Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-2495.Anderson,Neamtz&Savoie.98-02-04 ,,~ - ONTARIO EMPLOY~S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO ~ 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS - t80 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUlTE60O, TORONTO ON M5G tZ8 TELEPHONErrELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 , , - .~. 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G tZ8 FACSIMILEITELECqPIE (416) 326-139(5 GSB #2495/92, 2496/92, 2497/92 OPSEU #92G627-629 IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARBITRATION -IF Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before I THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Anderson/Savoie/Neamtz) Grievors - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment and Energy) Employer BEFORE B Kirkwood Vice-ChaIr FOR THE DEady UNION Counsel - Gowling, Strathy & Henderson FOR THE D Strang EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch Management Board Secretariat HEARING January 12, 1998 -- -- - - F ~, ot Page 2 - DECISION These grievances were filed in August 1992, claiming that the Employer failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement - reached and encompassed in a consent order of the Grievance Settlement Board of June 8, 1988. The settlement reached in June 1988 arose from classification grievances filed in 1984. In order to understand this grievance, it is necessary to place this grievance in the context of the earlier grievancesr and in the context of other grievances that were occurring on and during the same period of time. In 1984, the three grievors, Mssrs. Anderson, Neamtz and Savoie, were classified as Environmental Technicians 3. They worked with four other Environmental Technicians, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng, Mr Pingue and Mr. Wolaniuk in the WeIland Office of the Ministry of Environment. A junior engineer had also worked in the office until 1982, at which time the engineer was transferred and the work divided between the three grievors. The grievors instituted classification grievances in 1984, alleging that they were improperly classified. They claimed that in addition to the engineer's duties, and the Environmental Technician duties, which they claimed were greater than that of an Environmental Technician 3, that they had been given further duties such as enforcement. - As at the time the grievors had to claim the specific position they were seeking, they claimed that each should be classified as an Environmental Technician 4 or as an Investigator I, Ontario Securities Commission. Mr. Baldwin and Lyng who were classified as Environmental Technician 4 had filed classification grievances, as had Mr. Pingue and wolaniuk, who were classified as environmental Technician 3. There were also more than one hundred outstanding classification grievances invol v-ing other Environmental Technicians. -- --- -- In November 1984, there was a reorganization, after - F ~ Page 3 which the grievors claimed- that they were also assigned- prosecution duties. On or about November 1, 1985, there was a further reorganization and the creation of a new branch called Investigation and Enforcement. On or about November 1, 1985, -- Neamtz had successfully competed and obtained a position as an Environmental Technician 4. Mr. Savoie received a position in the - new branch and Mr. Anderson ceased doing prosecution duties and continued on with his other duties at the WeIland branch. On April 10, 1987 the decision in the Baldwin and Lyng matter was issued. Vice-Chair Palmer foun9 that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng were improperly classified as Environmental Technician 4s and directed the Employer to work out a solution, failing which to come back to the Board. ( (OPSEU (A. Baldwin and J. Lyng) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) G.S.B. #539/84 (April 10, 1987)(E.E. Palmer )-) . On May 20, 1987 parties reached an agreement on the Pingue and Wolaniuk matter, which was subsequently incorporated into a decision (OPSEU (A. Pingue and J. Wolaniuk) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment) G.S.B. #540/84, 1597/84, 1598/84 (June 30, 1987)(J. Samuels) . The parties agreed that Mr. Pingue and Mr. Wolaniuk would be classified as Environmental Technician 4s retroactive to November 19, 1984; and when Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng were reclassified, they wou!d be reclassified to the same level. In that context, Mr. Roland, Counsel for the union, wrote on May 22, 1987 to Mr. Tarasuk, Counsel for the Employer to inquire whether settlement discussions on the Anderson, Neamtz, and Savoie matter could be fruitful. In the interim on July 20, 1987, the Baldwin and Lyng matter came before the Grievance Settlement Board again, this time chaired by vice-Chair Mitchnick. As the Employer had created a - new standard for a new series of "Environmental Officers", but the - - - - -- --- - -~- - ----- F -" 'oj Page 4 standard required minor editing before approval, the matter was adjourned in order that the new standard be finalized and approved. As further terms of the adjournment, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng were to be placed in the position of Environmental -- Officers 5s. Once the parties had negotiated the rates under Article 5.8 of the Collective Agreement, retroactivity for these - grievors would be based on the new rate. (OPSEU (Baldwin and Lyng) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment) (July 23, 1987) (Mitchnick) ) . On September 9, 1987 the revised standards for the Environmental Officer series was approved by the Civil Service Commission. The Anderson, Neamtz, and Savoie grievances were scheduled for hearing on October 20, 1987. The Employer was seeking an adjournment of the hearing, as evidenced by Mr. Tarasuk's letter of October 13, 1987 to Mr. Roland. Mr. Tarasuk suggested that as a new series had been created, and there were Article 5.8 meetings to negotiate the rates, the parties had agreed that "once a rate has been established and the grievors have been so placed in the Environmental Officer classification series retroactivity, if any shall date back to the date of their respective grievances plus twenty days." Mr. Roland responded immediately, stating that he did not agree to an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for October 20, 1987, but had to discuss terms of the adjournment with the grievors before consenting. Mr. Roland advised Mr. Tarasuk that the grievors would not consent to an adjournment unless they were reclassified as Environmental Officers 5s, and paid salary retroactive to twenty days prior to the date of their respective grievances. However, letters from Mr. Roland dated October 16, 1987 as modified by his letter of October 19, 1987 set out the - terms of the adjournment. The terms sought --by the. Union and -- - . " ~ Page 5 grievors were that: as a new series had been established, the grievors would be informed of their placement in the series within six weeks of letter's date; as the parties were meeting to establish the rate, pending establishment of proper rates, the grievors would receive pay at the Environmental Technician 4 rate, retroactive to twenty days prior to filing these grievances. (This term was subsequently deleted, as a term of the adjournment in a letter from Union dated October 19, 1987 to Employer). The Union also required that once the grievors were placed in the Environmental Officer seriesr they receive retroactive pay back to 20 days prior to date of their grievances, and finally if the grievors do not accept their placement in the new Environmental Officer series, they have right to grieve their classification and claim retroactive pay to twenty days prior to filing their grievances (subsequently this term was modified in the October 19, 1987 letter to allow the grievors their classification and on a without prejudice basis to claim retroactivity in back pay to twenty days prior to the date of the grievances filed in the present hearing) . There was no further correspondence and no evidence of any further different understanding. The hearing of October 20, 1987 was adjourned. On November 27, 1987 the Employer advised the Union that it needed two more weeks in order to comply with the terms of the adjournment. On December 16, 1987, the Union asked the Grievance Settlement Board to reschedule the hearing as it claimed that the Employer had not met the terms of the adjournment. On April 13, 1988, a further decision in OPSEU (Baldwin and Lyng) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment) (Mitchnick) was issued. The issue before the Board was to determine what date should be used for the retroactive payment, that arose as a result of the reclassification of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng. Retroactivity was - awarded prior to the~iling of the grievances, back to the point - " ~ Page 6 where management was aware of the nature of Mr. Baldwin and Lyng's complaint from their meeting of December 16r 1982, excluding a period from September 9, 1983 to December 31, 1983, which represented the time that the Union knew the Employer's position and knew what avenues it had to pursue. June 7 and 8, 1988 had been scheduled for hearing of the grievances of Anderson, Neamtz and Savoie, but the time was spent in negotiations. As a result of the successful negotiations, Minutes of Settlement were executed on June 8, 1988. These Minutes of Settlement are now the subject of this grievance. The portions referred to by counsel, with the disputed paragraph highlighted, state as follows: The parties hereby agree to settle and do settle the following grievance on the terms herein set out:... 1) The grievances are: 3 Keith Anderson grievances dated March 29, April 6 and April 12, 1984 3 John Neamtz grievances each dated April 4, 1984 3 Peter Savoie grievances dated March 20, April 6 and April 12, 1984 2) The Employer agrees to pay to each of the 3 grievors the lump sum of $10,000, inclusive of $1500 interest, less statutory deduction, which payments are to be made no later than July 7, 1988. Any payment made after July 7, 1988 shall accrue interest at 10% per annum. 3) The three grievors shall each receive the difference between the salary of an Environmental Techn i c,ian 4 and an Environmental Officer 4, if any, for the period November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 which difference, if any, may result from either negotiations between OPSEU and the Crown in Right of Ontario or as a result of an interest arbitration_ award with respect to the new Environmental Officer class series. 4) This settlement shall not affect any retroactive pay entitlement to the grievors as a result of the review process of the Employer that reclassified - - ... , ~1 Page 7 the grievors as Environmental Technacians 4 at November 1, 1984, and which is otherwise owing and has not yet been paid to any of the grievors, to a maximum of $3,000 up to November 1, 1985. Any monies owed as a result of the Review Process after November 1, 1985 are not affected by the $3,000 maximum. Mr. Roland as the Union Counsel and witness to the Minutes of Settlement explained the differentiation of the settlement reached in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Minutes of Settlement. He explained that the lump sum agreed to in paragraph 2 represented the additional duties that the grievors had taken on after the junior engineer in their office was transferred. He testified that the $10,000 was not to compensate the grievors for the additional duties that fell between the Environmental Technician series and the Environmental Officer series. paragraph 4 represented any monies that had not yet been paid to the grievors as a result of their reclassification to Environmental Technician 4 on November 1, 1984. Counsel knew that the Employer had completed a review process and had reclassified the grievors to Environmental Technician 4 and had agreed to pay the difference in salary between an Environmental Technician 3 and Environmental Technician 4. As at least one grievor had received the monies previously committed to, and the Union knew that it was less than $3,000, a cap was placed on any amount due to- any grievor who had not yet been paid. Mr. Roland testified that paragraph 3 represented the payment for the other additional duties that the grievors were - carrying on during the period between the two reorganizations. When cross-examined as to the difference in the payment referred to in his October 16, 1981 letter in its reference to retroactive pay, and the Minutes of Settlement, he stated that the letter of October 16, 1987 set out the terms of the adjournment such that the grievors would be-paid at the Environmental Officer rate from the date of their grievances, which were filed in-r984. The lump - ,;;, " 'if Page 8 sum payment of $10,000 would include any Environmental Officer rate prior to November 1, 1984. Mr. Roland testified that there was no discussion about Article 5.8 retroactivity. He and Mr. Tarasuk had been discussing the difference in value of the jobs and agreed to use the rate negotiated or awarded for the calculation of the value of the duties. As the parties did not know the rate that was to be applied to the Environmental Officer series, Mr. Roland agreed with Mr. Tarasuk that if there was no increase the grievors would not be entitled to an increase. Mr. Roland stated that Mr. Tarasuk insisted on the insertion of "if any" in paragraph 3, in recognition that if there was no difference in the salary between the Environmental Officer and Environment Technician, there was no difference in the value of the duties. Mr. Tarasuk who had negotiated the Minutes of Settlement for the Employer was not called as a witness. Mr. Bob Younger, who was instructing Mr. Tarasuk was called. Mr. Younger was not in the room when the Minutes of Settlement were negotiated by Mr. Roland and Mr. Tarasuk. Mr. Younger testified that a review of the old series was undertaken by the Employer, after which it developed a new series composed of six levels. The grievors were ( placed in the Environmental Technician 4 level as of November 1, 1984. He agreed tha~ paragraph 4 applied to the remuneration for the change in the position. Mr. Younger stated that although Mr. Tarasuk was - responsible for the drafting of the Minutes of Settlement, he understood paragraph 2 of the Minutes as setting out a lump sum payment in consideration of settling the grievances, including interest. This sum would not be reduced by any decision or award made on the rates. Any payment under- paragraph 3 was separate from payment under paragraph 2. Mr. Younger testified that as the parties had not been able to negotiate salaries for the new - - -~_.-- '; " ~ Page 9 series, the salary rates were being referred to-Judge Ord. Mr. Younger testified that paragraph 3 was to ensure that notwithstanding the payment of $10,000, nothing would preclude or prejudice a payment under the Ord award. Mr. Younger understood that the "if any" as referred to in paragraph 3 was to ensure that if Judge Ord ordered retroactivity that it would not detract from the payment of $10,000 to the grievors. Mr. Younger was aware that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng had been awarded retroactivity to 1982, with an exclusionary period, and he may also have been aware of the Pingue and Wolaniuk decision, but considered them separate from the grievors' matter. As the parties were not able to negotiate the rates for the Environmental Officer series, the issues of salary and working conditions went to an interest arbitration before a Board chaired by Judge Ord. Judge Ord determined that "the salary range for the revised class series of the Environmental Officers shall be increased by 12%." Although the union was seeking retroactivity to May 16, 1984, the date the original grievances were filed, Judge Order made no award on retroactivity, but awarded the effective date for the new rate as September 9, 1987, the date that the new classification came into existence. He specifically left issues of outstanding grievances and retroactivity to other boards of arbitration. (The Crown in Right of Ontario and Ontario Public Service Employees union (October 11 , 1989)(Ord). Arguments The union argued that given the context of the Minutes of Settlement, which was not substantially contradicted by Mr. Younger that paragraph 3 was to entitle the grievors to the difference in salary between the ~nvironmental Technician 4 and the Environmental Officer 4 for a defined p~r iod , whether the - - ~, . page 10 salary was determined by negotiation or arbitration. The purpose of the paragraph was to compensate the grievors for the additional duties they had performed. The settlement was consistent with the duties as performed. There was no need to go beyond November 1, 1985 as the duties and positions of the grievors had changed. Union Counsel also argued that the payment under paragraph 3 was also consistent with the overall pattern of retroactivity as paid to Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng, and Mr. Pingue and Mr. Wolaniuk, and it was consistent with claim made in the grievances filed for this hearing. union's Counsel argued that there was a difference in duties between the Environmental Officer and the Environmental Technician series, and until the Ord decision the grievors were paid at the Environmental Technician series rate. The issue was-, what was the value of the difference. He submitted that under paragraph 3 the grievors were entitled to the difference, not the difference if given retroactively by Judge Ord, as argued by the Employer. He argued that "if any" in paragraph 3 does not bind the parties to only a retroactive award or portion of the award, it entitled the grievors to the difference of 12% awarded by Judge Ord from the period from November I, 1984 to November I, 1985. The Union argued that the Employer owes the grievors - interest on the said amount from twenty days prior to the filing of these grievances which were dated August 5, 1992. The Union was n~t seeking earlier interest as the Ord award was not issued until October 1989. Employer'S Counsel argued that the purpose of a settlement is not to look at the positions of parties taken on the merits, but to look at what is simply an acceptable result. Employer'S Counsel submitted that the whole basis for the Environmental Officer classification ana- whether it should attract - - - '" ~ Page 11 a higher rate than the Environmental Technician series was an area of dispute between the Union and the Employer, and was not unique to these grievors. He submitted that it would be inappropriate to give these grievors a different result from other Environmental Technicians. Employer's Counsel argued that the Employer did not concede that the grievors were at a higher rate or were improperly classified until November 1, 1984. Employer's Counsel argued on the face of paragraph 3, that paragraph 3 only provided payment if retroactivity was awarded by Judge Ord. He submitted that the insertion of "if any" supports that interpretation, and even if paragraph were read without these words, it would strengthen the Employer'S position. Employer'S Counsel argued that Employer'S Counsel submitted that paragraph 2 of the Minutes of settlement was fairly typical of settlements, in that a lump sum payment was given in order to get rid of the grievances. What was unusual about the settlement is that it also allowed the grievors to take advantage of the review that was in process. It allowed the grievors to move from Environmental Technician 3 to Environmental Technician 4, and allowed the grievors to obtain retroactivity if awarded by Judge Ord. The lump sum did not preclude these other payments. Employer's Counsel submitted that the intention was if the movement from the Environmental Technician series to the Environmental Officer series in 1984 provided a higher salary the grievors were entitled to that benent. Employer'S Counsel submitted that as Judge Ord did not award pay retroactively to 1984, paragraph 3 does not entitle the grievors to any monies. Therefore as no monies are owing to the grievors, the Employer has complied with the Minutes of Settlement. - - --- Employer's Counsel submitted~he other grievances, those - - - '-\ '= Page 12 of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lyng, and Mr. Pingue and Mr. Wolaniuk,-are separate and distinct. Although other grievances were referencedr those grievors moved to the higher Environmental Officer 5 level. Similarly there is no connection with the retroactivity obtained in those matters which went back to 1982 and the period between November 1, 1984 and November 1, 1985. - In summary, Employer's Counsel submitted that the agreement is clear on its face. As Judge Ord did not order retroactivity there was no difference between the rates of Environmental Technician 4 and the Environmental Officer 4 at that time and therefore the Employer asked that the grievance be dismissed. Issue The issue between the parties is whether paragraph 3 of the Minutes of Settlement is to be interpreted as urged by the Union that if there is any difference in the rate between the old classification of Environmental Technician 4 and the new classification Environmental Officer 4, that difference is given to the grievors for a 12 month period, from November 1, 1984 to " November 1, 1985; __or as urged by the Employer that the grievors receive any difference in rate that was effective for the period November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985. Decision As there is a patent ambiguity in paragraph 3, extrinsic evidence was given to determine what meanings the parties attributed to this paragraph when negotiating the agreement. Mr. Roland gave evidence on behalf of the Union. unfortunately Mr. Tarasuk who would have been able to give direct evidence~f the - l>, ~ Page 13 negotiations, was not called to give evidence on behalf to the Employer. Although both the Union and the Employer witness were credible, Mr. Younger was not present during the negotiation of the Minutes of Settlement, although he gave instructions to Mr. Tarasuk and was present at the signing. Mr. Younger's evidence did not contradict that of Mr. Roland, but it did not go far enough, nor could it to provide evidence of the discussions between counsel, which set out the terms of the agreement. The parties entered into these Minutes of Settlement in the context that they knew, in 1988, that although the classification of the Environmental Technicians had been in issue and under discussion from 1982 in the case of the Baldwin and Lyng grievances, the creation of the new Environmental Officer series had been close to finalization in July 1987 and was only approved as of September 1987. The -parties therefore knew when they reached the agreement that the new series was not in place from November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985. The parties did not know what rate would be applicable or whether there would be any difference in the rates of the Environmental Technician series and the Environmental Officer series when they entered into an agreement. Employer's Counsel submitted that in reaching a settlement the positions of the parties are set aside in favour of reaching an acceptable result. While that may be true to a large extent, when interpreting Minutes of Settlement where there is ambiguity, the positions taken by the parties are of some assistance in determining the intention of the parties. A consideration of the context and the positions of the parties may answer the question as to whether the settlement answers the issues between the parties, and would as Employer's Counsel submits, reflect an acceptable result. - The understanding of paragraph 3 suggested by Mr. as - --. .- --,-~---- --.-- ------- - - -- ---- - ,,", .-; Page 14 Roland is consistent with and answers the positions taken by the both parties on opposite sides of the argument. On the one hand, there was the recognition that, if in the determination of the rates to be applied to the series, that the Employer's argument - was correct and the Environmental Officer series had no increased value, the grievors would not benefit, while on the other hand, if - the Union's argument that the Environmental Officer series had increased value was correct, the grievors would get the benefit of the determined value for the specific period of time. The time frame of November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 logically fits the time period after which the Employer conceded that the grievors had been improperly classified and ought to have been classified as Environmental Technician 4s, until November 1, 1985 when the grievors' duties changed. Employer's Counsel submitted that there -was no difference between an Environmental Technician 4 and an Environmental Officer 4 from November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 because the Environmental Officer series did not exist. Employer's Counsel argued that paragraph 3 meant that if Judge Ord did not order retroactive salary, no retroactivity would be awarded to the grievors. In my view, the fact that there was no Environmental Officer series in place during the time period of November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 supports the Union's interpretation. Mr. Roland testified that retroactivity was not discussed. The parties knew that the series did not exist and yet agreed to provide the dif ference in value between the two positions if a dif ference was recognized and awarded. It would be irrelevant when the new series came into effect as the issue between the parties was whether there was a difference between the two positions and the two series. Retroactivity would not need to be discussed if the parties were discussing values of respective -- class standards. - - ------- - _. --"--_. - ----- -- -. ----- ~----.--~" - -- --.--- -- -- -- -- --- - -~~ ~ -; page 15 Although Emp10yer~s Counsel submitted that the insertion of "if any" at Mr. Tarasuk's insistence meant that if no award was made that effected the relevant period of time the grievors would - receive nothing, it is more consistent with the interpretation that no payment would be made if there was no increase in value given, as, grammatically, II if any" in both places in the paragraph, modifies the difference in the rate, and not the period. The use of "if any" emphasizes that there could be a possibility that there would be no difference in salary between the positions in the two series. Employer's Counsel submitted that it would be inappropriate to give these grievors what was not available to other Environmental Technicians. However, although Judge Ord set the commencement date of the salary range for the Environmental Officer series, Judge Ord specifically left the issue of retroactivity which was before other Boards, to those Boards to determine on a case by case basis. Other grievors such as Baldwin \ and Lyng did received the benefit of the Environmental Officer rates at dates preceding the commencement of the series. Furthermore, under the terms of the adjournment, the parties agreed that once the new Environmental Officer series was established and the grievors were place in the Environmental Officer series, the grievors were to receive retroactive pay back to twenty days prior to the date of their respective grievances. Although the terms of the adjournment were not incorporated into the Minutes of Settlement, the terms of the adjournment show that the Employer was prepared to provide the grievors a payment with retroactive effect, notwithstanding any grievances filed by other Environmental Technicians. Although the union submitted that understanding the purpose of paragraph 2 would be of assistance in interpreting -- paragraph 3, I do not find that any reliance on the interpretation - - ~, ~ .- Page 16 of paragraph 2 to be helpful. Whether paragraph- 2 was to represent the additional work done by the grievors compensating for the additional work performed after the transfer of the junior engineer, or whether it represented as suggested by Mr. Younger, - an amount to get rid of the grievances is irrelevant. There was nothing to tie paragraph 2 into any payment to the grievors if the - Environmental Officer series was given greater or lesser value. As Mr. Younger stated, it was a lump sum payment to the grievors that could not be reduced. Therefore it would not be affected by any value allocated to the Environmental Officer series. In summary, as "if any" modifies the difference, and not the time period, paragraph 3 on its face, leads to the interpretation that if any difference in rate was awarded (or negotiated) between the two positions of Environmental Technician 4 and Environmental Officer 4, that difference-would be given to the grievors for the defined period of time of November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985. This interpretation is supported by the context of the grievances, in that the issue between the parties was a dispute over whether there was any difference in value arising from the duties that the grievors were performing and their reclassification to the Environmental Technician 4 position and finally their placement as Environmental Officer 4 in the new series. The time period which the parties used, fit the time period from which the Employer agreed that they were to be classified as as Environmental Technician 4s in November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 when their situations changed. Therefore I find that the interpretation submitted by Union's Counsel, that the grievors were to receive the difference between the rate of the Environmental Officer 4 and the rate of the Environmental Technician 4 for the period of November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985. There could have been no difference had Judge Ord found no difference between th~ two series. However, he found a 12% difference in the rates. Accordi~gly the 12% - - !o, :1 ~ Page 17 difference is to be paid to the grievors for the twelve month period from November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985. As the grievors did not have the use of the monies which were due to them on the negotiation of the wage rate or the arbitration of the wage rate and as the parties did not grieve until 1992, I find that interest on the said sum now due and owing shall run from 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances in 1992. I will remain seised in the event that the parties are not able to resolve the calculations of the amounts due and owing to the grievors. Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of February, 1998 ~nda~KirkWo~' Vice Chair - -- ,~ -