Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1237.Union.98-12-11 Decision . ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE ~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO . 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 800, TORONTO ON MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONEITEUPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 800, TORONTO (ON) MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILEITEUCOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1237/98 OPSEU 98U097 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OntarIO PublIc SerVIce Employees Umon (Polley Gnevance) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (MInIstry of Fmance) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs V Ice-Chair FOR THE Kathleen Lawrence UNION Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc SerVIce Employees Umon FOR THE Len Marvy EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch Management Board Secretariat HEARING December 4, 1998 i \. - . . . Smce the effective date of the current collectIve agreement, hundreds of gnevances have been filed by unclassIfied employees allegmg a vIOlatIOn of article 31 15 Accordmgly, the partIes agreed to an expedIted process That agreement stated Notwlthstandmg the provIsIons of the Collective Agreement, the parties agree to abIde by the followmg procedure m order to effectively deal wIth gnevances ansmg out of the apphcatlOn of ArtIcles 3 15 and 3.38 The partIes further agree that entenng mto thIS procedure does not conflIct with the provISions of the Collective Agreement. A) All cases to be mcluded m thiS process will be mutuallv agreed to by the parties pnor to schedulmg the actual heanng. B) All gnevances that allege than an employee has not been converted m accordance wIth Article 3 15 or 3.38 will be forwarded directly to the DIrector of Human Resources m the respective mmlstry C) The MinIstry s HR department will dIrect such mqumes mto the alleged claim by the grlevor D) Wlthm a reasonable tIme frame, the Mmlstry's HR department wIll forward to OPSEU Gnevance Department, Attention Kathleen Lawrence, ItS response to the grIevance together wIth the mformatlon that It rehed upon should the grIevance be denIed. Attached wIth the Mmlstry s reply to OPSEU will be a copy of the appropnate gnevance A copy of the response will be provIded to the local UnIon representatIve E) The OPSEU Gnevance Department wIll consult wIth the gnevor based on acts as presented by the Mmlstry F) Should the matter be resolved at that stage, the MInIstry s HR department wIll be adVIsed m wntmg wlthm a reasonable time frame G) If the matter IS not resolved at the OPSEU representatIve meetmg WIth a gnevor there may be dISCUSSIons WIth the mInIstry and/or a meetIng If requested. H) If there IS no dISCUSSIon or meetIng WIth the mInIstry, follOWIng dISCUSSIOn WIth the gnevor, OPSEU will adVIse the mInIstry and MBS NegotIations Secretanat, that the matter wIll be scheduled for arbItratIOn at pre-agreed upon dates. I) The partIes agree that m VIeW of consolIdatIng and centrahzIng the handlIng of the gnevances, the Employer will not rely upon time hmlts to refer a matter to arbItratIOn followmg notIficatIOn of the MInIStry'S HR department of IntentIOn to proceed to arbItratIOn J) The partIes agree that In view of thIS agreed upon expedited procedure, grlevors will be allowed a reasonable time off work WIth no loss of payor credIts to proVIde background comment and dIrectIOn to the UnIon should the matter proceed to arbItration. K) In VIew of the above paragraph, the partIes agree and are commItted to an expedIted process whereby attendance at arbItratIOn will not be reqUIred for employees unless mutually agreed upon or ansmg out of exceptIOnal CIrcumstances L) Should the above paragraph be mvoked, It IS agreed that a mIlllstry may not unreasonably deny a request for attendance at a heanng. M) It IS agreed that for purposes OfthIS speCIal protocol, OPSEU WIll be entItled to the followmg WIth regard to the filmg of a gnevance, I - work hIStOry of the gnevor ~ I 2 - history of the position - summary sheet for all conversIOns under Article 3 15 and 3.3 8 that have been completed. For greater certainty, It IS understood that the Umon may reqUire copies of the grlevors' contracts as well as posItion descrIptIOns Such informatIOn will be supplIed by the Ministry's HR department. N) Mlmstnes through their Human Resource department will forward to the OPSEU Grievance Department, AttentIOn Kathleen Lawrence at the earliest convemence, a summary sheet for all conversIOns under Article 3 15 and 3.3 8 that have been made dUrIng the lifetime of this Collective Agreement. 0) Either party will have the option of withdraWing from thiS grievance arbitration process, generally or for indiVidual cases, upon notificatIOn to the other party That agreement was dated and SIgned January 15, 1997 Smce that tIme, the partIes have put one polIcy and three mdIvIdual gneyances before thIS Board for detenmnatIOn. I understand that those decIsIOns have been the basIs the settlement of many other gneyances However not surpnsmgly many gnevances remam outstandmg that have at Issue elements that have not yet been deCIded. ArtIcle 31 15 prOVIdes as follows CONVERSION OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO CLASSIFIED POSITIONS 311511 Effective upon the date of ratificatIOn, where the same work has been performed by an employee In the UnclaSSified Service for a perIod of at least two (2) consecutive years, except for situations where the unclaSSified employee IS replaCing a claSSified employee on a leave of absence authOrized by the Employer or as prOVided for under the collective agreement, and where the minIstry has determined that there IS a continuing need for that work to be performed on a full-time baSIS, the ministry shall establish a position Within the ClaSSified Service to perform that work. 3 I 15 1.2 Where the ministry has determined that It will convert a pOSitIOn In accordance With 3 15 1 1, the status of the Incumbent In the posItion will be converted from unclaSSified to claSSified, prOVided that the Incumbent has been In the pOSitIOn In question for at least two (2) years 3 1 15.2 For the purpose of thiS section "full-time" shall man a minimum of one thousand seven hundred and thirty-two and three quarter (1,732 75) straight-time hours or one thousand nine hundred and twelve (1,912) straight-tIme hours In each year, as applicable, including authOrized leaves l of absence However all hours worked by an unclaSSIfied employee while he IS replaCing a claSSIfied employee who IS on an authonzed leave of absence shall not be mcluded III computing the annual hours worked by the , .., .) unclassIfied employee The mstant matter IS a polIcy gnevance filed on behalf of employees m the MmIstry of Fmance The Employer provIded a document bnefwhIch mcluded agreed facts There were as follows 1 On May 1, 1996, the Property Assessment DIvIsIOn requested and obtamed perrnISSIOn from the Deputy MInIster Dma PalozzI to recruIt 60 staff on short term (60 day) contracts to deal WIth the valuatIOn of the constructIOn, renovatIOns and 1Illprovements and to place the resultmg new assessment on the tax rolls m a tImely manner 2 On August 6, 1996, a memorandum to RegIOnal Assessment ComllllssIOners was sent mdIcatmg approval to hIre staff on a contract baSIS Immediately 3 By memorandum dated October 4 1996 Assessment CommISSIOners were mformed that the employer may be In a pOSItIOn to extend contract employees beyond October 3 1 1996 but that no approyal had yet been gIven to do so 4 On December 24, 1996 It was confirmed that the staff hIred for the reassessment project were to have theIr contracts extended to March 31 1997 5 As early as September 11 1997 staff were adVIsed that pendmg the passage of legIslatIOn, mUnICIpalItIes WIll start bemg responsible for the cost of assessment servIces on January 1, 1998 It was mtended that the transfer of operatIOnal control would take place sometIme m mId-1998 6 The September 25, 1997 TranSItIOn (an internal newsletter publzcatlOn) confirms that the expectatIOn of the employer was that the transfer would take place m mId 1998 7 The employment status of DIYISIOnal employees would not change on January 1, 1998 when the finanCial responsibIlIty for the delIvery of assessment servIces was transferred to the mUnICIpal sector 8 On December 5 1997 a memo was sent to the Assessment CommISSIOners gIvmg them approval to retam unclasSIfied staff untIl Apn130, 1998 At the same tIme three sample letters were attached advIsmg the commISSIOners of the reqUIrement to gIye notIce under the Employment Standards Act m dIfferent CIrcumstances ~ 9 LegIslatIOn establIshmg the new OntarIO Property Assessment CorporatIOn (OP AC) . 4 was passed on December 16 1997 and receIVed Royal Assent on December 18, 1997 As a result mumcIpalItIes assumed financial responsibIlIty for the delIyery of property assessment servIces as of January 1, 1998 10 On Apnl 3, 1998 RegIOnal Assessment COITllTI1SSIOners were adVIsed that some new contracts may be extended to aSSIst WIth the mcrease m workload resultmg from the new polICIes and delay m returnmg the 1997 Assessment Roll 11 Contract extensIOns were approved by DIrector s (SlC) m or about Apnl 1998 WIth mstructIOns for proYIdmg notIce under the Employment Standards Act. 12 In a news release by the Mmlster on Apnl29, 1998, It was mdIcated that the transfer was expected to be completed by summer of 1998 13 In an OP AC News Release dated May 1, 1998 OP AC stated that the July 1998 tIme frame whIch the provmce had ongmally suggested for the transfer may be too ambItIOUS 14 The MmIstry reported that It had been targetmg for an "as IS" transfer by July 2, 1998 The Board mdIcated that the MmIstry s tIme lme may haye been too ambItIOUS m lIght of the many Issues to be addressed 15 Contract staff were adVIsed that theIr contracts wIll termmate effectIye the date of transfer Further, that OP AC WIll make ItS own deCISIons regardmg mdIvIdua1 contract staff reqUIrements (Transition dated Mav 28, 1998) 16 The Mmlstry and the OP AC Board have agreed to complete the transfer of property assessment servIces to the CorporatIOn effectIve December 31 1998 (Transition dated August 4, 1998) 17 On September 14 1998 representatIves from the MmIstry and OPAC s Board started the negotiatIOns for the transfer of the property assessment functIOn. The MmIstry and the OPAC Board remam commItted to the target transfer date of December 31, 1998 18 By memorandum dated September 30, 1998 It was confirmed that approval had been gIVen on September 24 1998 to extend unclassIfied staff resources to December 31, 1998, WIth appropnate notIce reqUIrements, unless busmess reqUIrements dIctate that an earlIer termmatIOn IS appropnate \ 19 On December 1, 1998 staff were agam adYIsed that the Mimstry and OP AC remamed . 5 commItted to the target date of December 1 1998 OP AC advIsed that It wIll be offenng contracts to those unclassIfied PAD staff who are currently under contract wIth the DIVISIOn. OP AC WIll determIne the need for addItIonal permanent posItIons early In 1999 after reVIeWIng theIr 1999 budget process, and where appropnate new pOSItIOnS wIll be filled through Internal competItIOns for whIch qualIfied contract staff would be elIgible 20 Attached IS a lIst of all Property Assessment DIvIsIOn unclassIfied staff who wIll have served more than two years as of December 31, 1998 All of the above facts were accompamed by an appropnate exhIbIt. The lIst of employees referred to In paragraph 20 contaIned 133 names EIghty seven of those lIsted have filed IndIVIdual gnevances NInety SIX of the 133 employees began wIth the MInIStry dunng or after August of 1996 The employees haye vanous pOSItIOn tItles IncludIng ValuatIOn AssIstant, Assessment Clerk, StatIstIcal Analyst and Data Entry Clerk. AccordIng to the lIst, the Employer would contend that approxImately 29 of the employees are dIsentItled to converSIOn because they dId not meet other cntena set out In artIcle 31 15 NotwIthstandIng the Employer s YIeW that the Uillon bears the onus In thIS case, Mr Marvy agreed to proceed first WIth hIS argument He began by takIng the Board through the accompanYIng documents He referred to the employee lIst and IndIcated the length of tIme the unclassIfied employees have worked beyond two years ranges from a matter of days to SIX months Other documents clearly IndIcated that It was always the Employer's IntentIOn that the contract employees would be a short term WIth a specIfied task. As seen In the facts, the Board was provIded WIth yanous copIes of a publIcatIOn called "TranSItIon - A Newsletter for Property Assessment DIYISIOn Staff' ThIS publIcatIOn IS dIstributed to staff and posted on the bulletIn boards In regIOnal offices The newsletter dated September 11 1997 contaIned an artIcle InformIng staff that "dISCUSSIOns have begun on transferrIng responsibIlIty for property assessment delIyery to the mUnIcIpal sector" It was also stated, "If the legIslatIOn IS passed, mUnIcIpalItIes WIll start beIng responSIble for the I . I 6 cost of assessment servIces of January 1, 1998, wIth the transfer of operatIOnal control takmg place sometIme m mld-1998" Mr Marvy submItted that as of the date of that notIce It must have been abundantly clear to employees that there was a specIfied penod for the work that was reqUIred by the Mmlstry Mr Marvy also referred to a December 5,1997, memo from the DIrector of the Eastern & Northern RegIOnal OperatIOns Branch to FIeld Assessment CommIssIOners It was stated, m part Approval IS gIven to retam FIELD (#of staff) unclassIfied staff untIl Apnl 30 1998 An earlIer termmatIOn date may be used Ifbusmess reqUIrements dIctate that It would be appropnate It WIll be necessary that all unclassIfied staff complete a new contract effectIve January 1 1998, usmg the same form as the ongmal contract. If, by extendmg a contract, the employee would be employed longer than one year It WIll be necessary to attach the enclosed letter provldmg SIxteen weeks notIce Accordmg to Mr Marvy, subsequent to thIS memo employees were kept mformed of all developments VIa The TransItIOn In a news release dated Apnl 29 1998 the MImster of Fmance announced the members of the Board of DIrectors of OP AC At the end of that commumque It was announced that the expected date of transfer was the "summer of 1998" The followmg day a commumque was released from the ChaIr of OP AC WhICh mdlcated that the "July 1998 tIme frame WhICh the Proymce had ongmally suggested for the transfer may be too ambItIOus ThIS was made known to employees shortly thereafter m The TransItIon In the May 28, 1998, TransItIOn questIOns and answers were set out. It was stated Q - Will contract staff be elIgIble for transfer or WIll contracts Just termmate when the takeover has been completed? A - Staff contracts wIll termmate the date of transfer OP AC wIll make ItS own deCISIOns regardmg mdIvldual contract staff reqUIrements, based on Its needs at the tIme of transfer The Mmlstry WIll forward your questIOns and concerns to OP AC 7 One of the final documents provIded by the Employer was an announcement m The TransItIon on August 4, 1998, that the transfer of property assessment servIces to the OP AC would take place on December 31, 1998 Later, on September 30 1998, approval was gIven to extend unclassIfied contracts to December 31, 1998, If appropnate due to bus mess reqUIrements After the thorough reVIew of the documents, Mr Marvy suggested that there could be no questIOn that the work of the property assessment dIvISIOn would contmue but for OP AC, not for the MImstry of Fmance or any other mmIstry wIthm the government. However the fact that It contmues WIth OP AC IS an Irreleyant conSIderatIOn ThIS Board IS charged WIth determmmg whether there IS an ongomg need for the work by the Employer who IS named m the recogmtIOn clause of the collectIve agreement that thIS gnevance anses from. Therefore, any work that mIght extend beyond December 31 1998 IS beyond the JunsdIctlon of thIS Board Mr Marvy rehed upon Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Mmistry of Community & Social Services) and OPSEU (Lynch-Burrus) (February 8, 1995) unreported (DIssanayake), Re The Crown m Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) and OPSEU- Burditt (May 16, 1997) unreported (Bnggs), Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Attorney General) & OPSEU - Sopha (February 8, 1997) unreported (Bnggs), and Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General) and OPSEU - Sinnathurai (February 9, 1997) unreported (Bnggs) In Lynch-Burrus the gneyor s contract was extended for the speCIfic purpose of determmmg whether there was an ongomg need for the work at Issue In that case, the gnevor s request for converSIOn was demed. Mr Marvy suggested the mstant matter IS dIfferent because the Employer and the employees knew at all tlmes that the work was gomg . . 8 to the pnvate sector Everyone knew that the work that was bemg done was to "fill the gap" Mr Marvy also suggested that Burditt was sIgmficantly dIfferent. In that case, the gnevor asked to be converted ImmedIately upon retummg from the legal strIke that brought about the current collectIve agreement language At that pomt, she had been an unclassIfied employee for three years Withm days of her request for converSIOn she was told that the work was gomg to be sent to the pnvate sector Accordmgly It was the Employer s posItIOn that there was no ongomg need for her work. NotwIthstandmg that VIew the gnevor contmued to perform her work at the tIme of the arbItratIOn hearmg whIch was almost a full year after her request In the mstant matter, the employees have known smce the day they began employment that theIr work wIth the MmIstry was lImIted They dId not find out for the first tIme after three years of unclasSIfied work that there was an end to the work.. The Employer asserted that If the partIes Intended that converSIOn after two years was to be automatIC the collectIve agreement would specIfy that. It does not. Certam CrIterIa have to be met. It IS speCIfically stated converSIOn can only happen after "the mmIstry has determmed that there IS a contmumg need for that work to be performed on a full-tIme basIs" Once that determmatIOn has been made "the mmIstry shall establIsh a posItIOn wIthm the ClassIfied ServIce to perform that work" It IS clear from the documents that there IS no need for the work as of December 31, 1998 Mr Marvy submItted that artIcle 31 15 was mcluded m the collectIve agreement to reduce the mIschIef of potentIal abuse of unclassIfied staff. In the past, It was said that unclasSIfied employees had lIttle or no mdIYIdual redress for CIrcumstances where they provIded years and years of unclasSIfied servIce Howeyer, such IS not the case under the current collectIve agreement. ThIS Board cannot find that the SIX month delay m the transfer to the publIc sector that caused the extenSIOn of the unclasSIfied employee contracts constItutes a - . 9 "contmumg need for the work to be performed on a full time baSIS" Ms Lawrence, for the UnIon, provIded the Board WIth three Job postmgs dated m November of 1998 for yanous pOSItIOns mcluded m the present dIspute She also suggested that other Jobs were posted dunng the summer months The UnIon also proVIded the 1998/1999 bus mess plans for the Barne and Toronto offices Both documents haye some reference to staffing needs It was the UnIon s assertIOn that those documents make clear that at least some of the unclassIfied employees could have been converted The UnIon asserted that, accordmg to the Employer's documents, one hundred percent of the full time employees are bemg offered work. by the new employer It flows that the Employer and OP AC have agreed that there IS an ongomg need for the work to be done Accordmgly the unclassIfied employees should be converted. In other words, thIS Board ought not be lImIted to consIdenng ongomg need for the work by thIS MmIstry It IS relevant and suffiCIent that OP AC has an ongomg need for the work to be done beyond December 31 1998 Most of the unclassIfied employees reached the two year pomt durmg the summer of 1998 There was a contmumg need for the work at that tIme and there contmues to be an ongomg need now The UnIon argued that there has been a lengthy hIStOry WIth thIS Employer datmg back to 1990 wherem attempts have been made to pnvatIze thIS work. GIven that background, the recent commUnICatIOns these employees receIved dunng 1997 and 1998 would not necessanly have been taken senously In reply the Employer stated that the postmg of full time pOSItions has nothmg to do WIth whether there IS an ongomg need for the work. Those postmgs show that certam full tIme eqUIvalent pOSItions are yacant. UnclassIfied staff do not have a nght to a full time - , 10 eqUIvalent posItIOn that pre-exIsted. The essence of artIcle 31 1 15 IS that the Employer IS oblIged to create a new posItIon and fill It wIth the appropnate unclassIfied employee Indeed, artIcle 31 1 15 specIfically refers to posItIOns bemg "establIshed" DECISION As stated m prevIOus decIsIOns, accordmg to the collectIve agreement, an unclassIfied employee must meet certam condItIOns mcludmg a two year reqUlrement to be entItled to converSIOn to classIfied servIce The next condItIOn IS that the "MinIStry has determmed that there IS a contmumg need for that work to be performed on a full-tIme basIs, the mmIstry shall establIsh a pOSItIon wIthm the ClassIfied ServIce to perform that work" If an unclassIfied employee has held the posItIOn that IS bemg establIshed for at least two years "the status of the mcumbent m the pOSItIon wIll be converted from unclassIfied to classIfied" The Issue for thIS Board to address IS whether there was "a contmumg need for that work to be performed on a full-tIme basIs" as that phrase IS consIdered m the collectIve agreement m the context of the facts before me It has been suggested to me on more than one occaSIOn m varIOUS submIssIOns regardmg the "conversIOn" gnevances that each case WIll be qUIte fact specIfic WhIle It mIght be Said that such an argument IS tnte, It IS certamly accurate and bears repeatmg The facts relIed upon by the partIes III thIS matter are very dIfferent than any other I have consIdered to date In Re Sopha and m Re Sinnathurai, I found that It could not be Said that there was a contmumg need for the work to be done on a full tIme basIs If the work at Issue was assIgned to more than one other full t1Ille employee In Re Burditt I found that an unclassIfied employee who was stIll performmg the same work almost a year after she requested COnyerSIOn should haye been conyerted even though the Employer knew that the work was eyentuaIly gomg to the pnvate sector ~ . II After consIderatIOn of all of the facts of thIS case, I must dIsmIss the gnevance I cannot find, as a polIcy matter, the unclassIfied employees (set out at Tab 20 of the document bnef) who have been hIred smce June 1996 should be converted. SImply put, there IS no contmumg need for theIr work to be done on a full tIme basIs In Re Burditt, the Employer argued that It knew shortly after the gnevor s request for converSIOn that there was no ongomg need for the work because all of the work of the bargammg umt was gomg to be transferred to a successful bIdder m the broader publIc servIce It was suggested that where pnvatIzatIOn IS a forgone conclusIOn, there IS no contmumg need for the work. I dId not agree wIth that submIssIon as It related to the facts m the Re Burditt matter Indeed, I found that the fact that pnvatIzatIOn would occur was not, m and of Itself, determmatIve Howeyer the facts of thIS polIcy gnevance are substantIally dIfferent. The Employer knew and mformed the unclassIfied employees vIrtually from the begmmng of theIr employment that the work would be transferred to the pnvate sector Certamly the employees knew no later than September of 1997 that theIr tIme wIth the Mimstry was lImIted. Indeed, many would haye had that knowledge wIthm months of the begmnmg of theIr employment. SImIlar to the fact SItuatIOn m Re Burditt, the Employer s estImate of when the work would be transferred proved to be optImIstIC However unlIke Ms BurdItt, none of the gnevors had been unclaSSIfied for two or three years at the pomt when the fact that the work was about to be pnvatIzed was first mentIOned. The Umon argued that the fact that the Employer has posted vanous full tIme pOSItIons IS eVIdence of an ongomg need for the work. I dIsagree The full tIme Job postmgs of va no us ! pOSItIOns are only mdIcatIve of full tIme pOSItIOns bemg vacant. Those postmgs are not eVIdence of a contmumg need for full tIme work ofyanous unclaSSIfied employees There IS nothmg m artIcle 31 15 that suggests that the status of full tIme pOSItIOns, whether vacant ! I ... . . 12 or filled, are to be taken Into account when makIng a determInatIOn about whether an unclassIfied employee should be converted to a classIfied employee Generally speakIng, artIcle 31 15 contemplates the establIshment of new full tIme posItIons based on past and future work of unclassIfied employees and the assIgnmg of those newly establIshed full tIme posItIOns to the very people who have been performIng the work. Full tIme classIfied posItIOns, vacant or otherwIse, are not taken Into account. The UnIon also argued that It was clear that there was a contInuIng need for the work because there was no dIspute that the work would contInue beyond December 31 1998, albeIt In the pnvate sector In the UnIon's VIew, the fact that the contInuIng need for the work was wIth a dIfferent employer IS not releyant to my determInatIOn I cannot agree Indeed, artIcle 31 15 states that converSIOn wIll occur If certaIn cntena are met and where "the mInIstry has determIned that there IS a contInuIng need for that work to be performed on a full-tIme basIs, the mInIstry shall establIsh a posItIOn wIthIn the ClaSSIfied ServIce to perform that work" In thIS Instance, the Employer has no contInuIng need for the work to be performed on a full-tIme basIs because the work IS beIng taken over by another employer "ContInuIng need for that work" as conSIdered under artIcle 31 15 must relate, In thIS Instance, to the MInIStry of FInance It cannot relate to an entIty that IS not a party to thIS collectIve agreement. As mentIOned earlIer, the facts In Re Burditt were qmte dIfferent than the Instant matter Ms BurdItt requested converSIOn nnmedlately upon returnIng from the publIc sector stnke whIch brought about a fundamental change In the COnyerSIOn formula. She had been workIng as an unclasSIfied employee for approxImately three years at the pOInt she made her request. The Employer refused to convert her because It knew that the work was to be pnvatIzed She was eventually notIfied that she would be termInated a year after her "- conyers IOn request. In the Instant matter WIth the exceptIOn of one no employee was hm~d I - 1 .. 13 pnor to June of 1996 They were hIred for the specIfic purpose of provIdmg a servIce that the Employer knew was temporary and that knowledge was made known to the employees on varIOUS occaSIOns long before they had worked two years Indeed, m most mstances the employees knew of the workplace SItuatIOn wIthm months of startmg theIr unclassIfied work. WhIle It IS true that those contracts were extended, wIth the extensIOns It was made clear that there was an end to the work wIth the MmIstry UnclassIfied employees m thIS mmIstry got the appropnate notIce oftermmatIOn under the Employment Standards Act The Umon suggested that because those notIces were extended, the Employer could not rely upon them. In these CIrcumstances although It IS true that contracts were extended and notIce oftermmatIOn was gIven on more than one occaSIOn, It cannot be smd that employees were lulled mto thmkmg that the work would contmue well mto the future They were notIfied on a fairly regular basIs through the newsletter as to the status of the work generally and theIr own status speCIfically, mcludmg notice of the passage of relevant legIslatIon In the mstant matter there are employees who are lIterally days beyond two years and, wIth the exceptIOn of one employee, others who range from four months to approxImately SIX months beyond two years In all of the CIrcumstances of thIS matter, I cannot uphold the polIcy gnevance Dated m Toronto thIS 11th day of December 1998 FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice Charr