Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-4112.Union Grievance.04-05-03 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-4112 UNION# 2004-0999-0010 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Umon Gnevance) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Energy) Employer BEFORE Richard Brown Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION GavIn Leeb BarrIster and SOlICItor FOR THE EMPLOYER DavId Strang ActIng AssocIate DIrector Management Board Secretanat HEARING Apnl1 & 16 2004 2 DeCISIon ThIS umon gnevance, dated March 24, 2004, anses out of the transformatIOn of the Ontano Energy Board (OEB) from a component of the Mimstry of Energy to an agency outsIde the Ontano Pubhc ServIce Pubhc servants who worked for the OEB as part of the MmIstry were offered Jobs by the new agency Based upon the premIse that these offers do not permIt semonty to be "carrIed over" wItllln the meanmg of artIcle 6 0 of AppendIx 18 to the collectIve agreement-a premIse contested by the employer-the umon claims the employees concerned are entItled to exerCIse the nghts contamed m artIcle 20 of the collectIve agreement and paragraphs 2 to 5 of AppendIx 9 ThIS award deals exclusIvely wIth the employer's prehmmary ObjectIOn that the gnevance was not filed wIthm the apphcable tIme InllI t I A labour-management commIttee was created to address Issues relatmg to the transfer and members of the commIttee met approxImately once a month from September of2003 to March of2004 Between December and early Febnlary, the umon was gIven a senes of at least four draft transfer agreements between the MmIstry of Energy and the new agency The final agreement was provIded to the umon on February 9 The transfer took place on March 26, 2004 Dunng the months precedmg the transfer, both umon commIttee members and the workforce at large were told consIstently by management that ItS objectIve was to negotIate an agreement wIth the new OEB whIch would ensure that transferrmg employees receIved at least 85% of theIr prevIOus earnmgs and allowed OPS semonty and servIce to be carned over In the end, employees actually enjoyed a pay mcrease when they moved to the receIvmg agency 3 The umon's pnmary concern underlymg the gnevance relates to a lImItatIOn on the posItIOns that first must be posted and then filled on the basIs of semonty where the qualIficatIOns of applIcants are "relatIvely equal" In the first draft agreement, provIded to the umon m December of 2003, the new OEB undertook to post Jobs only m "tYPIcal cIrcumstances" In response to questIOns asked by the umon representatIves about the meanmg of "tYPIcal cIrcumstances", later verSIOns of the transfer agreement lIsted a number of examples where Jobs would not be posted. One of these exceptIOns IS of partIcular concern to the umon "a new posItIOn and/or functIOnal area, such as payroll/ HR or controller, whIch dId not eXIst before" ThIS exceptIOn appears m the final transfer agreement Paragraph 11 1 of Schedule C to the agreement states Where the OEB determmes that a vacancy eXIsts m a regular full-tIme posItIOn, It shall, m tYPIcal cIrcumstances, post the vacancy for at least fifteen (15) days pnor to the closmg date The postmg shall mclude the Job tItle, locatIOn, salary range, a general descnptIOn of the Job dutIes qualIficatIOns and any other mformatIOn the OEB deems relevant For the purpose of Schedule C, sItuatIOns such as the followmg are examples of when It may be deemed not to be a tYPIcal cIrcumstance, for example, when there IS a known and chromc scarcIty for a set of qualIficatIOns for a partIcular type of work, when a qualIfied candIdate has been IdentIfied from another competItIOn, completed wItllln the prevIOUS 12 months, for a posItIOn WIth substantIally sImIlar reqUIrements and selectIOn cntena, when an assIgnment IS made m accordance wIth the staff planned career progressIOn/ development and IS supported by an mdIvIdual development and trammg plan, when a full tIme posItIOn IS bemg converted to part tIme (or VIce versa) for operatIOnal or compassIOnate reasons, where an employee requests and the employer agrees for a transfer to a vacant posItIOn for health reasons or on compassIOnate grounds, where a new posltzon and or functzonal area, such as payroll HR or controller, whlch dld not eXlst before (emphasIs added) The subject of Job postmgs was also canvassed m an "employee gUIde" prepared by the new OEB and delIvered to employees on March 8, 2004 along wIth theIr Job offers The gUIde mdIcates the reqUIrement to post a posItIOn would 4 not apply "where a new posItIOn and/or functIOnal area dId not eXIst before" There IS no reference m the gUIde to payroll, human resources or controller When UnIon representatIves vOIced a concern that tlllS exceptIOn to the postmg reqUIrement was worded dIfferently m the gUIde than m the transfer agreement, the new OEB Issued a memorandum to all employees statmg "the [transfer agreement and ItS schedules] are attached as they are referenced m the Employee GUIde dated March, 2004 In case of amblgUlty, the superlOr benefit prevazls" (emphasIs added) ThIS memorandum was mtended to reassure employees that the new agency would comply wIth the transfer agreement II The transfer of operatIOns from the MinIstry of Energy to the new OEB IS governed by artIcle 6 of AppendIx 18 to the collectIve agreement, the relevant parts of whIch state 6 1 1 For all Schedule B transfers, excludmg those covered by ArtIcle 6 3, the employer wIll propose m negotIatIOns wIth the receIvmg employer that Job offers shall be at a salary of at least 100% of the respectIve employee's weekly salary at the tIme of the transfer and recognIze the servIce and senIonty m the Ontano Pubhc ServIce (OPS) of each employee for the purpose of quahficatIOn for vacatIOn, benefits (except pensIOn), layoff and Job competItIOn, severance and tennmatIOn payments to the extent that they are provIded m the proponent's workplace or If none, the OPS 6 1 2 The Employer agrees that m any negotIatIOns wIth the receIvmg employer It IS to be understood that the employer wIll request that employees of the Crown who are transferred under ArtIcle 6 0- NegotIated Transfers should not be reqUIred to serve a probatIOnary penod wIth the new employer 6 2 1 In the event that a receIvmg employer does not fully agree to the request m artIcle 6 1 1, mcludmg the matter of a probatIOnary penod, the employer may offer the receIvmg employer a financIal mcentIve up to the amount that would have been payable as enhanced severance pay (calculated as provIded m paragraph 4 of AppendIx 9) to each employee affected by the transfer that the employer determmes wIll be declared surplus, m order to 5 secure or Improve a Job offer to the employee eqUIvalent to a Job offer as described m ArtIcle 6 1 1 above or to ensure where Job offers are receIved from the receIvmg Employer for less than the full complement of employees IdentIfied by the Employer, that the receIvmg Employer offer employees Jobs on the basIs of senIonty 6 5 If an employee refuses a Job offer whIch provIdes a salary of at least 85% of the respectIve employee's weekly salary at the tIme of the transfer and recognIzes the serVIce and senIonty m the Ontano PublIc ServIce (OPS) of each employee for the purpose of qualIficatIOn for vacatIOn, benefits (except pensIOn), layoff, Job competItIOn, severance and tennmatIOn payments to the extent that they are provIded m the proponents workplace, the employee shall be deemed to have resIgned effectIve the date of the transfer of theIr Job and no other prOVISIOn of the collectIve agreement wIll apply except for ArtIcle 53 or 78 (TennmatIOn Pay) 6 6 Where the salary of the Job offered by the receIvmg employer IS less than eIghty-five percent (85%) of the employee's current weekly salary, or If the employee's servIce or senIonty are not carrIed over to the receIvmg employer, the employee may declIne the offer In such a case, the employee may exerCIse the nghts prescribed by ArtIcle 20 (Employment StabIlIty) and/or paragraphs 2 to 5 of AppendIx 9 The gnevance contends the Job offers made to employees do not allow senIonty to be carrIed over wItllln the meanmg of artIcle 6 6, m the sense that, although employees wIll carryover theIr OPS senIonty m general, they wIll not be able to use It to bId on any Jobs filled by the new agency wIthout a postmg III What tIme lImIt applIes to the filIng of thIS gnevance? AppendIx 18 contams two dIspute resolutIOn procedures, each wIth ItS own 11lnItatIOn penod for gnevances Some dIsputes are governed by artIcle 4.2 and others by artIcle 8 0 ArtIcle 4 2 states The partIes agree that dlsputes that arzse regardzng the znterpretatzon or applzcatzon of th,S agreement that are unresolved at Stage 1 of the gnevance process wIll proceed as follows 6 On Its face, tlus artIcle apphes to "dIsputes that anse regardmg the mterpretatIOn or apphcatIOn of thIS agreement" [1 e AppendIx 18] For such dIsputes, artIcle 4 2 modIfies some aspects of the normal gnevance process, but leaves unaltered the tune hmIt of thIrty days for the filmg of UnIon gnevances, as found m artIcle 22 13 1 22 13 1 Where any dIfference between the Employer and the UnIon anses from the mterpretatIOn, apphcatIOn, admmIstratIOn or alleged contraventIOn of the Agreement, the UnIon shall be entItled to file a gnevance at the second stage of the gnevance procedure provIded It does so wIthm thIrty (30) days followmg the occurrence or ongmatIOn of the CIrcumstances gIvmg nse to the gnevance It IS common ground that "days" for thIS purpose do not mclude Saturdays, Sundays and desIgnated hohdays by vIrtue of artIcle 22 14.2 Accordmg to the UnIon, the tune hmIt m artIcle 22 13 1 apphes to the mstant gnevance ArtIcle 8 0 prescnbes a dIfferent process for resolvmg some dIsputes under AppendIx 18 ThIS artIcle states 8 1 All dIsputes ansmg out of ArtIcle 5 0,6 0 or 6C 0 must be detennmed pursuant to ArtIcle 8 0 Any other gnevances under thIS agreement wIll go through the dIspute resolutIOn process m ArtIcle 4.2 8 2 When the Employer releases a tender under Schedule A or C, the Employer agrees that OPSEU wIll be provIded wIth a copy of the RFP that the MmIstry has released. If OPSEU beheves that the tender IS not m comphance WIth eIther ArtIcle 5 0 or ArtIcle 6C 0 as appropnate, OPSEU may refer the matter to medIatIOn/arbItratIOn and the matter must be resolved 15 days pnor to the closmg of the tender 8 3 When the employer sIgns a transfer agreement wIth a hospItal, mUnIcIpahty or other employer m respect to transfers under Schedule B, the employer agrees that OPSEU wIll be provIded wIth a copy of the transfer agreement that the employer has sIgned wIth the mUnIcIpahty, hospItal or other receIvmg employer If OPSEU beheves that the transfer agreement IS not m comphance WIth ArtIcle 60, OPSEU may refer the matter to medIatIOn/arbItratIOn wItlun a seven (7) calendar day tune penod and the matter must be resolved wIthm that tIme penod. 7 The mmIstry contends the gnevance IS governed by artIcle IS 8 3 whIch allows only seven calendar days, not Just for fihng a gnevance, but for resolvmg the underlymg dIspute IV Does tlus gnevance fall under artIcle 4 2, wIth a tune hmIt of tlurty workmg days for launchmg a gnevance, or under artIcle 8 3 wIth a tIme hmIt of seven calendar days for resolvmg a dIspute? Notmg artIcle 8 1 states "all dIsputes ansmg out of ArtIcle 60 must be detennmed pursuant to ArtIcle 8 0", employer counsel asserts the current dIspute, about the apphcatIOn of artIcles 6 5 and 6 6 to Job offers, IS a dIspute "ansmg out of' artIcle 6 0 Counsel also contends the purpose of artIcle 8 0 IS to ensure all dIsputes relatmg to a transfer are resolved before the transfer takes place Accordmg to thIS argument, It would make no sense to resolve some Issues wIthm seven calendar days If gnevances about related matters need not be filed for thIrty workmg days Counsel submItted It IS reasonable to assume offers made to employees by a receIvmg employer wIll comply wIth the precedmg transfer agreement 1 e that an agreement specIfymg terms and condItIons of employment meetmg the cntena m artIcle 6 5 wIll result m matclung Job offers In the unlikely event the offers actually made to employees were less generous than the associated transfer agreement, somethmg whIch tYPIcally would not be known wIthm seven days of the agreement bemg provIded to the UnIon, counsel for the employer suggested there would be grounds for the extensIOn of tune for a gnevance contendmg employees were entItled to exerCIse the nghts specIfied m artIcle 6 6 because the offers were deficIent 8 Umon counsel emphasIzes the gnevance at hand challenges neIther the contents of the transfer agreement nor the efforts made by the employer when negotIatmg It In other words, the umon does not allege a vIOlatIOn of artIcle 6 1 or 62 1 Counsel concedes the seven-day tIme would apply to a gnevance, based upon eIther of these artIcles, contestmg the terms of the agreement or the effort put mto It The tune hmIt m artIcle 8 3 IS Said not to apply to the mstant gnevance about the employer's charactenzatIOn of Job offers as meetmg the cntena m artIcle 6 5 and the consequent demal of nghts specIfied m artIcle 6 6 Addressmg a scenano where the transfer agreement reqUIres the terms and condItIons of employment specIfied m artIcle 6 5, and where the umon learns after the expIry of the tIme hmIt m artIcle 8 3 that Job offers fall short of thIS mark, umon counsel asserts the collectIve agreement should not be mterpreted so as to preclude a gnevance unless an arbItrator can be persuaded to extend the tIme for filmg one In reply, employer counsel argues the current gnevance, allegmg Job offers matclllng the transfer agreement do not meet the cntena m artIcle 6 5, IS m essence a gnevance contendmg the transfer agreement does not comply wIth that artIcle V There are two cases deahng wIth the apphcatIOn of the seven-day tIme hmIt m artIcle 8 3 In Mlnlstry afHealth and OPSEU, GSB No 1495/00, decIsIOn dated January 24, 2002, I held thIS hmItatIOn penod apphed to a umon gnevance contendmg the employer had vIOlated artIcle 6 0 by not makmg sufficIent efforts to persuade the receIvmg employers to leave transferred employees m the OPSEU PenSIOn Trust I wrote ArtIcle 14 of the transfer agreements, as provIded to the umon m the early months of 2000, allowed the receIvmg hospItals to choose between HOOPP and OPT Not untIl September of 2000 dId OPSEU learn the hospItals had chosen HOOPP Yet the root of the umon's present complamt agamst the Crown, under artIcle 6 0, resIdes not m the chOIce made by the hospItals but 9 m the transfer agreements whIch left thIS optIOn open to them If the umon's mterpretatIOn of artIcle 6 0 prevails, the provmce would be reqUIred to endeavour to negotIate wIth the hospItals to estabhsh a new pensIOn arrangement whIch would supersede artIcle 14 of the transfer agreements In short, the essence of the umon' s argument IS that the agreements themselves contravene artIcle 6 0 The purpose of the stnct tIme hmIt m artIcle 8 3 IS to ensure the expedItIous resolutIOn of dIsputes, such as those at hand, about whether a transfer agreement does comply wIth artIcle 6 0 ThIS analysIs leads me to conclude artIcle 8 3 apphes to these gnevances msofar as they are based on artIcle 6 (pages 6 and 7) ArtIcle 8 3 was agam apphed mMlnlstry afHealth and OPSEU, GSB No 2003-0337, decIsIOn dated March 8, 2004 (Petryshen) In that case, the transfer agreement was provIded to the umon m February of 2000 but the transfer dId not occur untIl June of 2003 The umon learned m late Apnl of 2003 that the employer had not paid a financial mcentIve to the receIvmg hospItal and thIS dIsclosure led to a gnevance bemg filed at the begmnmg of May VIce-Chair Petryshen wrote The payment of the financial mcentIve only becomes an Issue If the Employer IS unable to secure from the receIvmg hospItal the OPS tenns and condItIons of employment as reflected m SectIOn 6 1 1 The payment of the financial mcentIve IS to assIst the Employer m obtammg Job offers that reflect as closely as possible the OPS terms and condItIons of employment The remedy the Umon seeks m tlus mstance Illustrates the relatIOnslup between SectIOns 6 1 1 and 6 2 1 In addItIon to requestmg that the Employer be dIrected to offer the financial mcentIve to St Joseph's, the Umon seeks an order dIrectmg the Employer to attempt to negotIate wIth St Joseph's to attam tenns and condItIons of employment m certam areas whIch mIrror the terms and condItIons of the OPS agreement SectIOn 8 1 provIdes that all dIsputes ansmg out of ArtIcle 6 0 must be detennmed pursuant to ArtIcle 8 0, whIch of course mcludes SectIOn 8 3 and the stnngent tIme hmIts contamed therem The Umon's allegatIOn that the Employer dId not pay the financial mcentIve IS a dIspute whIch anses out of ArtIcle 6 0 The fact that the Umon was told m Apnl 2003 of the Employer's failure to pay the financial mcentIve does not mean that ItS obhgatIOn to challenge the Transfer Agreement dId not anse m Febnmry 2000, wIthm the tune hmIt set out m SectIOn 8 3 The presence of certam SectIOn 6 1 1 Issues and the absence of an mdIcatIOn m the Transfer Agreement that a financial mcentIve would be paid to St Joseph's IS a reasonable basIs upon whIch the Umon could have concluded m February 2000 that no financial 10 mcentIve had been paid to St Joesph's and that the Transfer Agreement was not m complIance wIth ArtIcle 6 0 Even If the absence of any reference to the payment of a financial mcentIve m the Transfer Agreement, by Itself, IS not a basIs for concludmg that there has been a potentIal contraventIOn of SectIOn 6.2 1, such an absence, m the face of certam SectIOn 6 1 1 Issues, should have caused the Umon to mqUIre about whether the financIal mcentIve had been offered to St Joseph's (pages 9 to 11) In both of these cases, the umon contended the terms and condItIons of employment specIfied m the transfer agreement were madequate because the employer had not made sufficIent efforts to persuade the receIvmg enterpnse to make Job offers more favourable to employees The remedy sought m each case was an order dIrectmg the employer to renegotIate the agreement m an attempt to Improve terms and condItIons of employment The seven-day lImIt m artIcle 8 3 for resolvmg a dIspute was held to apply to these matters ArtIcle 8 3 speaks of dIsputes about whether a "transfer agreement" IS "m complIance wIth artIcle 6 0 "In the two cases dIscussed above, the short tIme lImIt m artIcle 8 3 was applIed, even though the vIOlatIOn asserted m the gnevance lay not m the alleged madequacy of the transfer agreement Itself, but m the employer's allegedly msufficIent attempt to secure a better deal for employees If the employer had made the efforts reqUIred by artIcles 6 1 and 6 2 1, but faIled to persuade the receIvmg enterpnse to ennch the terms and condItIons of employment, there would have been no contraventIOn of artIcle 6 0, despIte any deficIencIes m the agreement ThIS IS why the vIOlatIOn alleged concerned the employer's approach to bargammg, not merely the contents of the agreement Itself In my VIew, readmg artIcle 8 3 as applymg to dIsputes about whether the employer's conduct at the bargammg table complIes wIth artIcle 6 0 IS fully warranted, even though thIS artIcle speaks of a transfer agreement not complymg wIth artIcle 6 0 In the two cases dIscussed above, the remedy sought was the re- opemng of negotIatIOns m the hope of changmg the agreement In other words, a dIspute about the adequacy of the agreement underlay the gnevance m each case 11 Moreover, constnllng artIcle 8 3 as applymg only to gnevances solely about the contents of a transfer agreement would render the seven-day tune mapplIcable to dIsputes ansmg from artIcles 6 1 and 6.2 1, two prOVISIOns at the heart of artIcle 6 0 ArtIcles 6 1 and 6.2 1 specIfy what efforts the employer must make when negotIatmg a transfer agreement, but notlllng m artIcle 6 0 specIfies any cntena that such an agreement must meet Under artIcle 8 3, tIme begms to run when a transfer agreement IS provIded to the UnIon ThIS temporal startmg pomt IS appropnate m the context of a dIspute about the sufficIency of the employer's efforts A startmg pomt before the agreement IS complete would make no sense, because there would be lIttle pomt m the UnIon contestmg the propnety of management's conduct before knowmg the contents of the resultmg agreement The ratIOnale for reJectmg a later startmg pomt IS explamed m the above excerpt from the decIsIOn of VIce-Chair Petryshen Once the UnIon knows the agreement does not meet ItS expectatIOns, It can make mqUInes about the employer's efforts and decIde whether a gnevance IS warranted VI Does the tune lImIt m artIcle 8 3 apply to the current dIspute about how artIcle 6 0 applIes to the Job offers made by the new OEB? ArtIcles 6 5 and 6 6 do not specIfy cntena that Job offers must satIsfy Instead, these artIcles detennme what nghts under the collectIve agreement an employee IS entItled to exerCIse, If he or she declmes a Job offer from the receIvmg enterpnse, wIth the determmatIOn of contractual entItlements bemg based upon the content of the offer If the salary offered IS at least 85% of the employee's current earnmgs, and If OPS senIonty and servIce are to be carned over, then the employee's only entItlement under the collectIve agreement IS to receIve tennmatIOn pay, accordmg to artIcle 6 5 If the offer IS less generous m relatIOn to 12 salary or semonty and servIce, artIcle 6 6 entItles the employee to the benefit of artIcle 20 of the collectIve agreement and paragraphs 2 to 5 of AppendIx 9 In tlllS contractual context, It makes no sense to speak of Job offers "complymg" wIth artIcle 6 5 or 6 6 The reason IS these artIcles contam no reqUIrements wIth whIch such offers are expected to comply Instead, artIcles 6 5 and 6 6 dehneate two possible categones of Job offers and specIfy the entItlements under the collectIve agreement of an employee who dechnes an offer of each type The umon contends employees who declmed a Job offer were entItled to exerCIse the nghts specIfied m artIcle 6 6, because the Job offers dId not entaIl a carryover of semonty wIthm the meanmg of that artIcle Contendmg the offers allowed semonty to be carrIed over, the employer submIts the refusal of a Job offer would have dIsentItled an employee to all benefits under the collectIve except termmatIOn pay, accordmg to artIcle 6 5 ThIS IS substantIve dIspute between the partIes ThIS sort of dIspute, about the quahty of Job offers, does not readIly fit the type described m artIcle 8 3 1 e dIsputes about whether a "transfer agreement" IS "m comphance WIth artIcle 6 0 " The fit would be poor for any case of thIS sort, even though the terms of Job offers tYPIcally reflect those specIfied m the associated transfer agreement NeIther Job offers nor transfer agreements can be sensIbly labelled as complymg, or not complymg, wIth artIcles 6 5 or 6 6 Rather than regulatmg the content of Job offers themselves, these artIcles dIvIde all logIcally possIble offers mto two types and detennme what entItlements flow when offers of eIther type are dechned. The content of Job offers per se IS ungoverned by artIcle 6 0, unlike the employer's conduct when negotIatmg a transfer agreement whIch IS regulated by artIcles 6 1 and 6 2 1 ThIS dIstmctIOn renders the two cases dIscussed above mapphcable to the facts at hand. The occurrence that commences the nmnmg of tIme under artIcle 8 3-the dehvery of a transfer agreement to the umon-makes no sense for some dIsputes 13 that mIght anse under artIcles 6 5 and 6 6 In partIcular, thIS startIng pOInt would be IllogIcal In a case where Job offers made to employees do not match the transfer agreement WhIle such offers usually mIrror the precedIng agreement, there IS no guarantee the two wIll be the same Offers tYPIcally are made much later than seven days after dehvery of the transfer agreement In a case where the transfer agreement leads the umon to expect Jobs to be offered on the terms descnbed In artIcle 6 5, and the employer treats employees accordIngly, but where the offers eventually made are of the sort described In artIcle 6 6, any gnevance about the treatment of employees would be untImely under artIcle 8 3, even If the umon gneved as soon as the Job offers were receIved. It seems unlikely those who negotIated AppendIx 18 Intended such an outcome, one that would force the umon to rely exclusIvely upon an arbItrator to extend the tune for fihng a gnevance ThIS analysIs leads me to reject the employer's InterpretatIOn of artIcle 8 0 and to conclude the tIme hmIt In artIcle 8 3 does not apply to the Instant gnevance NotwIthstandIng the sweepIng language of artIcle 8 0, saYIng It apphes to all dIsputes ansIng out of artIcle 6 0, the most reasonable constructIOn of the wordIng of artIcle 8 3 IndIcates ItS seven-day tIme hmIt does not apply to thIS gnevance VII The apphcable tIme hmIt IS found In artIcle 22 13 1 As the partIes agree the gnevance was filed wIth the penod specIfied by thIS artIcle, the employer's prelunInary ObjectIOn IS dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto thIS 3rd day of May 2004 12 ,rtd4--<-4 ~ /RIchard Brown VIce-Chair