HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2017.Butters et al.92-08-11 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE ~.'ONTARtO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
f$o DUNDAS STREET WEST', SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO, MSG
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO {ONTARIO), MSG 1Z8 FACSI~LE/T~LECOPIE ,' (416) ~26- ~396
20Z7/90, 2018/90, 20[9/90, ~0~0/90
IN THE ~TTER OF ~ ~IT~TION.
Under
~E C~ EMP~YEES COL~CTI~ B~G~INING. ACT
Before
THE GRIEV~CE SETTLE~ BO~
BE~EN
OPSEU (Butters et al)
~r~evor
The Cro~ in ~ight of Ontario
(Minist~ of Health/Po~ Colborne
and District ~ulance Se~ice)
Employer
BEFO~: B. Kir~ood Vice-Chai~erson
J. Car~thers Me,er
F. Collict M~er
FOR THE R. Wells
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE P. Whalen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Shibley, Righton
'Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING October 28, 1991
January 21, 1992
Page 2
INTERIM DECISION
In April 1, 1986, 677700 Ontario Limited, purchased
the services of the Port Colborne and District Ambulance
Service from Mr. Twerdohlib. The new.owner/operator was Mr.
Roberts. The four grievors are ambulance officers, who were
employed by the predecessor employer and continue to be
employed by the new owner. The union alleged that Mr.
Roberts wrongfully calculated the grievors' sick leave
credits by failing to recognize the sick leave credits
accumulated by the grievors prior to the purchase of the
service, for the period between 1977 and March 31, 1986. The
union filed the grievances on November 5, 1990, after
receiving notice of the accumulated sick leave credits for
the period from April 1, 1986 to October 30, 1990.
Employer's counsel raised a preliminary objection
and contested the union's ability to proceed with the
grievance. Employer's counsel argued the board ought to
dismiss the grievances as the grievances were filed
significantly outside the mandatory time limits set out in
the collective agreement. Employer's counsel argued that the
union had notice of the dispute in April 1986, but the union
did nothing until it filed the grievances in April 1990. The
delay was substantial. The grievances were filed four and a
half years after the union had notice of the dispute and
relates to a period of thirteen to nine years prior to the
filing of the grievances. Employer's counsel argued that
there was no reasonable explanation given for this delay.
Employer's counsel argued that the lengthy and
undue delay in filing the grievances will result in
substantial prejudice to the employer, if the grievances were
to proceed through arbitration. The employer has no ability
to defend the action. M~. Roberts had attempted to obtain
the.previous owner's records, but was t°ld by Mr. Twerdohlib
Page 3
that any records that he had, have been destroyed.
Employer's counsel argued that a party cannot advance a
grievance in face of undue delay, where a fair hearing cannot
occur, because of the unavailability of witnesses, the dim
recollection of witnesses or unavailability of records.
Union's counsel admitted that both parties knew
that there was a dispute over the sick days since 1986, but
he argued that both parties also knew Mr. Roberts was
investigating the issue. Mr. Butters spoke to Mr. Roberts at
least four times about the accumulated sick leave days. Mr.
Roberts and Mr. Butters discussed the matter in April 1986,
in the 1986 negotiations, in July 1987 at the 1987
negotiations and at the 1990 negotiations. The union did not
file a grievance initially, as it did not want to harm its
relationship with its new employer, and later, did not file a
grievance, as the employer was attempting to obtain the
records from the previous owner.
Union's counsel argued that the time limits set out
in the grievance procedure are not mandatOry, and a grievance
may be filed at any time, subject to the discretion of the
employer. The employer however, has to exercise its
discretion reasonably. The employer exercised no discretion.
Where the employer did not advise the union until 1990 that
it cannot obtain the records, it would be an unreasonable
exercise of discretion for the employer to claim that the
time limits have now passed and deny processing the
grievance.
Union's counsel submitted any prejudice to the
employer was not caused by the union's delay and the union
ought not to be precluded from pressing on with these
grievances. The union accepts that Mr. Roberts did as
complete investigation as he could, but was obstructed by Mr.
Page 4
Twerdohlib's refusal to co-operate. .The union ought not to
be prejudiced by the delay of a third party.
Alternatively, union's counsel argued that sick
days are accumulated on a continuous basis. Each day there
is an incorrect balance, provides a continuing right to
grieve. He further argued that the annual notification of
the sick leave credits provides an event that triggers the
right to .grieve, if there is a dispute'. As no notice of sick
leave credits had been provided by Mr. Roberts until November
2, 1990, the letter of November 2, 1990 provided that
triggering event, when it did not show any sick days prior
April 1, 1986. The grievances were then filed within three
days of this letter and within the time limits set out in the
collective agreement.
The right to accumulated sick days arises from the
first collective agreement between the predecessor employer
and the predecessor union in Article 18.02 of the collective
agreement. This article has been retained by the parties in
all subsequent agreements, including the collective agreement
that these grievances are filed under. Article 18.02 states:
Employees shall earn one and a half (11/2)
days of sick credit for each month of
employment. A deduction shall be made from
accumulated sick leave of all working days
(exclusive of holidays) absent from sick
leave. The unused portion' of an employees
sick leave shall accrue for his future
benefits. Notification of accumulated sick
leave credits shall be made not later than
March of any year. There shall be an attached
letter of clarification.
In the collective agreemen~ expiring on December
31, 1976, the parties provided for a Payout of an employee's
accumulated sick leave on the employee's retirement or
severance in Article 18.04. In the succeeding collective
Page5
agreement, the parties deleted Article 18.04 and the employer
agreed to pay 50 percent of the value of the accumulated sick
leave credits as of December 31, 1976, to all bargaining unit
employees in the service of the company on November 1, 1977.
The balance of the accumulated sick days could be used by the
employees in the event of future illness. This position was
set out in a letter of clarification which was appended to'
the collective agreement. The union relies on these
provisions to support their claim for inclusion of sick leave
credits prior to April 1, 1986, in their sick leave bank.
The issue between this union and this employer over
sick leave credits arose since shortly after Mr. Roberts
bought the service from Mr. Twerdohlib. Early in April 1986,
Mr. Roberts told Mr. Butters that he had bought the licence
to operate the service and the agreement to purchase the
licence did not include taking on any of the former owner's
liabilities. Mr. Roberts told him that any liabilities
incurred by the previous owner would be the responsibility of
the previous owner.
Mr. Butters met formally with Mr. Roberts on April
7, 1986, to discuss the new employer's ongoing obligations.
Mr. Butters made notes of the issues that he wanted to raise
and later added Mr. Roberts' responses. The issue of the
number of sick days to be carried over from the old employer
to the new employer was discussed, as were other issues that
related to ongoing obligations, such as vacations, benefits,
and seniority lists. They discussed the liability for the
accumulated sick days. Mr. Butters told Mr. Roberts that he
was responsible for the sick days as a successor employer.
Mr. Butters testified that Mr. Roberts said he had a hard
time getting the records from Mr. Twerdohlib, but he would
look into the. issue and get back to him. Mr. Roberts did not
recollect this particular conversation.
·
Page 6
The issue of sick days was discussed later that
year at the first meeting of the 1986 negotiations. Mr.
Roberts said that he was trying to get the records and would
then discuss them when he received them.
Mr. Butters and Mr. Roberts testified that the
issue of the sick leave credits were discussed again at the
1987 negotiations. Mr. Roberts said he still did not have
any records from Mr. Twerdohlib and did not have any
understanding of the liabilities that the union raised. He
admitted in his testimony that he told Mr. Butters that he
would try to get the records and get an accounting.
There was no evidence by Mr. Butters or Mr. Roberts
of any specific conversations on this topic until September
or October 1990. Neither witness clarified the date of the
conversation. However, Mr. Butters stated that the matter of
sick days would have been brought up at each year's
negotiating sessions for the following collective agreement,
as it was his practice to review all outstanding issues.
In the 1990 discussion, Mr. Butters testified that
Mr. Roberts said that he had done all the he could, and the
union had to proceed to do whatever it,deemed necessary. Mr.
Butters then asked for a letter setting out~ the sick leave
credits. Mr. Roberts testified that he would give the
employees a letter, advising them of their sick leave
credits. Mr. Roberts then advised the grievors by letter
dated November 2, 1990 that they had the following balance of
sick leave credits for the period .of April 1, 1986 to
November 1, 1990:
Mr. Young owes 38 hours.
Mr. Fretz has 92 hours credit.
Mr. Caldwell has 394 hours credit.
Mr. Butters has 470 hours credit.
Page 7
On November 5, 1990, the grievors filed their
grievances contesting the amount in the sick leave bank.
There was no dispute over the amounts accumulated since April
1, 1986. The Union claimed at the time of the payout in
1977, Mr. Butters had accumulated 42 sick days, and Mr. Young
had accumulated nine days. Mr. Fretz and Mr. Caldwell were
employed after the payout day and had different balances in
their sick leave bank. The Union did not specify the number
of sick days sought for Mr. Fretz and Mr. Caldwell.
The collective agreement sets out the grievance
procedure as follows:
ARTICLE 8 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
8.01 The parties to his Agreement are agreed
that it is of utmost importance to adjust
complaints and grievances concerning the
interpretation or alleged violation of the
Agreement as quickly as possible.
8.02 The Company may, however, at its
discretion, decline to consider any grievance which
is lodged more than seven (7) calendar days after
the cause of the grievance should have become known
to the employee.
8.03 Nothing.contained in this Agreement shall
be deemed to deprive any employee of his right to
negotiate any grievance without the assistance of
the Union if he so desires. Grievances properly
arising under this Agreement shall be adjusted and
settled as follows:
Step No. 1: The aggrieved employee
shall, with or without his steward, present his
grievance in writing to his supervisor. Where his
supervisor is absent, the grievance shall be
presented to Management and be accepted. The
supervisor shall give his decision within seven (7)
calendar days following the presentation of the
grievance to him, If the supervisor's decision is
not satisfactory to the employee concerned, then
the grievance may be presented as follows:
Page $
Step No. 2: Within seven (7) calendar
days after the decision is given at Step No. 1, the
aggrieved employee may, with or without his
steward, present in writing the grievance to the
Operations Manager, who shall consider it in the
presence of the person or persons Presenting the
same and the supervisor will rendered (sic) his
decision in writing within seven (7) calendar days
following the presentation of the grievance to him.
If a settlement satisfactory to the employee is not
reached, then the grievance may be presented as
follows:
Step No. 3. Within seven (7) calendar
days after the decision is given under Step No. 2,
the aggrieved employee submit his grievance to the
General Manager and the employee and his steward
shall meet as promptly as possible with such
persons as Management may desire, to consider the
grievance. At this stage they may be accompanied
by a full-time representative of the Union if his
presence is requested by either party. The General
Manager will render his decision in writing within
ten (10) calendar days following such meeting.
8.04 If final settlement of the grievance is
not reached at Step No. 3, and if the grievance is
one which concerns the interpretation or alleged
violation of the Agreement, then the grievance may
be referred in writing by either party to a Board
of Arbitration as provided in Article 9 below, at
anytime within ten (10) calendar days after the
decision us given under Step No. 3 and if no such
written request for arbitration'is received within
the time limit then it shall deemed to .be
abandoned.
8.05 By mutual agreement of the Company and
the Union, the time limits stated in the grievance
procedure may be extended.
Under this agreement, the date for the grievance to
be filed, without relying on the employer's discretion, is
"seven (7) calendar days after the cause of the grievance
should have become known to the employee."
Union's counsel admitted that the grievors knew
that there was an issue over sick leave credits in 1986.
This is apparent as Mr. Butters and Mr. Roberts set out their
Page 9
respective positions in April. Mr. Butters took the position
that the grievors had accumulated sick leave credits and Mr.
Roberts was liable for. the sick days as a successor employer.
Mr. Roberts took the position that he had no continuing
liabilities that arose from the service under its operation
under Mr. Twerdohlib. However, although there was an issue,
the cause of a grievance had not yet occurred. Although Mr.
Roberts did not remember the particular conversation, we
accept Mr. Butters' testimony, that Mr. Roberts told Mr.
Butters that he would try to get'the records. This testimony
is consistent with Mr. Roberts' testimony of the
conversations in 1987. Mr. Roberts admitted he told Mr.
Butters in July 1987, that he would try to get the records
and get an accounting. Although Mr. Roberts said he had no
liability for the sick days, he also represented that his
liability was contingent upon his making an accounting and
reaching a conclusion.
It is a most basic principle in employment law,
that a successor employer is bound by the .terms of the
collective agreement between the preceding employer and the
union. The collective agreement is the contract between the
employer and the bargaining unit employees and sets out the
rights and obligations of the parties, irrespective of 'any
agreement between the preceding and successor emPloyers. The
collective agreement clearly stated that~the employees had a
right to accumulate sick days. Therefore, to search for
records is consistent with the employer's need to ascertain,
what if any~liability, he had for accumulated sick ~eave days
for the employees. This is also consistent with the position
put to Mr. Roberts by the union, that Mr. Roberts' position
was all along, that he had no liability until he saw the
records. In face of the basic rights of the employees to
accumulated sick days, as set out in the collective
agreement, the only issue that could be left would be an
accounting. Therefore, we accept the union's position that
Page 10
it was waiting until M~. Roberts found the records and
satisfied himself as to the number of sick days that he
believed each employee had accumulated.
If Mr. Roberts was truly saying that he had no
liability to the employees for accumulated sick days,
regardless of what the records contained, he had an
obligation to communicate that position to the union clearly.
The union could then have grieved it. To say he had no
liability and yet search of the records, creates a mixed
message.
We cannot accept the employer's counsel position
that Mr. Roberts was looking for the records as a gratuitous
gesture on behalf of the employees. Mr. Roberts agreed to
include Article 18.02 in the succeeding collective agreement.
~e had an obligation to notify the employees annually of the
sick leave credits. Mr. Roberts did not notify them until
November 2, 1990. This is consistent with his inability to
reach a conclusion, until he satisfied himself of the credits
that he had to attribute to each employee. Therefore, we
find there was no issue and cause of grievance for the union
to grieve until Mr. Roberts made his position clear.
Mr. Roberts did not respond to the union until the
fall of 1990, when he told Mr. Butters that he had done all
that he could and that it was up to the union to do as it
sees fit. Mr. Roberts agreed to send out a letter setting
out the accumulated sick leave credits. It was not until the
letters of November 2, 1990, were received by the girevors
that the grievors knew the number of days attributed to each
of their sick leave banks, and the issu~ Crystallized and a
cause of grievance arose. The grievances were then filed
within the time limits set out in the collective agreement.
Pagell
Undue delay is a ground for dismissing a grievance
when the delay causes irreparable harm to the party
objecting. Often this is the case where witnesses can no
longer be found or material documents are no longer
available. However, the party objecting, cannot be
responsible for the delay. The employer cannot by its
actions or inactions, create a delay and then rely on the
delay to claim that it is irreparably harmed. Mr. Roberts
knew from April 1986, that the union was concerned with the
previous sick leave credits. He said that he would look into
it. It was brought up at least annually, and each time the
response was the Same. ~e would try to obtain the records.
If the employer fails to obtain records in a timely fashion
and prejudices himself, the employer cannot successfully
argue delay by the union caused the employer harm.
If the employer further failed to notify the
employees of their sick leave credits, as he was required to
do under Article 18.02 of the collective agreement, his
failure to notify them does not deprive the grievous of their
substantive right to the sick leave credits, which are
provided in the agreement, it merely delays raising the issue
and the cause of a grievance.
Therefore, we dismiss the preliminary objections
made by the employer. The hearing of these grievances on
Page 12
their merits, shall be heard on dates to be set by the
Registrar.
Dated at Toronto, this llth day of August, 1992.
B.A. Kirkwood, Vice-Chairperson
/J. Carruthers,. Union Member
"! Dissent" (dissent attached)
F. Collict, Employer Member
DISSENT RE: BUTTERS ET AL (GSB ~2017/90)
in the view of this Member, the issue in this case relative to the preliminary
objection is as foIIows:
1. 'Did the Union kn(~w that them was a diffem rice of opinion between the
parties relative to the entitlement of sick leave credits for four
employees for the period prior to April 1, 19867
2. Were repro sentations made to Buttem by Roberts that would lead.
Buttem to believe that Roberts would change his position concerning
the latter's liability for the sick leave cmdits?
Re: Item 1 above
It is clear from the evidence that them was a difference of opini~)n between
the parties concerning the liability for sick leave cm dits.
In direct evidence, Buttem answered counsel Wells~ questions, as follows:
Q: Did he (Roberts) tell you what he bought from Farmer
(Mr. Twerdohlib)?
A: Roberts said he bought the licence, had worked out an
agreement to purchase the licence and this did not include
any of the former owner's liabilities.
In cross examination of Roberts, counsel Wells posed the following questions:
Q: So in '86 and '87 negotiations, you have an
understanding, BUttem has an understanding, and these
am different?
2
A: Yes. As to statutory holidays, vacations and sick benefits,
my understanding was that it was all paid out. Vacations
were paid out. We maintained all along that the matter of
sick leave credits had been cfeared up.
Q: At the July 9, 1987 negotiations, there was the differing
opinions concerning liability - and you said you wouId
engage in an undert .aking to try to get the records?
A: Yes. We said this - but still maintained our position of no
liability. ..
From .the above, it is clear that there is a difference between the parties
concerning the sick leave credit liability; Roberts unwaveringly maintains his
non-liability position; Roberts does state that he'lt try to get the pre-1986
records.
Re: Item 2 above
In the context of the above differences, did Roberts make representation to
Butters that he would change his position concerning his liability for the sick
benefit credits?
Roberts evidence in this respect was as follows:'
a) He denied any pre-1986 liability.
b) He stated that this lawyer and Farmer's lawyer had worked out the
licence purchase and that he legally had no such liability; - that he
had a "clean slate".
c) He described how the Ministry of Health paid for ambulance services
and that he could obtain funding to meet only his operations while he
was the owner/operator (ie. after April 1, 1986); and that .this was the
same for Farmer for the pre-1986 period.
d) He stated that he had written to Farmer on two occasions to obtain
records, with no results.
3
Applicable jurisprudence against which to contemplate COntinuing liability is in
several G.S.B. cases, one of which is Mills, (G.S.B. #11~88). At pages 7 and
8, the following is Stated:
~Xaia~'~l~ ~la have aha e~tec~
~iffo~~ ~ a~ly ~L~
~e c~pla~ ~ a~~ to a~e a
~,_-.- - ~- .~ -- ~_ -, - ~ ....
~ _ - ~ ~ - . - .-_ --~ ~'.~ _ . ~.
~$eve~~ ~av~. ~. ~ "u~ a c~~
~ie~e ~ro~ ~ ~ ~ to ~Xe it /ne~i~le ~or ~e 20 -.
da~ ~J ~ .a~l~? ~ q view,' ~a
evid~ce ~s ~e~ ~t ~' all of '~e ~Sio~ ~i niSg ~ '
issue o~ ~S ~2 rate ~ ~. ~a~t, ~. ~a~t*s
repl2 .vas ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ paid .it
~s~ ~ ~m ~ where ~e
~-,_ -. - -_ ~ - · .
. Or repres~U~ 1~ ~ ~levor ~ ~l~e
~ - _ . ~ _
/, . .~ ~ - -- - ..-- ~ --
· .. ~e ~te~r ~t ~ ~l~er..had ~
~e'~te o~ ~$c ~ll~ ~, a~
~0-20 day ~' ~
4
As per Curnow and Nq (635/84) Samuels, cited in the above, it is clear that
Roberts in our subject case did .not,
"...actively try to rectify the subject of the complaint..."
On only two occasions between 1986 and 1990 did Roberts write to Farmer to
obtain the subject records.
Moreover, as in Cannin.~ {558/84 (Samuels) cited above, Roberts or his
representative had not,
"...led the grievor or grievors by word or deed to believe that the
parties were essentially ad idem and that the employer was
seeking to remedy the complaint in the grievor's favour."
It is very clear from the evidence that the parties were not of one mind (ad
. idem) concerning the dispute and that Roberts was .not seeking to resolve the
difference in favour of the grievor.
Additionally, it would appear clear from the evidence that, as stated in ~
G.S.B. #12/88 (Low), cited above, Roberts gave no intention to Mr. Butters
that he would "resile" from his non-liability position and,
"...the Employer steadfastly maintained its position from
beginning to end.
"Clearly, Mr. Roberts was consistent; and in the opinion of this Member, his
comment relative to any of Farmer's records was tantamount to stating
am right. I have no liability. Someone is going to have to show me I'm
wrong". To respond in this fashion is simply a matter of good employee
5
relations; a, nd should not be taken as a commitment or a continuing liability on
the part of the Employer.
in view of the above, this Member 'is of the view that there was no
re~)resentation made to Butters by Roberts that the sick leave credit matter
was going to be positively pursued by Roberts. Butters knew that the
difference between them existed. It was no surprise to Butters that Farmer
was difficult to deal with and that cooperation would be minimal; for in his own
eVidence in chief relative to 1987 negotiations he,
".,.recalled Robinson saying it's easier to get blood out of a stone
than records from Farmer."
Butters atso had been involved earlier, as Chief Union Steward, in a "long,
bitter strike" with Farmer.
Given the above, circumstances, and in the face of Roberts' contention of non-
liability, Butters did nothing - with the exception of raising the sfck leave credit
matter at 1986 and 1987 negotiations. As experienced negotiators are aware,
a myriad of matters are placed, on the bargaining table and the majority "fall
off". It is indeed perplexing as to why Butters did not pursue the subject
matter at times other than negotiations, unless he believed that he had to
negotiate the credits in c~uestion. Very clearly from the evidence, however, he
did not raise the issue at any other times. Accordingly, the subject grievances
are out of time in accordance with the provisions of article 8.02 of the
collective agreement.
With reference to the majority awardat page 10, this Member would disagree
that the "message" given to the Union concerning sick leave credits was
"mixed"; or that the issue between the parties did not "crystallize" until
6
notification of sick leave credits was given to the grlevors in the lette, rs of
November 2, 1990. The evidence indicated that the matter in question was
reised at several sets of negotiations over the years since 1986; and that
Mr. Roberts denied any liability for the sick leave credits in question on each
occasion that it was raised. In effect, Mr. Butters knew Mr. Roberts' position
on the matter. Mr. Roberts had - "made his 0osition c~ear".
Additionally, if indeed, the "message" Was "mixed" as stated at page 10 of the
majority award, Mr. Butters had more'than four and one half years to
"crystallize" the "message" which, - as both Messrs. Butters and Roberts
stated in evidence - was a consistent response of no obli.aation for the
subject sick leave credits whenever the matter was raised.
Certainly, it strains the imagination to contemplate that Mr. Butters,
· as Chief Union Steward for the local,
· who was present at all collective agreement negotiations with the Union
negotiator (Robinson) and Mr. Darling, the Area Representative of
OPSEU (when the matter of sick leave credits was reised),
· who knew the type of ~oor cooperation that the new Employer
(Roberts) could expect'to receive from Farmer (Mr. Twerdohlib) ~ (and
was in fact receiving no cooperation),
· who, in evidence himself stated that he "...recalled Robinson saying it's
easier to get blood out of a stone than records from FARMER.",
· who had gone through a "long, bitter strike" with Farmer,
· and who was receiving a consistent NO response from
Mr. Roberts concerning the Union claim'for sick leave credits,
received a "mixed message" (page 10 of award) from the Employer (Roberts)
over a four and one half year period.
7
c]earIy, Mr. Butters received the "message". He failed to act upon his
complaint within the time limits set out in Article 8.02 of the Collective
Agreement. He "sat on his rights". He, therefore, is untimely in the filing of
the subject grievance on behalf of himself and his colleagues.
As a footnote to the question of sick leave credit accumUlation, it is curious
that the matter was raised by the Union.only at the negotiation table. The
question' of sick leave credits did not arise as a complaint or grievance during
the "life" of any of the collective agreements betwaen the parties from 1986 to
1990; notwithstanding the fact that grievances on other matters were
presented to the Employer on a periodic basis. Somewhat rhetorically, one
might ask, - was this because the Union believed that it had to neqotiate the
matter of sick leave credits? as opposed to the fact that it grieve the
matter?
If so, and once again, the claim is untimely.
in summation of all of the above, including the applicable jurisprudence, this
Member is of the opinion that the preliminary objection of timeliness shouId be
upheld in this case and the grieVance'dismissed. "
F.T. Collict ~ ' Date