoneoffourteenunitstaffwhoreceivedalay-offnoticeonMarch31, 2011,withalayoffdayofMay1,2011.Thenoticeoflayoffsetoutthegrievor'sthree options:(1)enhancedseverance(threeweeksofpayperyearorpartialyearofservice plusoneweekofpayforeachcompletedyearofservice)-ifsheelectedtoresignand waiveanyrighttorecall;(2)electtobumpintoanothercontimimgposition;or(3)accept layoffandremainavailableforrecall.Eachoptionwasexplainedindetail,alongwith estimatedpaymentsforeachoption.Thegrievorwasadvisedthat"AdditionalEnhanced SeveranceandextraVoluntaryTerminationPayisnolongeravailabletoyoushouldyou selectOption#2." 9 Meetingswereheldwithimpactedstafftogoovertheoptionsandinformation waspostedontheintranet.OnApril5,2011,thepartiesnegotiateda"Memorandumof AgreementRE:Lay-offandRecall",whichmodifiedbumpingrightsunderArticle38. Employeeswereadvised,onthesamedate,that"[o]nceapositionisidentifiedatthefirst applicablestep,foranystepotherthaninc.2[abumpintoalower-ratedclassification], thatoffershallrepresentthesingleoffertoyou."Itfurtheradvisedthat"[w]hereyou electtoselectChoice#2(bumping)youwillnolongerbeeligiblefortheadditional enhanceVoluntaryTerminationPayamountexclusivelyunderChoice#1." OnApril12,2011,thegrievorselectedChoice#2,andelectedtobump.On April19,2011,theEmployerupdatedstaffthatofthefourteenemployeeswhoreceiveda noticeoflayoff,fiveelectedtoleaveNOSMwiththepay-in-lieuoption(enhanced severance),andthattheEmployerwouldcontinue"toworkwiththenineremaining employeestoassessplacementopportunities",notingthatwhiledisplacedemployees "willfirstbeassignedtovacancies,therewillbesome'bumping'activity."Thememo alsoadvisedstaffthat"NOSMisre-openingtheVoluntaryExitOption"andthat"any matchesmadeundertheVEOproga'amentailthatanemployeewhowouldbeothmise laid-offcanbedirectlyplacedintoavacancycreatedbyanemployeeselectingthe additionallyenhancedseverancepackageincludeintheVEO..."TheoriginalVEO programhadclosedonApril8,2011. 10 OnApril27,2011,amemowasissuedtostaffaboutthere-openedVEO program.TheEmployeradvisedthatVEOapplicationscouldbesubmitteduptoJuly1, 2011,but"tobeconsidered,aVEOapplicationisrequiredtobereceivedinadvanceofa displacedemployeebeingprovidedwithanoptionforabump"andthereforeshouldbe "submittedassoonaspossibleandnolaterthanMay16,2011tohavethebestpossibility ofsuccess."Thememostatesthat"[t]hisprogramisintendedtohelpalleviatebumping and/orlayoffs."Intermsof"Whoiseligible",itstates: Continuing("regular")full-timeandpart-timeemployeesrepresentedbythe OPSEUStaffUnitwhohavenotreceivedanoticeoflay-offmayself-identifytobe consideredfortheVoluntaryExitOption. OnMay2,2011,thegrievorwasadvisedthata"match"underArticle38.04(e.t) [sameworksiteandclassification,butdifferentportfolio]hadbeenmade.Theimpactof bothacceptingthematchordecliningitwasdetailed,andshewasinvitedtoconsultwith hercurrentmanager,theUnionExecutive,StaffRepresentativesorHumanResources. TheMay2,2011letteradvisedasfollowsshouldthegrievoracceptthematch: ACCEPT oIfyouelecttoacceptthismatch,thepositionofAdministrativeAssistant, CLS/Phase3willbecomeyournewposition. •Youwillcontinueinyourpresentjobuntilthetransferdate,which,atthistime,is identifiedasJune2,2011 •Youwilllikewisecontinuetoreporttoyourpresentmanagerandcontinuewith presentdutiesuntilJune2,2011... •Thiswillcompleteyourrightsunderthejobsecurityprovisions(Lay-Offand Recall)undertheStaffUnitCollectiveAgreement. ,Furthermaterials,orientation,supportandfamiliarizationwillbeundertakenin consultationwithyouoverthecomingweeks. 1! OnMay3,2011,thegrievoracceptedtheproposedmatch.OnMay11,2011,the Employerconfirmedheracceptanceofthematch,effectiveJune2,2011,andthegrievor beganhernewpositiononJune3,2011. Thegrievor'sdecisiontobumpintothe"matched"positionledtothe displacementoftheincumbentinthatposition.TheEmployerupdatedstaffonMay5, 2011asfollows: Ian:writingtoprovideabriefupdateontheNOSMreshapingexercisethat commencedonMarch31,2011. Theoriginalimpacts,whichtookplaceonMarch31,2011,includeda"noticeof layoff"beingissuedtofourteen(14)employeesrepresentedbytheOPSEUStaff Unit("WaveOne").Theseemployeeshavehadtheopportunitytoevaluatetheir optionsandasaresult,fiveoftheseindividualshaveelectedtotakepay-in-lieu whilethenineremaininghaveelectedtolookforaplacementatNOSM.Of thesenine,twowereplacedintovacanciesandearlierthisweek,theremaining sevenemployeeswereprovidedwiththeiroptionforabump. Asaresult,yesterday(May4,2011),sevenemployeeswerebumpedandissued withanoticeoflayoff("WaveTwo").AswasdoneforthoseinWaveOne,the individualsinWaveTwowillbeprovidedwithavm'ietyofsupportsand workshopsoverthenextweekinordertounderstandthierightsand entitlements,andcometoadecisionregm'dingtheirpreferredoptionsDecisions fromthisgroupareexpectednextweek. InanticipationofWaveTwoimpacts,NOSMre-openedtheVoluntaryExit Option(VEO)program,aspermymemoofApril27,2011.... Thememofurthernotedthat"[a]saresultoftheinitialVEOprocess,oneindividualhas beenmatchedanddepartedtopursueherownendeavourswiththeassistantofthespecial terminationpackage,creatingavacancywhichoff-setanotheremployeebeingbumped." 12 OnJune16,2011,approximatelytwoweeksaftershestartedhernewposition, thegrievorinquiredwhethertheVEOoptionwasstillavailableandwhethershewould qualifyforit.Shewasadvisedthattheprogramwasstillopen.OnJune22,20t1,the grievoradvisedthatshe"wish[ed]tobeincludedintheVEOprogram."OnJune28, 2011,theEmployeradvisedherthat"wewillnottbedeterminingthatyouhaveamatch withintheVEOprogram."HumanResourcesDirectorJonathanBarrettexplainedinhis email: IhavetakenthismatterbacktotherootsoftheinceptionoftheVEOprogramand thepurposesofVEO.Astheprimaryprinciplewastopermitnon-impacted employeestovolunteertheirpositioninordertooff-setthelay-offofanother employee,theapplicationdoesbecomecomplexinyourscenariowhereyouare oneoftheimpactedindividualsfromthereshapinginitiative,yetnowinasecure role. Aprincipleupheldthroughouttheredeploymentprocesswasthatwithinan initiative,employeeswouldhavesingleopportunitytotakea"cashsettlement" offerorinthealternative,exercisetheirrightswithintheredeployment/jobsecurity system(e.g.,bumping).Whiletherearesomecompetinginterestsinyourcase,this primaryprinciplebecomesimportant.... TheUnionassertsthattheEmployerdidnotadministertheVEOprogramina "reasonablemanner"whenitdeterminedthatthegrievorwasnoteligibletoparticipatein intheprograminJune2011.Itassertsthatatthetimesheapplied,shemetthecriteria forinclusion-shewasinacontinuing,secureposition.Itsubmitsthatbyimposinga new"principle"thatemployeeswouldhaveasingleopportunitytotakeacashsettlement orbump,it"changedtherules"anddidsoinamannerinconsistentwiththepurposeof theVEO.TheUnionarguesthatgrantingthegrievor'srequesttoapplyforaVEOwould havesupportedthegoalsoftheprogram-toofferapositiontoanemployeewhosejob wasthreatened. !3 TheUnionsubmitsthatthis"principle"ofasingleopportunitytotakeacash settlementwasnotconveyedtoemployeesbytheEmployer,notwasitconsistently applied.Itassertsthatcontinuingemployeesweregiventwoopportunitiestoaccepta VEO-onceduringtheinitialVEOprogram,andagainwhenitwasre-opened.Ifthat "singleoppommity"principleisaccepted,theUnionargues,thennoonewaseligiblefor itwhentheprogramwasre-opened,sinceeveryoneinasecurepositionhadbeengiven theoptiontoapplyforaVEOandacceptacashsettlement.Itassertsthatsinceother employeesweregivenasecondoppolxlitywhentheprogramwasre-opened,the grievorshouldhavebeengivenoneaswell. Insupportofitspositionthatthepurposeofaprogrammustbeconsideredin determiningifanemployer'sactionwasreasonable,theUnioncitestoReBoardof GovernorsofDalhousieUniversityandDalhousieFacultyAdministration(Hoffman) (2009),180L.A.C.(4th)231(Shime);ReCapeBreton-VictoriaRegionalSchoolBoard andNovaScotiaTeachersUnion(2004),127LA.C.(4th)110(Kydd). TheEmployerassertsthatthegrievordidnotmeettheVEOeligibilitycriteria foreitherthefirstorthere-openedVEOwogram.Shewasanimpactedemployeeand electedtobump,decliningtheenhancedterminationoptionwhich,monetarily,wasthe equivalentofaVEO.TheVEO,itcontends,wasaprogramonlyopentoemployeeswho werenotaffectedbytherestructuringinitiative.TheEmployerarguesthatitmadeit 14 clear,fromtheoutset,thatemployeescouldapplyforaVEOonlyiftheywerenotlaid off. TheEmployerfurtherarguesthatthecriterionofa"single"choice,andone opportunitytotakeamonetarypackage,wasfullyandrepeatedlyconveyedtoaffected employees.Itnotesthatemployeeswererepeatedlyadvised,inwriting,thatselecting Option#2(bumping),meantthattheemployeecouldnotreceivetheenhancedseverance payment,andthattherewasnofurtheroppolmnitytoacceptenhancedseverance.It submitsthatwhatthegrievordidwasselectOption#2,obtainamatch,bumpaless senioremployee,thenchangehermindandopttotakethemoneyoptionviatheVEO program.TheEmployernotesthatwhenthegfievorwasadvisedofthematch,shewas specificallytoldthatacceptanceofthematchwouldcompleteherrightsunderthe collectiveagreement,andsheacceptedthematchwiththatunderstanding.TheEmployer submitsthatitis"cruel"and"unconscionable"forthegrievortodeclineenhanced severance,displaceanotheremployeewithitsresultanttrauma,thenchangehermindand seekthesamemonetarypackageshehadpreviouslydeclined.TheEmployersubmits thattoallowthatwouldcreateadefactotrialperiodinthenewjobwhichwasnever intended.ToallowthegrievortoaccesstheVEOprogram,itasserts,wouldencourage employeestobump,tryitout,thenchangetheirminds. insupport,theEmployerreliesonReCanadianBroadcastingCorporationand NA.B.E.Z(1992),28L.A.C.(4th)75(M.picher);ReSimcoeCountyDistrictSchool BoardandOPSEU,Local330(Grith)(2002),103L.A.C.(4th)309(Davie). 15 Havingconsideredthefacts,theargumentsandthecaselawprovided,Iconclude thattheEmployer'sdecisionnottopermitthegrievortoapplyfortheVEOprogramin June2011wasreasonable.Shedidnotmeettheeligibilityrequirementssetoutinthe program-eithertheinitialprogramorwhenitwasre-opened.TheVEOprogramwas foremployeeswhodidnotreceiveanoticeoflay-off,andthegrievor,onMm'ch31, 2011,receivedanoticeoflayoff.Herpositionwasdeclaredredundant.Shewaspartof thegroupaffectedby"WaveOne"-theinitiallayoff. ThestatedpurposeoftheVEOprogramWastocreateaVacancyforplacementof adisplacedemployeeandtherebyeliminatetheneedforthelayoffofanotheremployee. TheinitialVEOdidjustthat.OneemployeeoptedfortheVEO,creatingavacancythat animpactedemployeefilled,therebyeliminatingtheneedforthatindividualtobump anotheremployee. Theenhancedseverance/terminationpaypackage-Option#1-soughttoachieve asimilarobjective-tominimizetheneedforimpactedemployeestobumpotherstaff. FiveemployeesinWaveOneaeeeptedOption#1,whichmeantthattheydidnotseekto bumpotheremployees.Theyacceptedtheenhancedseveranceandterminationpay,and resignedtheirpositions.TheycouldhavechosenOption#2andtrytodisplaceother,less senioremployees,butdidnot.ThegfievorchoseOption#2-bumping,anddeclinedthe monetaryoption.Shewasspecificallyadvisedthat"additionalenhancedseveranceand 16 extravoluntaryterminationpayisnolongeravailabletoyoushouldyouselectOption #2?' Thegrievorwasthenmatchedtoapositionunderthebumpingprovisionsofthe collectiveagreement.Beforesheacceptedthatmatch,shewasadvisedthatacceptance "willcompleteyourrightsunderthejobsecurity(Lay-OffandRecall)undertheStaff UnitCollectiveAgreement."Tome,thatwasaclearmessage-ifyouacceptthematch, youhavenofurtherrightsunderthejobsecurityprovisionsofthecollectiveagreement. ThiswouldincludeanyrightsundertheVEOprogram,assumingthatitwasincorporated intothecollectiveagreementunderArticle38.02(b).TheVEOprogram,ifitis enforceablethrougharbitrationatall,isonlyenforceableundertheApril5,2011 MemorandumofAgreementRE:Lay-offandRecall."Consequently,withher acceptanceofthematch,thegrievorwasrelinquishinganyfurtherrightsunderthejob securityprovisions,includingtheVEOprogram. ItalsomakessensethatthegfievorwouldnotbeeligibleforaVEO.A restructuringinitiativethatcausesmultiplelayoffsisstressfulanddifficultfor management,theunionandstaff.Importantdecisionshavetobemadeinatighttime frame,butconsequencesflowfromthosechoices.Theemployertakesactions,andother employeesm'eimpacted,basedonthosechoices.Accordingly,thedeeisionsmadehave anexpectationoffinality.Inthiscase,thegrievorhadtheopportunitytotakeamonetary package(Option#1)butdeclinedit,andchoseOption#2,bumping.Managementacted onthatchoice,findingamatchforthegrievorinanotherportfolio,whichrequiredthe 17 noticeoflay-off..."(emphasisadded).Thegrievorreceivedanoticeoflayoff.Shewas noteligible.Justbecauseshewasnowinacontinuingandsecurejob-becauseshehad bumped-didnotnegatehowshegotthere,noramendtheeligibilitycriteria. AsimilarsituationaroseinReCanadianBroadcastingCorporation,supra,cited bytheEmployer.Inthatcase,anemployeeallegedthattheemployerhadbreachedthe collectiveagreementbydenyinghimaccesstoaretirementincentiveprogram.The arbitratordismissedthegrievanceonthebasisthatthegrievancewasnotarbitrable,but determinedthatevenassumingthattheretirementincentiveprogramwasenforceable througharbitration,thegrievancehadtobedismissedbecauseeligibilityfortheprogram wasrestrictedtothoseemployeeswhosejobsweredeclaredredundant.Thegrievor'sjob hadnotbeendeclaredredundantandthearbitratorconcludedatpar.30:"Onthatbasis [thegrievor]couldnotbringhimselfwithinthetermsoftheprogram,evenifitwere enforceablethroughtheapplicationofthecollectiveagreement."Thesameistruehere inreverse-thegrievor,asanemployeewhohadreceivedanoticeoflayoff,wasnot eligibleforaVEOunderthetermsoftheprogram. NorwouldthepurposeoftheVEOprogrambeservedbyallowingherto participate.Thepro'poseoftheVEOprogramwastolessen,asmuchaspossible,the impactonemployeesinWaveOne,andtolessentheneedforWaveTwobyencouraging employeeswhohadnotbeenimpactedbytherestructuringtoterminatetheiremployment voluntarily,therebycreatingavacancyforanimpactedemployeetofill.Themore vacanciescreatedtbrWaveOneemployees,thelessbumpingwouldberequiredinWave 19 Two.ByJune22,2011,althoughtheprogramwasstillopen,itwastoolatetoachieve thatpurpose.Thesecondwaveoflayoffnoticeshadalreadybeenissued. ItalsoseemsincompatiblewiththepurposeoftheVEOprogn'amtoallowan individualtodeclineamonetarypackage,electtobump,actuallybumpanotheremployee andfillthenewposition,thenchangehermindandoptforamonetarypackage.Inthis regm'd,Idonotfindthe"principle"therewastobea"singleopportunitytotakea'cash settlement'offerorinthealternative,exercisetheirrightswithintheredeployment!job securitysystem(e.g.,bumping)"tobeanewprinciple-createdjustforthegrievor.All ofthememosanddocumentsindicatethatachoicehadtobemade,andthatthechoice selectedhadconsequences.Impactedemployeeshadthechoicetoacceptamonetary packageequivalenttotheVEO.Oncethatwasdeclined,itwasnolongeravailable. ThefactthattheEmployerre-openedtheVEOprograminregardtothesecond waveoflayoffsdoesnotmeanthattheEmployerimproperlypermittedcontinuing employeestwoopportunitiestoacceptamonetarypackage,butprovidedthegrievoronly one.Inmyview,thereisadifferencebetweenfailingtoapplyforaVEO,acompletely volunta17program,andmakingaspecificchoiceamongthreeoptionswhenfacedwitha noticeoflayoffandrequiredtomakeadecision. Eveniftheycanbeequatedanditmightbeconcludedthattheyweretreated differently,thedifferencewasjustified.Thesituationmightbecomparableifan employeechoseVEO,thenchangedhisorhermind,andthenwantedtotakepartinit 2O whentheoppommitywasre-openedandtheemployerpermittedthat.Thereisno evidencethathappened,nor,underthetermsoftheVEO,wouldthatbepossiblebecause applicationswere"deemednon-revocable."ItseemslikelythatVEOapplicationsare non-revocablebecauseconsequencesflow-theemployerattemptstomatchthat individual'sjobtoonethathasbeendeclaredredundant.Similm'consequencesflowed fromthegrievor'sdecisiontobump,ratherthanacceptoption#1.Theemployer investigatedwhetheramatchwaspossible.Incontrast,noactionorconsequenceflows fi'omanemployee'sdecisionnottoapplyforaVEOintheinitialround. TheUnionobjectedtotheEmployer'scharacterizationofthegrievor'sactionas "inhumane"and"unconscionable",assertingthatthegrievor'sdecisiontoseekaVEO, aiderhavingoptedtobump,wasnotunreasonablegiventhestricttimeconstraintsofthe layoffprocess.ItsubmittedthatbyJune,thegrievorhadtimetothinkmorefullyabout heroptions.Thereisnoquestionthatthetimeframefortherestructuringwastight, althoughtherewereafewextensionsthatoccurred.Thetimeframes,however,were negotiatedbetweentheparties,notsimplyimposedbytheEmployer.Theyalsoapplied toevelyone,notjustthegrievor.Further,thememosindicatethattheEmployerwas fullycognizantofthestressandimpactthestructuringhadonstaff,pm'ticularlythose whoreceivedanoticeoflayoff,andofferedsignificantsupport,information,and confidentialcounselingthi'oughtheEAPandfamilyEAP.Finally,therewasno testimonyfromthegrievorthatshefeltunabletomaketherequireddecisionsatthetime, thatshewasundulypressuredordidnotunderstandheroptions. 21 ThegrievormadeherchoicewhensheelectedOption#2,andasanimpacted employee,shewassimplynoteligibleforaVEO. Conclusion Consequently,forallofthesereasons,Iconcludethatwhateverstandardshould beapplied,theEmployeractedreasonablyindeterminingthatthegrievorwouldnotbe permittedtoapplyforaVEO.Assumingwithoutdecidingthatthematterism'bitrabte andthattheVEOprogramwasincorporatedintothecollectiveagreementunderArticle 38.02(b),thegrievancemustbedismissed. Issuedthis13thdayofMay,2012. 22