Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1494.Danbrook.92-01-02~'"~ ~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE OR 0 WN EMPL 0 YEES DE L 'ON TA RIO 190 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE2100, TORONTO, ONTARfQ MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: f415) $26~1388 190, RUE DUNDAS QUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z~ FACStMtLE/T~_7.~"COPlE : (416) ,t26-1396 1494/89 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARHAINING ACT Before THE HRIEV~NCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Danbrook) Hrievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson J. McManus Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE N. Roland GRIEVOR Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitor~ FOR THE C. Peterson EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HE~RIN~ April 4, 1990 August 28, 1990 November 13, 30, 1990 April 15, 1991 May 8, 31, 1991 July 11, 1991 DECISION In a grievance dated May 16,. 1989, Mr. R. A. Danbrook alleges that the Employer has breached Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement in that it failed to make reasonable provisions for his health and safety. Mr. Danbrook is employed by the Ministry of Transportation as a Highway Carrier Enforcement Officer, His duties in that position involve the enforcement of various pieces of legislation which regulate commercial vehicles. This legislation includes the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the Public Vehicles Act and the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Danbrook is designated as a provincial offe'nces officer pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act and he is a peace officer pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Danbrook carries out his duties when stationed at a weigh station at the side of a highway or in the course of a highway patrol. He wears a uniform and carries a badge. An automobile with Ministry logos and flashing lights is provided to him by the Ministry. An immediate consequence arising out of a regulatory violation such as driving an excessive number of hours, a violation of weight restrictions or a lack of vehicle 2 registration is that the vehicle may be put out of service. As well, an Enforcement Officer may issue an offence notice the ultimate consequence of which covers the range from a fine to a term of imprisonment. Mr. Danbrook is not required to carry out arrests in the course of his duties. There is a point demerit system for fleet operators, based on numbers of infractions. Accumulation of demerit points at various levels results initially in a letter of warning and may Ultimately result in the prohibition of operations. In addition to these matters, Mr. Danbrook referred to the fact that a driver who is stopped and whose vehicle is put out of service faces the immediate problems of an inability to meet client schedules as well as the monetary cost of any repairs that are-required. The concerns of Mr. Danbrook that resulted in'his grievance arise from situations in which he was assaulted and threatened while in the course of his duties, matters which will be referred to further, in addition to more generalized concerns about his working conditions. As previously noted, .Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement obliges the Employer to make reasonable provisions'for the health and safety of its employees. It is the Union's position that it has failed to do so in this instance. The relief claimed in the grievance is as follows: 1. MTO Enforcement Officers be equipped and trained to the same standard as MNR Conservation Officers. 2. Area patrols between the hours of 10:OO p.m. and 7:00 a.m. be subject to a two officer per cruiser policy. 3. Twenty-four hour radio contact at all times. Although Conservation Officers are provided with a sidearm, it was not the position of the Union %hat Enforcement Officers ought to be provided with'a sidearm. The Employer has made a number of changes to its policies and practices following the grievance. Counsel agreed that the Board should address the current position of the Employer with respect to these matters, rather than the situation as it existed at the time of the grievance. At the time of the grievance, the vehicles operated by Enforcement OfficErs were equipped with two-way radios. This radio allowed for contact with a central dispatch, other Ministry vehicles and an inspection station if it is open. Twenty-four hour coverage was provided between November and ~pril. However, between April and November, an operator was assigned only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Connection could be made with the Bell telephone system, in order-to contact the OoP.P. Mr. Danbrook testified that there were often delays when he 4 attemp%ed to make'such contacts. Mr. Danbrook testified ~hat it was his view that a cellular phone system which could be programmed for speed'dialing would alleviate his concerns about quickly making contact in the case of an emergency. However, it. was his view that a twenty-four radio system would be preferable to that system as it would result in instant communication. The Ministry has now provided employees with cellular phones which can be programmed for speed dialing. While a better system may be possible, Mr. Danbrook acknowledged that a cellular phone system would allieviate the concerns expressed.with respect to the communication system that existed previously. It is clear, in our view, that the Employer has fulfilled its obligation under s. 18.1 with respect to this matter. Mr. Roland submitted %hat the Board should order the Employer to maintain this communication sYstem. We do not agree. The Board considers this matter to have been resolved. There are any number of circumstances which might appropriately compel the Employer to modify its present communication system and it would not be appropriate for us to make an order purporting to deal with unknown circumstances. The Employer has also responded to the concerns raised in the grievance with respect, to the provision of training, albiet not in a manner that is satisfactory to the Union, a 5 matter which was referred to in some detail below. As well, the Employer has responded to the request to provide two officers to a car during the night shift by making such assignments in special circumstances, such as "blitzes", circumstances in which the Enforcement Officers are engaged in a concerted enforcement effort. The essence of the dispute as it presently exists between the parties relates to whether the Employer is obliged to provide two person patrols on all night shifts, additional equipment, specifically handcuffs and the option to carry a baton, and self-defense training in order to fulfil its obligation to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of its employees ~ursuant to Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement. Mr. Danbrook gave evidence concerning an incident which took place in January, 1987. While in the course of his duties, Mr. Danbrook noticed a chain hanging on a secondary attachment to a vehicle. He stopped the driver, who was unable to produce a licence, proof of insurance or 'a permit.. · While Mr. Danbrook was in the process of attempting to obtain information about the driver through his radio system, the driver contacted his father by C.B. radio. The father arrived at the scene at which time Mr. Danbrook advised him that his son had been unable to 6 produce the documentation requested, The man replied by stating "we'll settle this here and now". He then grabbed Mr. Danbrook by the tie with his left hand and pulled back his right fist. Mr. Danbrook backed away and the clip on his tie broke off, allowing Mr. Danbrook to escape his hold. Mr. Danbrook went to his cruiser and contacted the OPP office. He followed the truck and laid charges against 'the driver in the presence of an officer. The next incident took place in May or June, 1987. Mr. Danbrook stopped a pickup truck on a routine inspection. He determined that the ownership and registration numbers did not match, which indicated the possibility that licence' plates had been switched. Mr. Danbrook carried out an investigation which indicated that licence plates had in fact~been switched on the vehicle~ He contacted the local police authorities and arranged for a police officer to accompany him to the residence of the owner of the ve~icle where he intended to remove the plates and charge the owner with an offence. Mr. Danbrook testified that when he advised the owner of his intention the driver became verbally abusive. When Mr. Danbrook attempted to remove the licence plates the owner of the vehicle reached past him and shoved him. The police officer intervened and held 'the man back until Mr. Danbrook comPleted the removal of the licence plates. While Mr. Danbrook was leaving the man 7 threatened to assault him if he ever caught him alone by the side of the road. A third incident took place on the morning of April 27, 1989. Mr. Danbrook stopped a vehicle and made routine inquiries. When Mr. Danbrook asked the driver for his .driver's licence the.driver stated that he would not provide him with it. Mr. Danbrook then asked him to get out of his truck. The driver responded with an obscenity, placed his vehicle in gear and backed it into Mr. Danbrook' s parked ~vehicle, pushing it backwards. The driver then got out of the vehicle and ran toward Mr. Danbrook demanding the return of the documentation he had previously provided to him. Mr. Danbrook told him that he would not return it to him and the driver responded by physically assaulting him. They wrestled briefly until a person driving by came to Mr. Danbrook's assistance. The driver left the scene shortly afterward. Mr. Danbrook sustained bruises and a cut. The driver was subsequently charged and convicted of assault. Mr. 'Danbrook testified that if he had been equipped with a baton, the incident would not have happened. He also fel~ that l%andcuffs would have assisted him. A fourth incident occured in October, 1989. Mr. Danbrook was working with a fellow officer on a midnight 8 shift. They observed a truck with an expired validation sticker and stopped it. The driver advised Mr. Danbrook that he had previously had his licence downgraded because of a heart problem. He further advised Mr. Danbrook that during this time he continued to drive }~is vehicle and carried a shotgun and stated that if anyone from his Ministry had stopped him he would have shot that person.~ Mr. Danbrook testified about this matter in an application brought agains~t this-person to prohibit him from possessing. weapons. A Provincial Court judge granted the application stating that: "I feel that there is a Very substantial risk that [the respondent's] anger towards the Ministry officials may result in an-incident which would be entirely regrettable if he had weapons in his possession". Mr. Danbrook referred to a further incident in which another individual made a threat on April 14, 1987. Mr. Danbrook charged an individual with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act. The driver asked the identity of another officer who, he stated, had stopped a number of drivers. The driver stated that he "knew people who would kill that person if they caught him at night". During a "blitz", a concerted enforcement period, two Enforcement Officers are assigned to a vehicle during' a~ night shift. However, the usual assignement is one officer 9 to a vehicle during a night shift. Mr. Danbrook expressed concerns about such an assignment on the basis of a greater likelihood of an assault against him when he approached drivers in the dark. He referred to the possibility that drivers may be travelling at night in order to avoid detection and therefore, may be more prone to violence if stopped than a driver might be during the day. The Employer adduced evidence from Mr. D. Tait, who has been employed by the Ministry of Transportation since 1963. He was initially employed as an Enforcement Officer. In 1978 he had some limited involvement in the field. In 1987 Mr. Tait became Regional Manager for the south-west region of the Ministry. This area is divided into three districts, one of which is the London district where Mr. Danbrook is employed. Mr. Tait referred to the fact that between 1978 and 1989 the enforcement responsibilities of Enforcement Officers have been enlarged by virtue of additional legislation. He also stated that there have been 'initiatives taken in order tO increase visibility of enforcement operations. Mr. Tait testified that an assignment of two persons to each patrol vehicle for every night shift would result in decreasing visibility by half, as a result of reducing the number of vehicles on patrol. The other alternative, · 10 an increase in staff, by.ten employees, would result in an increased yearly expenditure in the amount of approximately $380,000.00 Mr. Tait emphasized that during the night shift an employee is entitled to use his or her discretion with respect to where and when a vehicle is to be stopped. In particular, he referred to the fact that a vehicle could be followed to a well lighted area and stopped there, where assistance would be readily available and a confrontation would be unlikely. Mr. Tait testified that Highway Enforcement Officers have not been provided with handcuffs because they are not required to arrest people. However, he acknDwledged in cross-examination that Enforcement Officers are expected to defain drivers in the event of log book violations. Mr. Tait stated that Enforcement Officers are not provided with batons or self-defense training because they are not' expected to engage' in physical confrontations with people. Mr. Tait stated that the training that is provided to Enforcement Officers is intended to allow them to identify situations that have the potential to escalate into violence and to withdraw from those situations. Mr. Tait made reference to a few occasions during his time working in the field when he had been subjected to threats and verbal abuse. He had never been physically assaulted. He stated that it was. his view that a non-confrontational 11 attitude on the part of tke officer did much to diffuse potentially volatile situations. In cross-examination Mr. Tait acknowledged the possibility that there might be situations in which an officer would be unable to anticipate a situation becoming violent, but stated that in his view, that possibility was remote. Mr. Tait also stated that it was his view that Enforcement Officers would not be more safe as a result of an assignment of two officers to patrol on a night shift. The Employer also called Ms. F. LaBelle, ~ho was employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Middlesex detachment between 1985 and 1987. She performed enforcement duties until 1989, at which time she was promoted to the position of supervisor in Owen Sound. Ms. LaBelle testified that she has been subjected to verbal abuse but that she has never been assaulted in the course of her duties. She stated that she dealt with.such situations by not pursuing the matter. Ms. LaBelle testified that she was apprehensive about working alone in a vehicle during the night shift. She stated however, that with the exercise of caution and with experience, she did not have any concerns about her safety in such situations. The Employer developed a "statement of principles" 12 dated March, 1991, for the guidance of its Enforcement Officers. This document states as follows: ENFORCEMENT STAFF SAFETY PRINCIPLES The Occupational Health and Safety Act places responsibility for safety in the workplace on employers and employees alike. The Ministry of Transportation'as an employer is not only bound by the Act but is also committed to its principles. To promote and ensure officer safety, this ministry has put forth the following safety principles for enforcement staff. 1. MTO does not expect enforcement officers to jeopardize their own health and safety during the course of their duties. 2. Where there is an immediate, unavoidable risk of physical violence, as a consequence of initiating or further pursuing enforcement action, officers are expected to remove themselves from the situation. 3. When conducting roadside or similar enforcement action at night, in isolated areas, officers should record the particulars of %he vehicle and of the situation before leaving their cruisers or station. ~Whenever possible, use your in-car communication system to keep your co-workers or supervisors informed of your situation. 4. Contact with the driver/owner/operator must be performed in such a manner so as to avoid the initiation or provocation of conflict. Training tools are an important asset tO draw upon in dealing with potentially confrontational situations. 5. Staff shall report details of all incidents of abuse, both verbal and physical, to their supervisors. 13 In an accompanying memorandum dated March 22, 1991, the ~Employer stated that it had designed a training program "to assist officers in dealing with a driver so as to better assess the situation, the impression the officer causes, and the course of action to take". The training is referred to as "non violent conflict resolution". This training was provided to Enforcement Officers and was incorporated into the basic training courses for new employees. The training was developed and provided by Dr. A, T. Polgar. Dr. Polgar has a Ph.D. in psychology. He has a clinical practice and as well, has Provided consulting services such as the development of programs and provisions of seminars to various agencies. He has a good deal of experience in correctional matters. Dr. Polgar was retained by the Ministry of Transportation to develop and implement a program to deal with conflict ~resolution, which he did after a review of the work performed by the Enforcement Officers and meetings with the officers and managers. The training provided by Dr. Polgar deals with defining the expectations of the Enforcement Officer. It also deals with recognizing potentially volatile bahaviour and withdrawal from a situation that is escalating. The essence of Dr. Polgar's evidence was that it is possible 14 for a person to be trained to recognize when a situation has the potential to become volatile. When this potential volatility is ~recognized the person confronting the situation can withdraw from it. ~It was Dr. Polgar's opinion that by learnin.g to recognize when a situation is potentially becoming violent and withdrawing from that situation an Enforcement Officer could avoid a physical attack. However, on cross-examination, Dr. Polgar acknowledged that even if an officer properly utilized the conflict avoidance training that was provided, it .was still possible that an officer could be assaulted. Dr. Polgar stated that it was his view that it would be inappr, opriate for there to be a 'self-defense portion, to the trainin~ ~ provided and for batons to. be provided on the basis that such actions would advance a conflicting message. Specifically, it was his view that the provision of such training and equipment would create the expectation on the part of the ~ officers that such training was to be utilized, contrary to their instructions that they are not to engage in physical confrontations. In essence, it was his view that the provision of such training might well result in officers engaging in confrontations rather than avoiding them. It was Dr. Polgar's opinion that instructing employees that defensive training would only be used as a last resort would not counteract a mixed message created by providing both kinds of training. 15 As previously noted, it is the position of the Union that notwithstanding the steps taken by the Employer there. still exists a situation where the Employer has not fulfilled its obligation to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Enforcement Officers. It is the Union's position that the circumstances of employment of the Enforcement Officers should compel the conclusion that they should be provided with the same training and equipment that is provided to Conservation Officers employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, except for a firearm. The Union adduced evidence regarding the · training provided to Conserva.tion Officers. +As well, the Union adduced evidence regarding ~he training provided to employees at an institution operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Mr. W. ~Lafferty, who has been a Conservation Officer since 1977, gave evidence with respect to his duties and responsibilities, as well as the equipment and training he is provided with. Conservation Officers are required to carry out enforcement duties in' relation to a number of statutes. In the exercise of these:duties inside provincial parks, Conservation OffiCers have the same powers as a provincial police officer, including the powers of arrest, search and seizure. Their powers of arrest, 16 search and seizure in connection with their enforcement duties carried on outside of~a provincial park vary according to the statute that is being enforced. They are required to enforce some provisions of the Criminal Code. The Conservation Officers wear a police style of uniform. They are equipped with a sidearm, handcuffs and a baton. Mr. Lafferty has worn a sidearm since he commenced his duties as a Conservation Officer and he has worn a baton since 1987. He testified that it was his personal observation that verbal abuse directed towards him has decreased since he commenced wearing a baton. Conservation Officers receive training with respect to the use of a firearm and a baton. Mr. Lafferty testified that during afternoons and nights two officers'are assigned to work together. Mr. Lafferty stated that his understanding of the reason for this assignment was safety considerations as well as the fact that the area that he patrols is a high crime area. Conservation Officers also receive training in self- defense, in particular the application of force to the pressure points of the body of an assailant. This type of application of force, to areas of the body where nerves are close to the surface of the skin, has 'the effect of causing severe pain without causing any physical damage. The 17 application of force to a pressure point has the effect of decreasing the mobility of a person for ten to twelve seconds. Conservation Officers also receive training in verbal skills in order to avoid the'escalation of confrontations. Newly hired ConserVation Officers are provided with this training over a three day period, for eight hours a day. A refresher course is provided once a year over one and one-half to two days. Mr. P. Simcoe is an employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services who works at the Edgar Adult Occupational Centre as a residential counsellor. The Edgar Adult Occupational Centre is a residential institution whose clients are mentally handicapped. As well, they have a psychological, emotional or social problem. A num6er of clients are prone to verbal or physical abuse. Since 1978, residential counsellors have been provided with training in what was physical and verbal interventive techniques. Employees are taught self-defense techniques ahd physical restraints. Four days of training is provided to new employees. A refresher course is taught each year for a full day. The program of physical restraints also involves the application of force to pressure points. It is to be used as a last resort in order to restrain clients. 18 As indicated at the outset of this decision, the issue for the Board to determine in this instance is w~ether the Employer has fulfilled its oblig, ation to make reasonable provisions for health and safety, in accordance.with Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement.' The standard implicit in article 18.1 is'an objective standard. We agree with Mr' Peterson's submission that a honestly held subjective belief on the part of an employee that conditions of work are unsafe is not sufficient to establish a violation of Article !8. 1. As well, it is clear that Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement does not require the Employer to ta~e measures to protect employees from al~ possibility of harm, no matter how remote. It is within this framework that we must consider the facts of this case. It is the Union's position that the evidence clearly established the existence of a working environment in which an assault was far from a remote possibility. Mr. Roland emphasized the acknowledgement of~ Dr. Polgar that there would be instan~ces in which the nob- confrontational techniques that he taught would not result in preventing an assault. It is the Employer's position that it has made reasonable provisions for the health and safety of its- employees. It was further submitted that the necessary relationship between the training and equipment 19 requested and health and safety concerns that were raised had not been established. It was argued that the evidence' of Dr. Polgar established the contrary, that the provision of defensive training would be counter-productive in terms of the goal of avoiding confrontations. After a careful consideration of all of the evidence and the submissions of counsel it is our conclusion that the Employer has failed to comply with Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement as a result of its decision that self- defense training will not be provided. It is our conclusion it has not been established that the Employer is obliged Go provide the additional measures sought by the Union in order to comply with its obligations under Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement. While there Was contradictory evidence with respect to the perceptions of the safety of the Highway Enforcement Officers where they are engaged in carrying out.their duties, the objective evidence established three assaults against Mr. Danbrook over a relatively short period of time. While we agree with Mr. Peterson that the environment in which the Enforcement Officers work does not appear to be as potentially dangerous as the environment in which Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Simcoe work. There is clear objective evidence that supports Mr. Danbrook's contention 20 that there are some real risks associated with his work. Mr. Peterson submitted that the assaults on Mr. Danbrook could have been avoided if the techniques taught by Dr. Polgar had been employed. It would appear that in one of these instances, and perhaps in others, the application of these techniques could have resulted in an avoidance of an assault. However, we agree with Mr. Roland that it is 'not possible to conclude that such assaults would not have taken place. There were clearly instances of volatile irrational behaviour. It is our-view that the facts of this case differ significantly from the facts of the decision referred to us by Mr. Peterson wherein the risk to the employee was found to be only a remote possibility and hence the protective measures requested were not found to be mandated by a requirement for the making of reasonable provisions for health and safety. It is our conclusion that in light of the nature of the work that Enforcement Officers are engaged in, and all J~f the evidence we have heard with respect to the 'kind of confrontations Mr. Danbrook and others have been involved in, it would be inappropriately simplistic to accept hhat such irrational manifestations of behaviour resulting in assaults against Enforcement Officers could be prevented by training in non- confrontational attitudes and identifying and withdrawing from potentially volatile situations. While 'this training would seem to be of clear value and is likely to have an 21 extremely positive effect in terms of the avoidance of exposure of officers to incidents of assault, as Dr. Polgar acknowledged, there are instances in which this type of · response will not be effective. Given the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that this is only a remote possibility. It is our view that the provision of self- defense training is an appropriate measure to deal with what we have found to be a real risk of assault. We do not 'share Dr. Polgar's view that the provision of self-defense .training would necessari-~y have the effect of undermining the training in avoidance techniques. While Dr. Polgar expressed that opinion, he did not refer to any empirical data that would support such a conclusion. It 'appears to us that the only real likelihood is that officers will wish to avoid physical confrontation. There would appear to be no reason that a direction provided in training that self- defense techniques are to be used only in situations where officers are attacked an~ have no oppOrtunity to withdraw would not be understood and adhered to. While we have concluded that the Union has established that the provision of self-defense training is a reasonable requirement for the health and safety of employees, we cannot reach the same conclusion with respect to a baton. It was the position of the Union that the wearing of a baton would have the effect of deterring an attack. 22 Notwithstanding Mr. Lafferty's evidence with respect to his perception as to the effect of carrying a baton, we cannot conclude that the Union has established that the provision of a baton is a reasonable requirement for health and safety. The display of any weapon might deter an assault. However, after a consideration of all of the evide~nce, and considering the fact that training in avoidance techniques and self-defense will now be made available We are not convinced that it has been established that the Employer ought to be obliged to provide employees with the option to carry a baton. In our view there is a demonstrable difference in the type of risk that Conservation Officers are exposed to as compared to EnfOrcement Officers. The fact that conservation officers have been provided with batons does not support the conclusion that Enforcement Officers ought to be equipped in the same manner. Given the evidence before us and considering the fact that Enforcement Officers are not required to arrest people', we are also not convinced that a need for the provision of handcuffs has been established. While there is an expectation that persons with log book infra'ctions are to be detained, it is clear, that the Employer does not require Enforcement Officers to forcefully detain violators. As well, we reject the Union's submission that the obligation of the Employer to make reasonable provisions 23. for the health and safety of its employees ought to compel the Employer to staff i~s cruisers On all night shifts with two officers. Again, the fact that such a provision is made for Conservation Officers does not compel us to the conclusion that the same provision is appropriate for Enforcement Officers. Given this conclusion we will not address Mr. Peterson's submission with respect to our jurisdiction to make such an order.~ The assignment of two officers to a cruiser on every night shift would have a dramatic effect on operations, either by increasing manpower costs or reducing the number of vehicles on patrol. The Employer has issued instructions to the Enforcement Officers to the effect that they have a discretion as to whether or not they will stop a vehicle while they are on night shift. The Employer has agreed to assign two officers to a vehicle during periods of intense enforcement. As well, Enforcement Officers may follow a vehicle to a lighted area if they wish to do so. The Union questioned whether an employee could perform an effective job in carrying out enforcement duties in those circumstances. Whether or not that is the case is not the issue. The Emp?oyer is clearly entitled to provide such direction to employees. Accordingly, the grievance is allowed in part. It is our conclusion that M~. Danbrook has established that self- 24 defense training is a reasonable provision for his health and safety in the performance of his duties. In our view, self-defense training dealing with the application of force to pressure points of an assailant, to be used as self- defense only when withdrawal from a confrontation is not possible, is the kind of training that ought to be provided. We will remain seized in the event that the 'parties experience any difficulties in the. implementation of this decision. In all other respects the grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto this day 2nd of January, S. L. Stewart- Vice-Chairperson J. McManu s - Member D. C. Montrose - Member