Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1797CORT97_06_17 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT , REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1797/95 OPSEU # 95E594 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Cart) Grievor - and - the Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE R.H. Abramsky Vice-Chair FOR THE M Bevan GRIEVOR Grievance Officer ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE E Johnson EMPLOYER Corporate Staff Relations Officer Management Board Secretariat HEARING April 22, 1997 June 2, 1997 AWARD At Issue IS whether the Employer, the Ministry of TransportatIon, had Just cause to Issue a twenty (20) day discIplInary suspenSIon to the grievor, Phil Cort. Specifically, on May 5, 1995, the gnevor was disciplIned for "improper actiVItIes In the conduct of [his] dutIes", specifically, issuing "a replacement licence to [him]self without paYIng the reqUIred transactIOn fee." The Ministry determined that lus actions constItuted "a breach of trust" and imposed the 20-day suspension. FACTS The gnevor has worked for the Mimstry of Transportation for the past ten years and, except for the discIplIne at Issue In this case, has had a dISCIpline-free and good work record. In 1994, he was awarded the posItIon of Dnver ExarrunatIon Supervisor - Cayuga, WIth the responsibility of iSSUIng dnver's lIcences and collectIng reqUIred fees, performIng adrrumstratIve dutIes and proVIding supervisIon of the staff of the Cayuga ExamInation Centre. In early 1995, the Ministry discovered an employee who used the Mimstry's dnver's lIcence data base and eqUIpment to create false IdentIficatIOns as well as Issue replacement lIcences wIthout paying a fee Dunng the course of that InvestigatIon, the employee IndIcated that she had been advIsed by other employees that It was okay to go Into the dnver's lIcence computer system to make mInor address modIficatIons to generate 2 a new lIcence and that the practice was widespread. Mr Bob Jackson, Dlstnct Coordmator - Dnver ExammatiOn Program, was directed to investigate how widespread tlus practice was m the Southwest Region. " To that end, Mr Jackson assigned Mr John Owen, a Dnver ExammatiOn Program Analyst with the Ministry, to review the dnver licence records of all staff m the Southwest Region, approxImately 160-180 employees. Mr Owen's search found five employees with some peculiantles on their hcence records. Subsequently, It was determmed that only two of these mdividuals made address alteratiOns for, what the Mimstry deemed, no legItimate reason - the grievor and one other employee. Both were given twenty day suspensions. In the gnevor's case, lus licence records showed that between 1985 and 1994, the gnevor had made fifteen (15) address changes to lus lIcence, a number ofwhtch appear to be changes m residence. One appears to be correctIon of a spelling error m the name of the street. Five changes were IdentIfied by the mvestIgator as bemg cosmetIc changes only, mvolving no actual change of abode. (Exs. 11, 12) Specifically, the cosmetIC changes mclude the followmg. 1 July 20, 1988 - from 150 Charlton St E Ap150, Hamilton L8N lY to 150 Charlton St E Apt 150, Hamilton 2 December 22, 1989 - from 150 Charlton Rd E Ap 1706, Hamilton to 150 Charlton Road E Ap 1706, Hamilton 3 3 June 2, 1992 - from 150 Charlton Rd E Apt3302, Hamilton to 150 Charlton Rd E Ap3302, Hamilton 4 October 22, 1993 - from 1911-200 Bay St S, Hamilton L8P 4S4 to 1911-200 Bay St South, Hamilton L8P 4S4 5 May 4, 1994 - from 99 Stonechurch Rd W, Hamilton L9B lA2 to 99 Stonechurch Road West, Hamilton In each case hsted above, a new "blue portion" of the gnevor's driver's licence was created and mailed to his home and 10 four instances, the change of address resulted 10 a new velucle registratIOn bemg Issued as well. There IS no eVidence that the gnevor paId a $10 fee for any of these transactIOns. The eVIdence does show, however, that With each of these transactIOns, the computer asks the questIon whether a new hcence should be issued to wluch the operator must respond "yes" or "no" In each case, the gnevor mdlcated "yes" to a new licence Mr Owen discussed lus lrutlal findmgs With Mr Jackson and It was decided that Mr Owen should meet with the gnevor to diSCUSS the address changes on lus hcence record. On February 22, 1995, Mr Owen went to the Cayuga Dnver Exammatlon office to meet with Mr Cort. He did not explain the purpose of the meetmg to Mr Cort 10 advance of the meetmg, nor did he adVise rum that disciplIne could result from the meetmg. 4 Mr Owen testified that because the office was quite small, he mVIted Mr Cort to meet with lum m his car There, he explamed that the dnver hcence records of all employees in the Southwest Region had been reviewed and that some questIons arose about lus record wluch needed clanficatlOn. He showed lum a copy of his record, and testified that the gnevor chuckled and appeared qUite relaxed about It and acknowledged that there were a lot of address changes. When asked to explam why he made the cosmetIc changes, he testIfied that the gnevor told him that he was Just "goofing around Wlth the system" He stated that the gnevor later acknowledged that what he dId was "stupId" and that he apologIzed. Mr Owen's wntten report confirms lus testimony (Ex. 11) In additIOn, Mr Owen specIfically asked the gnevor whether the changes were done to accommodate a "code/selmode" photograph (a photograph generated WIthout any paper trail or record kept on file), to wluch the gnevor emphatically stated "No! I never replaced my licence for that reason." The hcence photograph Mr Cort was carrymg matched the number of the last one he took upon lus licence renewal, and there was no eVidence that he otherwise obtamed any hcence photographs. After hiS meetmg With the gnevor, Mr Owen subnutted a wntten report to Mr Jackson, who, m turn, sent It to lus supervisor, Mr RIchard PuccmI, Regional Director, Southwest Region. On cross-exanunation, Mr Owen acknowledged that he dId not determme that the gnevor made the cosmetic changes to save the $10 replacement fee, or 5 that the gnevor had made the changes because his hcence had been lost or stolen. He expla10ed that his role was to gather the 1OformatlOn, not make decisions about what occurred. Mr PUCCInI testified that It was lus decisIOn to Issue the 20-day suspension to the gnevor based on the results of the 1OvestIgatIon. He stated that when the 1OvestIgatIon was completed, he held a meet10g with the investigator and human resources advisors. He could not recall specifically who attended tlus meet10g s10ce It took place approximately two years ago, nor specific tlungs that were said dunng that meet1Og. It would appear, however, that the 1OvestIgator, Mr Owen, was not at this meeting. Mr Owen testified that lus role was completed once he submItted lus report to Mr Jackson. Nevertheless, It was Mr Pucc1Oi's recollection that the 1OvestIgation revealed, and 10 the meet10g it was determined, that the grievor Improperly Issued himself replacement hcences - more than one time - and that such licences would normally generate a $10 fee. Thus, he stated that the gnevor's mIsconduct was twofold - first, he Issued lumself Improper documentation and second, that documentatlOn would normally attract a fee Later, however, on cross-examInation, Mr Pucc10l stated the $10 fee was not the key, but the abuse of the system was the root of the mIsconduct - us10g It for frIvolous, non- bus10ess purposes - and the creation of Improper documentation, regardless of whether It would attract a fee. Mr PUCCInI also noted that the gnevor worked 10 a supervisory capacity at a remote location and thus his pOSItion reqUIred a lugh degree of trust. He 6 i. i went on to explam the Importance of the MinIstry's driver lIcence data base, the potentIal for abuse of the system and the reqUIrement that employees wIth access to the system / mamtam its mtegnty Mr PUCCInI could not pmpomt at the heanng the exact transaction or transactIons that were Improper, but he mSlsted that he was aware of it (or them) at the time and that the mvestIgatlOn revealed that the gnevor had created Improper replacement lIcences for himself WIth paYIng the replacement fees. On May 5, 1995, the grievor was issued the 20-day suspension. The letter Imposmg the discIplIne was sIgned by Mr PUCCInI, and states, m pertment part, as follows It has been reported to me that improper actiVItIes in the conduct of your duties at the Cayuga, Weiland, Hamilton South, John Rhodes, and Oakville Dnver ExamInation Centres has occurred. SpecIfically, you Issued a replacement lIcence to yourself without paying the required transactIon fee Your actions consist a breach of trust. In accordance WIth Section 22(2) of the Pubic ServIce Act, R. S 0 1980, Chapter 418 and RegulatIon 881, Section 18(1) under the same Act, I am mformmg you that you are hereby suspended form employment for the penod of twenty (20) days, effectIve Monday, May 8, 1995 Tills suspensIon will be WIthout pay Any further unacceptable conduct will result m further dIscIplInary actIon, up to and mcludmg dISmIssal. (Ex. 3) On May 29, 1995, Mr Cort gneved the ImposItIon of thIs suspensIon. 7 Mimstry policy DP-0702-03 provIdes that a $10 fee must be paId for a "[ r ]eplacement licence In case of a lost, stolen or damaged dnver's ltcence " No fee IS charged, however, for a "[n]ew licence due to reInstatement, change In class or other informatIon." AccordIng to Mr Jackson and Mr Owen, there is no charge for legitImate address changes - which reflect a change In reSIdence - but changes which are not matenal (e.g., from St. to Street WIth no change In reSIdence), reqUIre that a replacement fee be paid, although neither could point to a Ministry policy whIch so states or which specIfically prohibIts cosmetic changes of address. Further, accordIng to Dnver EXamInatIon SupervIsor Mary Dane, ffilsspellings and errors made by the Mimstry may also be corrected WIthout charge. At present, the Ministry has no poltcy which prohibIts employees from makIng address changes to their own ltcence. There IS a policy, however, which prohibIts employees from IssUIng themselves a replacement licence when they lose their penmt or ltcence. In January 1995, the follOWIng directIve was Issued to all Dnver ExaffilnatIon and ISSUIng Staff, from Mr A.L Killtan, RegIOnal Manager, Dnvers and Velucles, Southwestern RegIOn. I would like to bnng to your attentIOn the follOWIng Items 1) If you are In a SItuatIon where a family member needs a transactIOn processed (i e , replacement hcence, etc) you should ask someone else In the office to process the transactIOn. (In remote locatIOns, a process should be worked out wIth the supervIsor) 2) When you lose your perffilt or hcence and you need a replacement, please advIse the supervIsor and have someone other than yourself process the transactIOn and the apphcable fees must be paId. 8 (Ex. 7) ~ AccordIng to Dnver ExammatiOn Supervtsor Mary Dane, tlus pohcy, In a broad readmg of the term "replacement" - as not beIng limited merely to a replacement for a lost or stolen hcence, but as mcludmg any new hcence mcluding an address change - could be read to prohibit employees from Issuing themselves a new licence due to a change of address. She also testified that It was her understandmg, and she was tramed, that an employee cannot do their own licence renewal, replacement or any transactiOn. Tlus was not the View, however, of Mr Jackson or Mr Owen. Both testified that an employee could make a bona fide address changes to their own hcence, and that tlus did not violate any Mimstry pohcy While Mr Jackson questiOned the WIsdom of not having such a blanket prohibition, he acknowledged that currently no such policy eXists. The eVidence further estabhshed that the "Code of Etlucs" for Ministry employees mcludes the duty to "work only by offiCial exaffilning standards, never substituting personal Ideas for prescribed methods." (Ex. 10) At the conclUSion of the Mimstry's case, the Umon elected to call no eVidence. ARGUMENTSOFTHEPARTffiS The Mimstry contends that the evidence, which was undisputed by the Umon, demonstrates that the gnevor repeatedly used the system to Improperly alter and change 9 the InformatIOn on hIS dnver's licence and Issue hImself new lIcences wIthout paYIng the required fees. It submits that the changes the gnevor made - from St. to Street, etc - / were unnecessary cosmetic changes and not bona fide address changes. It argues that such changes, which generated a new lIcence, were properly regarded by the Ministry as "replacement" lIcences for wluch a $10 fee should have been paId, fees wluch the gnevor dId not pay Such conduct, It argues, constItutes a senous breach of trust for wluch the 20-day suspension imposed on the grievor was fully warranted. The Mirustry argues that the testimony and report of the InVestIgator, John Owen, establishes that the grievor was questIOned about what he did and acknowledged that It was a "stupId" tlung to do and that he was improperly "goofing around With the system." It submits that the grievor, who worked In a supervISOry capacIty and had been wIth the Mirustry for many years, clearly knew that what he did was Improper The Mirustry asserts that the eVIdence clearly establIshes that the gnevor, on numerous occaSIOns, made cosmetic changes to lus address and Issued lumself a replacement lIcence wIthout paying a fee. It argues that the May 5, 1995 diSCIplIne letter does not, when taken as a whole, allege that the gnevor dId tlus only one time, but five times - once at Cayuga, once at WeIland, Hamilton South, John Roade and Oakville - and that the letter states that hIS "actions constitute a breach of trust." (emphasis added) The breach of trust, It argues, was the Issuance to hImself of replacement lIcences wIthout paYIng a fee, actIons WhIch cannot be tolerated by the Mirustry It subnnts that there was 10 no legitimate reason for the gnevor to make these changes. The Ministry further submIts that the January 1995 dIrective should be broadly read to prohibit employees from makmg any transaction to theIr own lIcence, and that the gnevor had an ethical obligatIon to follow the Ministry polIcIes, not hIS own whIm. The Ministry further argues that Mr PUCCIni properly relIed on the findmgs of the investigatIOn and the fact that he could not recall the specific transactIons mvolved IS Irrelevant, smce the investigation, and the eVIdence at the heanng, establIshes that the grievor engaged in the mIsconduct, as alleged. The Mirustry contends that the grievor's actions constItute senous ffilsconduct, partIcularly SInce it Involves abuse of the Ministry's drivers licence data base wluch the Ministry must protect. In support of Its contentIOn that breaches of trust warrant severe diSCIpline, mcluding dISmISSal, the Mirustry CItes to Re OPSEU (Smith) and Ministry of Transporation, GSB No 1388/91 (June, 1992) (Watters, Vice-ChaIr), Re OPSEU (Dain) and Ministry of Education, GSB No 3814/92 (Dec 1994) (Gorsky, Vice-ChaIr), Re Jack McKenna and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, GSB No 103/79 (Nov 1980)(Swan, Vice-Chair), Re British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (1995), 48 L A. C (4th) 445 (Munroe), Re Province of Manitoba and Manitoba Government Employees' Union (1994),44 L A.C (4th) 82 (Freedman) 11 Finally, the MiOlstry contends that there IS no basIs to rrutIgate the penalty It submits that the penalty Imposed, a 20-day suspenSion, IS consistent with the senousness , of the gnevor's rrusconduct. It argues that If the gnevor was Just "foohng around" as he chums, he could have pressed "no" when the computer asked him If he wanted a new hcence By pressing "yes", the MiOlstry argues that the gnevor used the system to obtam replacement licences Without paying the reqUIred fees. The Union argues that the MiOlstry failed to meet its onus of estabhshIng that the gnevor Improperly Issued hImself "a" new licence to save the $10 transaction fee It pomts out that the May 5, 1995 letter of discipline refers to a smgle incident - that the gnevor "issued a replacement licence to [hIm] self Without paymg the required transaction fee" - not to five such actions, as the Ministry now claims. It argues that no one who testified on behalf of the MiOlstry - Mr Jackson, Mr Owen, Ms. Dane or Mr PucciOl - could point out the specific transaction involved, and that It was not for the UOlon or the arbitrator to guess. It subrruts that the Employer IS stuck with ItS May 5, 1995 letter and cannot now change the baSIS upon whIch the discipline was Imposed. The UOlon further argues that, under the Ministry's pohcies, the only time that a $10 fee IS reqUIred IS when a hcence IS lost, stolen or destroyed and a replacement IS Issued. It notes that the "blue portion", by Itself, does not constitute a hcence, but only half of a hcence, With the other half bemg the picture. It argues that the eVidence 12 established that the gnevor did not obtaIn the pIcture portion of the hcence and, therefore, the Issuance of a new blue portIon alone cannot be deemed a "replacement" hcence. In addItion, the Uruon argues that the changes made by the gnevor were address changes for which no fee was required. It argues that there is no fee required for changes of address - be they mInor changes or major ones, and contends that there IS no Mirustry policy winch prohibits cosmetic changes to an address, or winch deem them to be a "replacement" for winch a fee is charged. Consequently, It argues that no money was due for the changes made by the gnevor and the gnevor did not Issue himself a replacement hcence Without paytng a required transaction fee, as alleged. For tins reason, It subJTI1ts that there was no breach of trust. "Goofing around With the system" by makIng cosmetic changes to his hcence does not, in its VIew, equate to a breach of trust. The Uruon contends that If makIng cosmetIc changes to a hcence IS wrong, or If employees cannot make changes to theIr own licence, then the Mirustry has an obhgatIOn to advise the employees of tins before It Imposes diSCiplIne. The Uruon contends that there IS no eXIstIng pohcy winch prohibIts an employee from changmg his own address on Ins lIcence Indeed, it notes that a substantIal number of the address changes made by the gnevor, winch mvolved changes m reSIdence, were not questIoned by the Mirustry It further notes that the gnevor made these changes over a penod of years and was never adVised that he could not do so In support of ItS contentIOn that an employee must be aware that Ins conduct IS wrong before diSCIplIne may be Imposed, the Uruon cites to Re 13 Corporation of City of Timmins and C. u.P.E., Local 210 (1990), 14 L A.C (4th) 445 (Dlssanayake), Re St. Michael's Extneded Care Centre and Canadian Health Care Guild (1994),40 L.A 4th) 105 (Smith) Finally, the Uruon argues that the mvestigator did not conclude that the gnevor made the address changes to save lumself $10 and It pomts out that Mr Puccmi could not recall how that conclusIOn was reached. It contends that the onus was on the Mirustry to estabhsh tlus and asserts that the fact that the decIsion was made two years ago cannot excuse tlus mabihty to recall, particularly since the matter was timely grieved. For these reasons, the Uruon submits that no discipline was warranted and that the gnevance should be allowed and the gnevor made whole. DECISION The onus IS on the Mirustry to estabhsh, on the balance of probabihtIes, that the gnevor, on one or more occaSIOns, improperly Issued himself a replacement licence without paymg the reqUIred transactIOn fees. That IS the mIsconduct set forth In the May 5, 1995 and the baSIS upon whIch the gnevor was suspended for twenty days 14 After revlewmg all of the eVIdence presented and the arguments of the partIes, It IS my VIew that the gnevor Improperly made cosmetic address changes to hIS lIcence, m fact, five of them, but that there were no transactIon fees reqUIred for those changes. The eVIdence establIshed that it was - and IS - not a violatIon ofMimstry policy for an employee to go mto the computer system to make a bona fide change of address on lus own dnver's lIcence. Tlus was the testImony of Mr Jackson and Mr Owen. To the extent that Ms. Dane testIfied to the contrary, I credIt the testImony ofMr Jackson on tlus pomt since he IS of higher rank. Also sigmficant is the fact that the grievor was not discIplined for makIng the bona fide changes of address on lus lIcence. Had that been a VIOlatIon of policy, he should have been discIplined for those changes. The fact that he was not dIsciplIned mdicates that those changes did not VIolate any Mimstry polIcy Further, I do not read the January 1995 directive as broadly prohibIting employees from perfonrung any transactIons on theIr own licences. That IS not what the dIrectIVe says, nor, partIcularly in lIght of the first paragraph of the directive, can It be so construed. Consequently, there IS no general prohibItIon on an employee from gomg mto the computer system to make address changes to lus own lIcence. The January dIrectIve prohibIts an employee from Issumg lumself a replacement lIcence when one IS lost or stolen, but it does not, by ItS terms, prohibIt address changes As Mr Jackson suggested, there may be ment to such a blanket prohibItIon, but there IS no such polIcy at the present time 15 But while an employee may go mto the system to make bona fide address changes or correctIons, five of the changes made the gnevor were not bona fide changes. They mvolved cosmetIc changes only, wIth no change of abode or error involved. Although there IS no polIcy wluch specIfically dIstmgUIshes bona fide address changes from cosmetIc changes, It would appear implIcit that address changes should be legitimate changes of resIdence, not merely cosmetIc alterations. Indeed, the gnevor acknowledged tlus when he told Mr Owen that there was no real reason for these changes, that It was "stupId" to have made them and he was Just "goofing around WIth the system." That acknowledgment mdicates that the gnevor knew that the changes he made were improper, even though there IS no policy wluch explicItly prohibIts such changes. There IS no eVIdence, however, that the gnevor knew - or that he should have known - that cosmetic changes to lus address would be VIewed by the Mirustry as a "replacement" wluch reqUIred a fee, rather than as an address change wluch did not reqUIre payment. The Mirustry polIcy wluch outlInes the fees mvolved states that there IS a $10 fee for a "[r]eplacement lIcence in case of a lost, stolen or damaged dnver's lIcence." It further states that no fee IS reqUIred where a new lIcence IS Issued due to a "change 10 class or other mformatIOn." Under tlus polIcy, changes of address do not reqUIre a fee, even though a new blue portIon of the lIcence is generated. There IS no eVidence that the gnevor knew that such changes would be regarded as a replacement requmng a fee and under thIS polIcy, there IS no reason for lum to have known that. Even 16 though the gnevor knew that he should not have made such cosmetIc changes, there IS clearly a dIfference between realIzIng that a cosmetIc change should not be made and realIzing that it requires a $10 replacement fee. ~ In thIs regard, there IS no eVIdence that the gnevor lost hIs lIcences and obtaIned replacements to aVOid the $10 fee. Rather, the eVIdence Indicates that the gnevor was, as he acknolwedged to Mr Owen, "goofing around WIth the system" by maktng mInor, cosmetIc changes to hIS address on hIs dnver's licence While "goofing around WIth the system" merits diSCIplIne, it does not merit the maximum dISCIpline possible short of discharge. In so ruling, I fully appreCIate the pOSItIon of trust In whIch the gnevor IS employed. He IS a Dnver ExamInatIon SupervIsor, WIth the responsibilIty, inter alia, for ISSUIng dnver's hcences and replacements, and collectIng reqUired fees and payments. He also has supervIsory responsibilItIes and works In a remote locatIon, largely WIthout superVISIon. The integnty of the data base to which he has access and utilIzes IS crucIal to the Mirustry, and should not be nusused In any manner The gnevor knew and should have known that he should not have made cosmetIC changes to hIs address. But I conclude, on the balance of probabilItIes, that the gnevor was not attemptIng to aVOid paYIng any reqUlred transaction fees. He was not attemptIng to defraud the Ministry or gaIn an advantage from hIs positIon without proper payment. His actIOns are clearly dIstIngUishable from the theft of a valIdatIOn stIcker Involved In OPSEU (Smith) and 17 \ Ministry of Transportation, supra, or the mtentIonal nusrepresentatlOns 10 OPSEU (Dain) and Ministry of Education, supra and McKenna and Ministry of Transportation and ./ Communications, supra His actions are also dlstmgUIshable from the situation 10 Re Province of Manitoba and Manitoba Government Employees' Union, supra, which Involved an assessor's mampulatIon of the assessed value of property 10 wruch he had an mterest. Consequently, while the grievor engaged 10 nusconduct, there was no senous breach of trust 10 his actIons. Smce it was not clear that the changes he made required payment of a fee, he did not "issue a replacement licence to [him ]self without paYing the reqUIred transactIon fee" as alleged. Nevertheless, rus making the cosmetic changes on rus licence was Improper and required some diSCipline. In my View, however, a one-day suspenSlOn would have been appropriate Trus discipline would have sufficed to demonsrate the Mirustry's genume concern about the gnevor's free-hand with its data base, yet not so harsh as to put the gnevor's Job In Jeopardy should he engage in some future nusconduct. The grievor has otherwise had a good record with the Mirustry and a one-day suspenSlOn would certamly have brought the message home that such cosmetIc address changes should not be made Accordmgly, for all of the foregomg reasons, I make the followmg Award 1 The gnevance IS allowed 10 part. The 20-day suspenSlOn Imposed on the gnevor is to be vOIded, and replaced, instead, with a one-day suspenSlOn for making Improper changes to the address on lus licence The gnevor IS to be reimbursed for the dIfference 10 pay, plus mterest. 2 I shall remam seized should the parties expenence any difficulty With the ImplementatlOn oftlus Award. 18 , Issued this 17th day of June, 1997 1 19