Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1834.Union.00-09-27 Decision o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L '()NTARW GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE . . SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1834/99 OPSEU #99U080 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Emplovees Uillon (OPSEU) GIievor - and - The Crown m RIght of Ontano (Management Board Secretanat) Employer BEFORE Ken Petrvshen Vice ChaIr FOR THE Nick Coleman GRIEVOR Counsel Gowlmg, Strath, & Henderson Barnsters and SolICItors FOR THE Len M~ EMPLOYER Counsel Legal SerVIces Branch Management Board Secretanat HEARING Ma, 1 2000 2 DECISION In a gnevance dated November 23 1999 agaInst the Management Board Secretanat, the Umon gneves as follows Statement of Gnevance The Umon gneves that the employer has vIOlated the collectIve agreement, IncludIng but not lImIted to ArtIcle 22 12, AppendIx 7 and the related new Letter of UnderstandIng In that, the employer has faIled to fulfill ItS oblIgatIOns concernIng the Semor Persons CommIttee and further that the employer has refused to convene meetIngs of the JOInt System Sub-CommIttee Settlement Requested 1 A declaratIOn by the Gnevance Settlement Board that the employer IS In breach of ItS oblIgatIOns 2 An order that the employer provIde ItS posItIOn on retroactIvIty and a declaratIOn that any agreement of the Semor Persons CommIttee wIll be arbItrable 3 An Order requmng the JSSC to meet as soon as possIble on complaInts and gnevances and to finalIze reclassIficatIOn Issues referred to the JSSC By the tIme the partIes made theIr submIssIOns, the Employer had agreed to convene meetIngs of the JOInt System SubcommIttee (the "JSSC") Therefore, the Umon dId not seek an order requmng the JSSC to meet as soon as possible to finalIze classIficatIOn gnevances At the heanng, the partIes focussed on the Umon's allegatIOn that the Employer had faIled to fulfill ItS oblIgatIOns concermng the Semor Persons CommIttee (the "SPC") Rather than call eVIdence, the partIes made submIssIOns on the basIs of agreed facts The relevant provIsIOns of the CollectIve Agreement are as follows 3 22 12 CLASSIFICATION 22 12 1 An employee who alleges that hIS or her posItIOn IS Improperly classIfied may dISCUSS hIS or her claim wIth hIS or her ImmedIate supervIsor at any tIme, provIded that such dIscussIOns shall not be taken Into account In the applIcatIOn of the tIme lImIts set out In ArtIcle 22 An employee, however shall have the nght to file a gnevance In accordance wIth the gnevance procedure, specIfYIng In hIS or her gnevance what classIficatIOn he or she claims 22 12.2 A classIficatIOn gnevance as provIded In ArtIcle 22 12 1 whIch has not been resolved by the end of Stage 2 of thIS gnevance procedure may be referred to the JOInt System SubcommIttee (JSSC) provIded In AppendIx 7 (ClassIficatIOn System Overhaul) of thIS Agreement, for final resolutIOn. The JSSC may decIde on any gnevance referred to It. Where the partIes at the JSSC concur theIr decIsIOn shall be bIndIng on the partIes and any affected employee Where the partIes at the JSSC do not concur the matter shall remaIn unresolved unless and untIl concurrence IS reached. 22 12 3 The Employer upon wntten request eIther by the employee or by the Umon shall make avaIlable all InfOrmatIOn and provIde copIes of all documents whIch are relevant to the gnevance APPENDIX 7 - CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OVERHAUL ThIS confirms the agreement reached by the partIes dunng negotiatIOns wIth respect to the classIficatIOn system overhaul (1) The classIficatIOn system overhaul shall be deferred for the duratIOn of thIS collectIve agreement, and for the penod of ItS operatIOn. (2) The JOInt System SubcommIttee (JSSC) of the CERC consIstIng of three (3) persons appoInted by each party IS contInued for the duratIOn of the collectIve agreement and the penod of ItS operatIOn, to (i) provIde a forum for ongOIng dIscussIOn between the partIes regardIng classIficatIOn matters, (ii) revIew and decIde on all complaInts or dIfferences InvolvIng allegatIOns of Improper classIficatIOn. 4 (3) All decIsIOns of the JSSC on dIsputes ansIng under paragraph 2(iI) shall be by vote of the members of the commIttee and any decIsIOn on whIch the partIes' representatIves concur shall be bIndIng on the partIes and any affected employees Each party must, In any case where such a decIsIOn IS made, be represented by an equal number of persons appoInted by each party (4) Umon representatIves of the JSSC shall be provIded wIth reasonable travel tIme and leave wIth pay to attend of the commIttee APPENDIX 8 LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING Between THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET) "the Employer" and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION "the Umon" IN THE MATTER OF ArtIcle 22 12 and AppendIx 7 ThIS wIll confirm certaIn understandIngs reached regardIng the operatIOn of the JOInt System SubcommIttee (JSSC) It IS acknowledged that there IS a perceptIOn that the JSSC has not worked effectIvely It IS the desIre of both partIes that the JSSC be an effectIve consultatIOn forum, and that classIficatIOn matters be dealt wIth. It IS agreed that, wIthIn thIrty (30) days of the date of ratIficatIOn, the partIes wIll appoInt two semor persons from each sIde to examIne the workIngs of the JSSC and make recommendatIOns to Improve ItS operatIOn. The matters to be examIned by the partIes wIll Include (1) methods to ensure that members of the JSSC are empowered to make decIsIOns on classIficatIOn matters, (2) means to ensure the prompt dISposItIOn of classIficatIOn dIsputes (3) cntena by whIch the JSSC IS to make decIsIOns, 5 (4) such other matters regardIng classIficatIOns as the partIes may agree upon. Pnor to mId-1993 the GSB had the JunsdIctIOn to deal wIth classIficatIOn Issues BegInmng WIth the SocIal Contract Penod, It could no longer hear and determIne classIficatIOn gnevances The relevant provIsIOn In the Crown Employees CollectIve BargaInIng Act reads as follows 52(1) Classification issues.- A provIsIOn In an agreement entered Into that provIdes for the determInatIOn by an arbItrator a board of arbItratIOn or another tribunal of any of the folloWIng matters IS VOId 1 A classIficatIOn system of employees, IncludIng creatIng a new classIficatIOn or amendIng an eXIstIng classIficatIOn system. 2 The classIficatIOn of an employee, IncludIng changIng an employee's classIficatIOn. In the first collectIve agreement negotIated after the SocIal Contract Penod, the partIes agreed to ArtIcle 22 12 and an AppendIx 7 In essence, classIficatIOn gnevances were to be referred to the JSSC for final resolutIOn. As the provIsIOns IndIcate, the JSSC consIsts of three persons appoInted by each party and a decIsIOn of the JSSC IS only bIndIng If all the partIes concur AppendIx 7 was altered and AppendIx 8 was agreed to dunng the last round of bargaInIng. The partIes acknowledge In AppendIx 8 that there IS a perceptIOn that the JSSC has not worked effectIvely and express the desIre to have the JSSC deal wIth classIficatIOn matters ThIS appendIx provIdes that the partIes wIll appoInt two semor persons from each sIde to examIne the workIngs of the JSSC and "to make recommendatIOns to Improve ItS operatIOn" The partIes set out certaIn matters to be examIned by the SPC IncludIng "such other matters regardIng classIficatIOns as the partIes may agree upon" 6 The partIes dId establIsh the SPC as reqUIred by AppendIx 8 The semor persons engaged In the process of examInIng the workings of the JSSC and they attempted to achIeve a consensus on recommendatIOns to Improve Its operatIOn. As one mIght expect, the semor persons have had contInuIng contact wIth theIr pnncIpals dunng thIS process AccordIngly the recommendatIOns floWIng from the SPC process wIll not come as a surpnse to the partIes The SPC has been able to agree on some recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC The process broke down over two Issues, the Issues of retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty The folloWIng draft document (the "draft") sets out what recommendatIOns the partIes agreed to and where they dIsagree (the ItalIcIzed portIOns) Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon, (the "Umon") and Management Board Secretanat, (the "Employer") RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THE JOINT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE WHEREAS the OPSEUIMBS CollectIve Agreement entered Into on March 18 1999 contaInS a I etter of understandIng regardIng the operatIOn of the JOInt Systems Sub-CommIttee (JSSC) 7 WHEREAS that letter of understandIng acknowledges the perceptIOn that the JSSC has not worked effectIvely and the desIre of both partIes that the JSSC be an effectIve consultatIOn forum, and that classIficatIOn matters be dealt wIth. WHEREAS It was agreed that the partIes would appoInt two "semor persons" from each sIde to examIne the workIngs of the JSSC and make recommendatIOns to Improve ItS operatIOn. WHEREAS those semor person have met and have negotIated JOInt recommendatIOns The "semor persons" recommend to theIr pnncIpals as follows A) Methods to Ensure that Members of the JSSC are Empowered to Make DecIsIOns 1) The Employer agrees and wIll confirm wIth the Mimstnes that the JSSC IS the final decIsIOn maker wIth respect to classIficatIOn gnevances A statement confirmIng JSSC's authonty to make final decIsIOns wIll be contaIned In an Internal dIrectIve to be sent to all Mimstnes That dIrectIve wIll be forwarded to all Mimstnes wIthIn 30 days after final approval of these RecommendatIOns by the two partIes (ThIS tIme IS needed to allow the Employer to commumcate these RecommendatIOns to the Human Recourses CouncIl before the dIrectIve IS Issued. The CouncIl meets the 2nd Thursday of each month.) B) Means to Ensure Prompt DISPosItIOn of ClassIficatIOn DIsputes 2) The Umon agrees to provIde the Employer bI-weekly copIes of gnevance forms receIved from employees who have asked for theIr case to be referred to the JSSC 3) The Employer wIll retaIn addItIOnal resources to provIde admInIstratIve and analytIcal support to the JSSC process 4) Pnor to any meetIng of the JSSC the Umon wIll commumcate to the Employer whIch cases they want to deal wIth. These cases shall be dIscussed wIth the Employer and a decIsIOn made by the Umon regardIng whIch gnevances wIll be tabled. A decIsIOn concermng any classIficatIOn gnevances tabled wIth the JSSC (not IncludIng classIficatIOn complaInts as outlInes In 5) below) shall normally be made wIthIn four months from the date of tablIng or wIthIn such further tIme frame as IS agreed to by mutual consent. If the Employer finds that It wIll be unable to make a decIsIOn wIthIn four months, the Employer shall advIse the Umon of the reasons as soon as possIble 8 5) The next scheduled meetIng of the JSSC to deal wIth cases shall occur no later than 45 days after approval of these RecommendatIOns by the partIes At that meetIng, the JSSC shall commence to deal wIth the backlog of classIficatIOn complaInts filed under the Bnggs decIsIOn. All complaInts wIll be tabled at the same tIme ComplaInts on all lIke Issues wIll be grouped and revIewed and decIded upon wIthIn SIX months ImmedIately after the backlog of classIficatIOn complaInts has been dealt wIth, the JSSC shall deal wIth outstandIng classIficatIOn gnevances wIthIn IndIVIdual tIme frames as In 4) above 6) Where a complaInt filed under the Bnggs decIsIOn or a gnevance does not specIfy the remedy sought, the JSSC may reqUIre that partIculars be provIded before a decIsIOn IS made C) Cntena Bv WhIch the JSSC IS to Make DecIsIOns 7) The cntena to be used for decIsIOn makIng by the JSSC shall be a. the class standard, b usage based on "representatIve practIce" 8) When the JSSC reVIews and decIdes on allegatIOns of Improper classIficatIOn, It shall record a bnef explanatIOn of the reasons for the decIsIOn. If the partIes do not agree on a decIsIOn, each party shall record a bnef explanatIOn of ItS posItIOn. The JSSC shall JOIntly develop the format for letters to commumcate decIsIOns to gnevors In cases where the maJonty voted to allow the gnevance the letter wIll say the gnevance was allowed and why' In cases where there IS no maJonty vote to allow the gnevance, the letter wIll say there was no concurrence and why D) RetroactI VI tv 9) Retroactivity shall normally be paidfrom 30 days prior to the filing of a grzevance Consideration shall be given to yt, hether exceptions should occur E) General Matters 10) ConcernIng member tIme off for the functIOnIng of the JSSC the Employer wIll grant tIme off consIstent WIth the proVIsIOns of the CERC and wIll adJust the amount of tIme off as reasonably appropnate based on the volume and nature of cases beIng dealt WIth. The Employer agrees to schedule the dates for meetIngs several months In advance to accommodate member work schedules Amount of tIme off, to 9 cover caucus tIme, tIme to attend the JSSC meetIng and reasonable travel tIme, wIll be determIned based on the volume of work and tIme needed to transact JSSC busIness 11) The Employer agrees at the first meetIng of the JSSC to deal wIth the complaInts backlog, the Umon wIll reqUIre extra tIme off to deal wIth cases (estImated 5 days) 12) The parties agree that these recommendations are not arbitrable The draft dIscloses that the semor persons were able to agree to many recommendatIOns relatIng to the matters that they were to examIne The dIsagreement wIthIn the SPC can be summanzed as follows The ItalIcIzed provIsIOn on retroactIvIty set out In the draft IS a proposal whIch came from the Umon. The Umon proposed that retroactIvIty normally be paid from 30 days pnor to the filIng of the gnevance, wIth exceptIOns made In the appropnate CIrcumstances In ItS VIew ItS proposal IS consIstent WIth the general arbItral approach. In dIsagreeIng wIth the Umon's proposal, the Employer Instead proposed that retroactIvIty be paid from 30 days pnor to the filIng of the gnevance, or from the date the recommendatIOns of the SPC are accepted, whIchever IS later In other words, there would be no retroactIvIty paid on successful gnevances that were filed pnor to the date the recommendatIOns are accepted. ThIS Issue IS of Importance to both partIes because there may be as many as 1 500 classIficatIOn gnevances outstandIng. The Umon has reJected the Employer's retroactIvIty proposal because It IS unwIllIng to wnte off a gnevor's damages and because It wIll not accept dIfferent treatment for eXIstIng and future gnevances The Umon VIews the Employer's proposal as one whIch IS merely desIgned to save the Employer money and further contnbute to the perceptIOn that the JSSC IS not an effectIve mechamsm for resolvIng classIficatIOn Issues 10 The Employer ImtIated the proposal that the recommendatIOns of the SPC not be arbItrable The Umon reJected the proposal out of a concern that the Employer wIll not comply wIth the recommendatIOns wIthout an effectIve enforcement optIOn. The final contentIOus Issue relates to the Employer's posItIOn that there wIll be no agreement on any of the recommendatIOns unless the Umon agrees to the Employer's proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty In other words, even though It has agreed to the bulk of the recommendatIOns, the Employer has advIsed the Umon that It wIll wIthdraw ItS agreement on the other recommendatIOns If the Umon does not agree to ItS posItIOn on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty It was on the basIs of these CIrcumstances that the Umon argued that the Employer had contravened AppendIx 8 of the CollectIve Agreement. SpecIfically the Umon claims that the Employer has faIled to comply wIth ItS oblIgatIOn to have the SPC "make recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn" of the JSSC The Umon argued that the language of AppendIx 8 provIdes for a bargaInIng process whIch carnes wIth It an oblIgatIOn to bargaIn In good faith, sImIlar to the duty contaIned In the Ontano Labour RelatIOns Act. In the Umon's submIssIOn, thIS oblIgatIOn IS dIrected to the negotIatIOn of recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC The Umon claims that the Employer's proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty are unreasonable and IndIcatIve of bad faith dealIng. The Umon argued that by propOSIng that It agree to wntIng off damages for eXIstIng gnevances and to no enforcement mechamsm, the Employer IS makIng proposals taIlor made for reJectIOn. The Umon asserted that, on theIr face, the 11 Employer's proposals are not desIgned to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC but are made for some other purpose The Umon also argued that the Emloyer's proposal on retroactIvIty conflIcts WIth ArtIcle 22 18 ThIS provIsIOn sets out how Interest shall be paid for the penod 30 days pnor to the filIng of the gnevance and for the penod after the date of the decIsIOn. In arguIng that there has been no contraventIOn of AppendIx 8 the Employer submItted that all that has occurred here IS the InabIlIty of the partIes to reach a consensus on what recommendatIOns would Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC In the Employer's VIew the faIlure to agree to a proposal from the other sIde does not lead to the conclusIOn that a party IS actIng unreasonably or In bad faith. The Employer noted that the language In AppendIx 8 refers to the makIng of recommendatIOns and does not use words that contemplate a negotIatIOn process In whIch an agreement wIll be reached. The Employer also noted that the partIes examIned the matters referred to In AppendIx 8 and argued that nothIng precludes the partIes from provIdIng theIr pnncIpals wIth the agreed to recommendatIOns, along wIth theIr dIsagreements, and stIll move forward wIth the process The Employer argued that there has been no contraventIOn of AppendIx 8 because what the partIes agreed to do has been accomplIshed. The Employer also argued that ItS proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty were Intended to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC and that the Umon has not establIshed otherwIse The Employer submItted that there IS no conflIct between ItS retroactIVIty proposal and ArtIcle 22 18 because that artIcle merely deals wIth how Interest wIll be calculated and does not provIde a substantIve nght to retroactIvIty 12 As IS eVIdent from AppendIx 8 the partIes are concerned about the perceptIOn that the JSSC IS not an effectIve vehIcle for resolvIng classIficatIOn Issues SInce employees covered by the CollectIve Agreement can stIll file classIficatIOn gnevances, and It appears they do so wIth some frequency a resolutIOn system whIch IS IneffectIve can result In consIderable dIssatIsfactIOn and a senous labour relatIOns problem for both partIes AppendIx 8 represents an attempt by the partIes to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC They agreed to appoInt four semor persons, two from each sIde, to examIne the workIngs of the JSSC and to "make recommendatIOns to Improve ItS operatIOn" In effect, the semor persons constItute a subcommIttee of the partIes charged wIth the task of deVISIng solutIOns to Improve the credIbIlIty of the JSSC The SPC has agreed to a number of recommendatIOns concermng those matters whIch AppendIx 8 IndIcates should be examIned, but has encountered a "roadblock' on a few Issues The gnevance raises the Issues of the nature of the Employer's oblIgatIOn under AppendIx 8 and whether It has faIled to meet ItS oblIgatIOn In these CIrcumstances More specIfically the central Issue In dIspute IS what dId the partIes Intend by theIr agreement to have the SPC "make recommendatIOns to Improve ItS operatIOns" The wordIng of AppendIx 8 clearly IndIcates that the SPC has an oblIgatIOn to make recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC The language used by the partIes does not contemplate a process where each sIde on the SPC wIll make separate recommendatIOns, or that the SPC wIll merely attempt to make recommendatIOns Just as a faIlure by a party to appoInt semor persons to the SPC would constItute a contraventIOn of AppendIx 8 a party's conduct whIch resulted In the faIlure of the SPC to make 13 recommendatIOns would also constItute a contraventIOn of AppendIx 8 The Employer's suggestIOn that the semor persons could make separate recommendatIOns or not agree on any recommendatIOns IS not consIstent WIth the IntentIOn of the partIes In my VIew the partIes agreed In AppendIx 8 that the semor persons perform a partIcular task, the task of makIng recommendatIOns to Improve the JSSC Although one can ImagIne that the process wIthIn the SPC would Involve some "bargaInIng" It IS unlIkely that the partIes enVIsIOned the process as encompaSSIng a duty to bargaIn In good faith sImIlar to the duty provIded for In the Ontano Labour RelatIOns Act. It would be unusual for such a duty to apply to a process whIch takes place dunng the term of a CollectIve Agreement. It IS more lIkely that the partIes contemplated a process In whIch proposals would be exchanged covenng the matters to be examIned, In whIch there would be agreement on some proposals and dIsagreement on others, and where ultImately the SPC would make ItS recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC ImplIcIt In AppendIx 8 IS an oblIgatIOn on both partIes to act reasonably dunng thIS process As the Employer argued, the mere faIlure to agree to a specIfic proposal cannot properly lead to the conclusIOn that one sIde IS not complYIng wIth ItS oblIgatIOns under AppendIx 8 It IS not dIfficult to ImagIne that In the course of exchangIng proposals, one sIde on the SPC may have a dIfferent VIew from the other sIde as to whether a partIcular proposal wIll Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC In thIS case, It IS not so ObVIOUS that the Employer's proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty were not made wIth a VIew to ImproVIng the operatIOn of the JSSC F or Instance an agreement that the 14 recommendatIOns are not arbItrable would keep certaIn dIsputes away from the GSB and perhaps have the effect of enhancIng the credibIlIty of and ImproVIng the efficIency of the JSSC An agreement lImItIng retroactIvIty on gnevances whIch were filed before the recommendatIOns were accepted may have the effect of fOCUSIng the attentIOn of the JSSC on the ments of a case, rather than a sIgmficant damages claim, and may result In more successful gnevances In any event, as noted above and as suggested by the Employer In ItS submIssIOns, the process contemplated by the partIes IS one In whIch the other sIde need not agree to a partIcular proposal With no agreement on the Issue of retroactIvIty each party can advance a posItIOn on thIS Issue before the JSSC on a case by case basIs I agree wIth the Employer's submIssIOn that ItS retroactIvIty proposal does not conflIct WIth ArtIcle 22 18 The facts dIsclose that the semor persons have reached agreement on many recommendatIOns and they have only a few dIsagreements ThIS IS not a case where one sIde IS allegIng that the other sIde's proposals demonstrate an unwIllIngness to reasonably partIcIpate In the process to achIeve the obJectIve of ImproVIng the operatIOn of the JSSC If such an allegatIOn had been made, It would have been necessary to reVIew one sIde's entIre partIcIpatIOn In the process, not Just one or two of ItS proposals, to determIne whether It met ItS oblIgatIOns under AppendIx 8 Although the Umon's allegatIOns wIth respect to the Employer's proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty have not succeeded, ItS posItIOn on the final contentIOus Issue does have ment. In a process where the obJectIve IS to make recommendatIOns to Improve the operatIOn of the JSSC and where each sIde IS not compelled to accept a 15 proposal, the Employer's posItIOn that It wIll not put forward any recommendatIOns unless the Umon agrees to ItS proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty IS troublIng. Although the Employer has agreed to many recommendatIOns, It IS prepared to wIthdraw ItS agreement to the Items set out In the draft unless the Umon accepts ItS posItIOn on the two dIsputed proposals In my VIew thIS Employer posItIOn IS InCOnsIstent WIth the oblIgatIOn of the SPC to make recommendatIOns and It IS also InCOnsIstent WIth the oblIgatIOn to act reasonably Just as the Employer IS entItled to reJect the Umon's proposal on retroactIvIty the Umon IS entItled to reJect the Employer's proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty The proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty are arguably matters whIch fall wIthIn (4) of AppendIx 8 namely the type of matters whIch the partIes have specIfically recogmzed as the kInd of Issues they need not agree upon. In reJectIng these Employer proposals, the Umon has not acted unreasonably By InSIStIng on a posItIOn that wIll result In no recommendatIOns beIng made, the Employer has not met ItS oblIgatIOns under AppendIx 8 AccordIngly the Umon's gnevance IS allowed. The Employer IS dIrected to cease and desIst from takIng the posItIOn that It wIll not agree to any recommendatIOns unless the Umon agrees to ItS proposals on retroactIvIty and arbItrabIlIty The SPC IS dIrected to complete the process under AppendIx 8 of the CollectIve Agreement. I wIll remaIn seIzed of thIS gnevance should the partIes encounter dIfficultIes In ImplementIng thIS decIsIOn. 16 Dated at Toronto thIS 2ih day of September 2000 11 "l Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair