HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-0043.Doherty.77-05-1343176
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
BOARD
‘416 564-6426 Suite 405
77 BZobr Street V&s
TORONTO, On tu.PiO
M5S lM2
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
THE GR 'EVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
Before
Mrs. E. G. Doherty
And
Ministry of Health
D. M. Beatty : ;;;;rn
Mary Gibb
H. Simon - Member
Grant' W. Bruce
Ontario Public Service.Employees Union
I. Freedman, Legal Counsel
Ministry of Health
January 31, 1977
April 28, 1977
Suite 405, 77 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario I
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
L.
As a case of first instance, in which the rights and
obligations that flow from the terms of Article 4.2 are put
in issue, Mrs. E. Doherty's grievance that she was unfairly
and unjustly denied a promotion to the position of Data Entry
Operator 3, is of importance not only to the parties to this
immediate dispute, but as well to all of those persons who are
bound by the provisions of that clause. As well, the consequences
that may flow from the filing of hercomplaint with this Board,
(which may be expected to be mirrored in a wide variety of
grievances which may come before us), raise an important
preliminary matter which caused this Board to adjourn the
proceedings in this case pending its resolution.
With respect to the preliminary issue, we would note
that it was inherent in the very nature of Mrs. Doherty's grievance
that the rights of third parties, and specifically those of
Mrs. V. Haydon who was the successful applicant for the position
in question, could be materially affected by the results of our
deliberations: That is to say, Mrs. Haydon's right to the Data
Entry Operator 3 position was necessarily put in issue by the
filing of Mrs. Doherty's grievance with this Board. Succinctly
Mrs. Haydon stood to loose that position if this Board came to
the conclusion that Mrs. Doherty's complaint was meritorious
and allowed her grievance to prevail. In such circumstances,
and indeed in any case where the rights of third persons under
the collective agreement may be affected by the decision of a
judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal such as ours, Courts have,
as a matter of natural justice , required that such persons be
given notice of; and be permitted to attend at and participate
in the proceedings of that tribunal by calling evidence, cross-
examining witnesses and presenting.such argument as they see
fit. Re Hoogendoorn and Greeninp MetaZ Products 4 Screexim
Equiument Co. Cl9681 S.C.R. 30, (1967) 65 D.L.R. /Zdl 641.
In meeting this connnon law obligation, another Court has written
of the notice that ought to be provided to such interested parties:
Preferably, it should be in zriting indicating
the issue or issues to be arbitrated as involving the possible diminution of the coZZective
agreement benefits being enjoyed by the persons
entit2ed to the notice; and it shou2d advise of
the date, time and place of hearing, of the right
to be represented by counsel. or othewise, and
shou2d be served personu22y or by registered
mail sufficiently in advafice of the date ffxed
for the heuring to give the notified persons a rsasonabls opportunity to prepare their subntissions if they decide to appear. I shouZd think that if
there is any question of the proper tength of
notice it wouZd be one for the arbitmtor to
settle in the first instunce..
BradZey and Ottawa Professional Fire Fiphters.Assoc-iation <1967>
2 O.R., 311, 63 D.L.R. tzd) 376 @.A.). Moreover and while
the primary responsibility rests with the parties to effect the
requisite notice to those persons whose status under the agreement
may be affected by a decision of this Board, it is also recognized
that arbitrators in general and this Board in particular has a
duty to adjourn the hearing whenever such an issue'arises during
itsproceedings. See Candicn Labour Arbitratiott Topic #3:1210.
It was, pursuant to that mandate that we adjourned the initial
proceedings in this matter so as to allow the parties the
opportunity to apprise Mrs. Haydor: of her rights. Upon being
so advised. Mrs. Haydon attended at t&e hearings and to a limited
extent, participated in them.
*.
-
That preliminary matter aside, the parties adduced .
evidence with respect to the merits of Mrs. Doherty's grievance.
That evidence can be compartmentalized into three distinct areas.
In the first place evjdence was introduced from both parties as
to the nature of the job in issue. From this evidence it would
appear that the parties are agreed that the job of Data Entry
Operator 3 can properly be characterized as being more in the
nature of a group leader or lead hand position than of a
supervisory or managerial job. Moreover it would appear from
'their evidence that in,this job, the incumbent employee would
and in fact does spend the majority of her efforts performing the
work of a Data Entry operator, in the training of new operators
and in providfng guidance to and resolving problems for the other
Data Entry Operators in the unit. As well, it would appear from
the evidence of Mr. L. Kerwin who is the Manager of the Branch,
and from the job specification, that management anticipates that
these group leaders will also discharge such other basic supervisory
duties as instructing operators on new proceedings and techniques,
.schedul~ing the work flow within their section, assisting in the
appraising and counselling of the operators and certain other
incidental monitoring functions.
The second subject to which evidence was addressed
concerned the qualifications and ability of*Mrs. Doherty. In
this regard it is a matter of record that Mrs. Doherty commenced
her employment with this Ministry as a Data Entry operator on
July 3, 1963 and after three years and four months was assigned
to the fUnCtiOn of operator/verifier-which she continues to perform
5.
to this day. According to her evidence, which was corroborated
by two fellow employees, Mrs. E. Bryan and Mrs. J. McCann, (the
latter herself being presently classified as a Data Entry.Operator 3),
she has the present ability to perform the job in question. More
specifically it was her evidence that apart from her demonstrated
experience of some thirteen years in performing the data entry
operator's work, she had had occasion over the course of her
employment, to train other employees, including Mrs. Haydon,
as they came into the unit, to schedule the flow of work in the
absence of her supervisor and to provide technical guidance and
advice to her fellow operators with respect to work problems
and difficulties which might arise from time to time. Indeed
from the sum of her evidence it would appear that she has
performed to varying degrees, all of the major and frequently
recurring tasks that are required to be performed by a Data
Entry Operator 3. Moreover we would note that the employer did
not tender any evidence, or advance any argument to refute or
challenge the'grievor's assertions in this regard.
Rather the employer's ev~idence was directed, almost
exclusively, to explaining its reasons for selecting Mrs. Haydon
over the other six applicants and in particular Mrs. Doherty for
the position in question. That is to say and while not challenging
the griever's asserted ability to perform the job of the Data
Entry Operator, the employer adduced virtually all of its evidence
to explain and support its decision that Mrs. Haydon was the
superior and preferable applicant for this job. In short almost
all of the employer's evidence was directed to substantiating its
5.
comparison as to the relative abilities and qualifications of
Mrs. Haydonand Mrs. Doherty. A review of that evidence reveals
a number of specific and identifiable factors which caused the
employer to choose Mrs. Haydon for the position in question.
In the first piace, it was Mr. Kerwin's evidence that after he
had considered their respective experiences in the Branch he
came to the conclusion that Mrs. Haydon had relatively more skill
to perform the duties of a Data Entry Operator 3,than'did Mrs.
Doherty. Essentially he based his judgement on the fact that while
Mrs. Haydon was able to move up from an operator to a verifier function
within ten months of her commencing her employment in 1972,
Mrs. Doherty did not make a similar progression until some three
years and four months after she commenced her employment. As
well, Mr. Kerwin supported his relative ranking of these two
employees on the basis that, because she suffers from an asthmatic
bronchial condition, Mrs. Doherty's attendance record was
significantly inferior to that of Mrs. Haydon. In fact the
evidence revedls that during the period from 1972 until 1976
Mrs. Doherty was'absent from work on'some eighty occasions while
over a similar period Mrs. Haydon had a record of some forty
days lost through absence. In addition Mr. Kerwin pointed to
and relied~upon Mrs. Haydon's previous supervisory experience
in a Data Entry unit in the private sector as confirming his
judgement as to the relative abilities of these two employees
to perform as an effective supervisor.
There were, as well, a variety of other factors which
according to Mr. Kerwin led him to t+e conclusion that as
-
. ;
between the competing applicants and in particular as between
Mrs. Haydon and the grievor, that Mrs. Haydon was the more able
and qualified employee for the job. Thus Mr. Kerwin alluded
to the fact that Mrs. Haydon had been "officially" instructed
by a member of management to train new operators on five or
six occasions while to his knowledge Mrs. Doherty had no similar
experience in the training of new employees. In addition Mr. Kei-win
pointed to various habits of the grievor including her playing of
a radio, doing crochet work for the staff and criticizing the
system of operations employed in the Branch as supporting his
conclusion that she was a.less suitable, and cooperative employee
than Mrs. Haydon whom he described as being a courteous,
responsive, and willing worker. Although certain other incidental
considerations figured in Mr. Kerwin's conclusion as to the
I relative qualifications and abilities of these two employees, it
was essentially on those grounds that he effected his selection.
Against that evidence stands the assertion
of the griever, which was again confirmed by Mrs. E. Bryan and
Mrs. J. McCann,that in their view these two employees are in
fact approximately equal in their qualifications and ability .+o
perform the job in question. While not offering a detailed
comparison of the respective abilities of Mrs. Haydon and
Mrs. Doherty, these witnesses took issue with the employer's
judgement essentially on the basis that against the nature of
the work performed in this job and given the griever's prolonged
association with the work of the unit, the latter was in fact
the relative equal of Mrs. Haydon. Noreover it was the union's
: 0.
position, based on the testimony of its witnesses, that in fact
the employer's judgement was based on both erroneous and also
irrelevant considerations. With respect to the former, and by
way of example, the union pointed to the evidence of the grievor
and her two fellow employees to~support their assertion that Mr.
Kerwin's evidence notwithstanding, in fact Mrs. Doherty did train
new employees in the unit and in fact had provided technical
assistance to and checked the work of her less experienced peers.
Similarly, Mrs. Doherty took issue with the negative inferences
drawn by the employer from the fact that she listens to a radio
during her work or does crochet work for persons on the staff
in her off duty hours. ~Questioning the relevance of~these
matters to her ability to perform the job of Data Entry
Operator 3, Mrs. Doherty claimed that except on one occasion
when she was asked to turn off her radio when she left the unit
to'take a break, she was never admonished or indeed cautioned
about either of these activities. In short in relying on those
matters and certain like criticisms made of her work, Mrs. Doherty
claimed the employer's assessment of her relative qualifications
was totally flawed.
In assessing the merits of this latter assertion, which
is the essence of the grievance before us, reference must first
be made to Article 4 of the collective agreement. It is that
provision which the parties agree constrains the employer in
its selection from amongst those applicants who have responded to the
posted vacancy and it is against its terms that this Board must
assess the propriety of the employetis decision. That article
provides:
9.
ARTICLE 4 - POSTING OF VACANCIES
4.1 When a vacancy occws Or a mm position is
created in the bargaining unit, the
Employer shall advertise such vacancy for at least five (5)
working days prior to the closing date of the competition. for
the position or vacancy. All applications wit2 be, acknowledged.
Wherever practicable, advertisements for vacancies 1221 be
posted on bulletin boara’s.
4.2 ,, In filling a vacancy, the 3hrpZoyer shalZ
give primary consideration to quaZifications
and abiZity to perfom the required duties. Where, in the opinion of the EmpZoyer, quazifications and ability are rezatively
equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration.
At the outset, we would note that to succeed in her
claim, Mrs. Doherty bears the onus of providing, on the balance
of probabilities, that in making the selection of Mrs. Haydon
for the Data-Entry Operator 3 position the employer did not
comply with the provisions of Article 4. More specifically and
against the terms of this particular provision, the orievor
bears the onus of proving not only that she has the requisite
qualifications and abilfty for this job, but as well that she
was relatively equal in those respects to Mrs. Haydon. Re -
Canadian TraiZmobiZe Ltd. (197.5) 10 .L.A.C. (2dl, 92 (Atis);
Re KeZsey Hayes Canada Ltd. (1972). 1 L.A.C. (Zdl, 54 (Veiierl and
see generally Canadian Labour Arbitration Top?cs 6:3200, 6:3220.
That latter conclusion flows from the fact that Article 4 reflects
a type of seniority cTause in which a competition is set up
between the applicants for a particular job. Against this kind
of seniority provision, which is one of three generally recognized
types of such clauses, arbitrators and the Courts have 1c::g
recognized that it is not sufficient for a grievor who, like
Mrs. Doherty, has the greatest senio*rity, to prove-that she can
I
competently perform all of the duties,of the position. Rather
when a seniority provision is drafted as these parties have
written Article 4, seniority only becomes a relevant consideration
if and when the employer is of the opinion that as between the
competing applicants their qualifications and ability are
relatively equal. Re Kelsey Rayes Canada Ltd. (supra);
Re General Refmzhries Co. of Canada Ltd. (1975) 10 L.A.C. IZd),
327 (&me); Re J. A. ‘Wotherspoon & Son Ltd. B U.A. W., Local 1256
Cl9721 2 O.R. 156, 25 D.L.R. (3dl 70 (Div'l Ctl.
Moreover, there are certain other significant features
of Article 4 which bear directly on the resolution of a complaint
by an employee who has been unsuccessful in bidding for a posted
vacancy. In the first place we would note that Article 4 speaks
of the applicants ' "qualifications and ability". Given the use -
of these two different terms, joined by the conjunctive word
"and", we must assume that the parties intended that the employer
was primarily to have regard to two quite distinct capacities
in making itslselection. Re Kslsey Eayes Cczmzdc Ltd. (sqral. ‘
In short it must not be assumed that the parties intended these
words to be used synonymously or interchangeably. See Corzz&Lar.
Laboti Arbitration Topic 6:3000. Secondly both on its plain
language and against certain judicial pronouncements it is not
without significance that the parties to this agreement have
utilized the phrase "in the opinion of management". That is to
say and while we do not believe that suc,h a proviso limits this
Board's scope of inquiry to simply determining whether the
employer's motives fn making its selection were bona fide, honest
11.
and unbiased, nevertheless, and regardless of what our scope
of review would be in the absence of such language (see .?e Grat
Atlantic and Pacific Co. of Canwia Ltd., unreported Ont Div ‘1 Ct
NOV. g/76), such a proviso clearly precludes this Board from
viewing the employer's decision on its merits:'Rs.st. catar.es
General Hospital (197.5) 10 L.A.C. (2nd) 258 (Adams); Re Lad%
Gait Towels Ltd. ‘(1969) 20 L.A.G. 382 (Christie); Re Carzing
Breweries Ltd. (1968) 19 L.A.C. 110 (Christie). In shcrt and
against such a qualifying provisos, it is manifest that this
Board cannot and will not exercise the kind of review that it
regularly does in matters of discipline. Rather and in order
to give some meaning to that language, when this Board has occasion
to review a managerial decision effected under Article 4, we
will be concerned with something other than the "correctness"
of the employers selection. Specifically and against such
qualifying language, this Board is of the opinion, that its
primary~function is, and until we are persuaded otherwise, will
continue to bk, to ensure that:
. . . the judgment of the company must be
honest, and unbiased, and not actuated by
any malice or ill will directed at the
pcrticulcr employee, and secovd, the
mcmgeriul decision must be reasonable,
bne which a reasonable employer could
have reached in the light of the facts
CJailable. I%63 underlying purpo8e of
this interpretation is to prevent the arbitration board taking over the fmtion of managemer.t, a positior. which
it is said they are mcnifestly CnccpcbZz
of filling.
.?e Union. Ccsbide Cancda Ltd. il96i) i8 L.A.C. iO,l,li@ 6eiier)
The rationale for this more limited scope of review and the
reasons why boards of arbitration have distinguished these
cases from those involving questions of discipline qre
discussed.in some detail in Re Phillips Cables Ltd. 119741
6 L.A.C. tzd) 35 (Adurns).
There are, two other features of Article 4 which bear
upon the resolution of this grievance and which, therefore,
merit our,comment. In the first place we would draw attention
to the fact that by its terms Article 4 instructs the employer
to give "primary" consideration in effecting a decision under
its terms, to the qualifications and ability of the applicants
to "perform the required duties". That is to say not only must
those two factors assume a predominant position in the employer's
selection under Article 4, but as well those factors must
relate to the actual duties of the position, In short it is
the applicantjs qualifications and ability to perform the
required duties of a Data Entry Operator 3, and not their ability
and qualifications in the abstract that is the primary and
material consideration that should underlie a determination made
under Article 4.
Finally we would note that even in the instance when
the employer is of the opinion or this Board concludes that two
or more of the competing applicants are relatively equal with
. .
respect to those two criteria which are to be given primary
consideration, Article 4 does not, as most collective agreements
which employ this type of "competitive" seniority clause do,
stipulate that the seniority of the applicants as to "govern",
Re Westeel Producta Ltd. (1960) 11 L.A.C. 199 Ilaskinl; "prevail",
Re Northern Electric Co. Ltd. (1965) 16 L.A.C. 278 (Lane) or be
the "determining factor", Re St. Catharines ~GeneraZ Hosuita2 (1975)
10 L.A.C. (2d) 258 (Adorns). Rather, on its plain language,
Article 4 merely stipulates that even in this limited context,
the respective seniority ratings of the various applicants is
only one additional consideration that the employer must weigh.
Put otherwise, and against such language, in our view Article 4
plainly contemplates that there may well be circumstances even
when the qualifications and abilities of the applicants for a
job are relatively equal that their respective seniority ratings
may not be determinative for the employer's selection.
Having set out our understanding as to the meaning to
be applied toithe governing language of this agreement, we
may now assess the propriety of the employer's decision in this
particular case. In doing so, it will be recalled that we
have taken the position that unless there is evidence that the
employer acted discriminatorily, in bad faith or that it exercised
its judgement unreasonably, we will not interfere with its
selection. However in effecting this review it should be made
clear that in our view there are two quite distinct components
to the employer's decision that are subject to our scrutiny.
More specifically, we are of the opinion that:
‘14.
.InitiaZly, the arbitrator r&t make some
determimtion as to the requirements of the
job, and against those requirements, assess
the reasonab2eness of the strmdarcis or criteria
uti2ized by the employer in making its judgment
as to the relative abiZitiee of the competing
applicants. Having made that determinatioz,
the arbitrator must then assess the manner in
which the empZoyer applied those standards to
the various applicants or competitors for the
particuZar job.
Cmadian Labour .Arbitration, Topic 6:3100 . .
From the evidence before this Board, and against the
standards described above, we are satisfied that the employer
did not violate Article 4 of the agreement when it selected
Mrs. Haydon instead of~Mrs. Doherty for the position of Data
Entry Operator 3. Although this Board is of the view, as
described below, that certain aspects of the employer's
decision were founded on erroneous and irrelevant considerations.
even when allowance is made for those deficiencies, we do not
share the union's claim that the selection of Krs. Haydon was
unreasonable., To the contrary and against the twin and
predominant criteria of their respective abilities and
qualifications we are satisfied that it was not unreasonable
for the employer to conclude that these two employees were
not in fact relatively equal. Thus and against their respective
experience in acting in a supervisory capacity, in theSr
respective attendance records and in their rate of progression
through the ranks in this unit, we are of the view that it was
not unreasonable for the employer to draw the distinction between
these two employees that it did. On the basis cf those considerations
alone,and apart from anything else,wi believe a distinction can
15.
reasonably be drawn between the ability of each of these
persons to perform this job. That is, the fact that Mrs. Haydon
has had some supervisory experience in the private sector in a
similar work environment, the fact she was able to progress
more rapidly through the ranks in the actual, performance of
this data entry work and given her obviously superior attendance
record, in our view all provide relevant and material grounds
on which a reasonable empToyer could distinguish between her
and Mrs. Doherty's ability to perform the required duties of
this job. By the express terms of Article 4.2 we are precluded
from interfering with a decision effected under its terms when
it is founded upon such relevant criteria and.such uncontroverted
evidence as we have just described. Very simply, and as we
noted earlier fn this award, the scope of our inquiry is exhausted
when we are satisfied that the employer has adhered to the
terms of Article 4.2, has acted honestly and in good faith and
has come to a decision which an employer, acting reasonably,
could suppord Having assured ourselves that in its ultimate
conclusion the employer's decision in this case satisfies those
standards, then regardless of whatever other mistakes or
errors may have been made in the course of its selection,
necessarily this grievance is bound to fail. In short, and even
allowing for the errors that the employer may have made in its
assessment of Mrs. Doherty's relative ability and qualifications,
those objective points of distinction, on matters definitely
relevant to the performance of this job,remain uncontroverted.
However, for the future guidance of these parties, we
are constrained to comment on certain deficiencies that we
‘.
ib.
perceived in the employer's evaluation of the grievor's relative
ability. While not impugning the reasonableness of the ultimate
conclusion reached by the employer as to the relative abilities
of these two employees, in other contexts,~such errors could
well lead to and justify a different result. ‘In this regard,
and by way of example, we would express our doubt, against
the criteria set out in Article 4 that the employer is bound
to assess the employee's qualffications and abilities to
perform the “required duties", as to the relevance or propriety
of the employer's giving any weight to the grievor's crocheting
activities or playing of her radio. Very simply, and unless
such evidence were tendered to support the conclusion that the
grievor failed or refused to adhere to the employer's instructions
to cease or modify'such behaviour, we can see no connection
between such activities and her relative ability to perform
the required duties of an effective Data Entry Operator 3. In
the absence of any evidence to support such a finding and indeed
against the griever's uncontradicted assertion that she complied
with the only request management made with respect to her.playing
the radio, we think it highly improper for the employer to have
weighed such matters in its consideration of the relative
abilities of Mrs. Haydon and Mrs. Doherty to perform the required
duties of this position. Similarly we fail to understand what
conclusion, let alone a negative inference, can be drawn from
the fact that Mrs. Doherty may have been critical of the
operational system employed in the unit. Again, unless the
employer could show that such behaviqur would likely impede
%rs. Doherty's ability to perform the required duties of this
position, we are at a simi lay loss to understand how
such
on her part could support the conclusion that she was relatively
unequal to Mrs. Haydon in her ability to function as a Data
Entry Operator 3.
As well as basing its conclusion on what we regard as
irrelevant considerations, we would also note that in our view
Mr. Kerwin's decision was founded on faulty or erroneous
information. In this regard we would refer to Mr. Kerwin's
evidence that he was unaware that Ws. Doherty had trained
new employees or that she had actually trained Mrs., haydon.
In the face of Mr. Kerwin's disclaimer as to his lack of
knowledge on this point, the evidence of Mrs. Doherty, which in
fact was corroborated by her fellow employees stands
uncontradicted. Moreover, even if, as Mr. Kerwin claimed,
Mrs. Doherty was never "officially" instructed to train new.
personnel, that assertion can not detract from the fact that
having done such work, she has demonstrated some ability in that
regard which was not given any weight by the employer. Indeed
and against Mr. Kerwin's evidence that Mrs. Haydon's experience
in training new employees was limited to some five or six
occasions, we are inclined to think the grievor's past experience,
as a verifier, in responding to the queries of providing
technical assistance to and checking the work of her fellow
operators would have taxed similar abil~ities and qualifications
as those required in a training function and should, unless her
performance was deficient, have been equated with Vrs. Saydon's
experience in this capacity. The emp?oyer's failure to draw
any comparison between these activities in cur view acain I
_I
18.
.
detracts from, though does not impugn the reasonableness of the
employers ultimate decision.
In the result however and even allowing for these
deficiencies we are satisfied that there was relevant and
material evidence before the employer, on which the respective
abilities and qualifications of these two employees to perform
the required duties of the job in issue could reasonably be
distinguished. That is to say, agains,t the factors described
by Mr. Kerwin, we are satisfied that an employer, acting
reasonably, could well come to the conclusion that Mrs. Haydon
and Mrs. Doherty were not relatively equal in their qualifications
and abilities to perform this job. In reaching this conclusion
it should be manifest tha,t neither we, nor indeed the employer,
have made any suggestion that the grievor is incapable of
performing the duties of a Data Entry Operator .3. Indeed and
to the contrary, from the evidence before this Board we are
satisfied tha; Mrs. Doherty is qualified and has the
ability to perform that job. From our perspective and against
her previous experience and qualifications we have little doubt
that she has already satisfactorily performed many, if not
all of the more frequently arising duties of the position and
would be "able" upon being introduced to the job to master
those other duties which would be unique to that job. However
and as we have noted earlier, Mrs. Doherty's ability to perform
the duties of a Data Entry Operator 3 is not the test against
which her rights to a posted vacancy under this agreement are
to be measured. Rather and as speci‘fied by that provision it
is only her ability and qualifications relative to all other
19.
applicants and in particular to Mrs. Haydon that is determinative
of her rights in that.regard. On that issue, and for the
reasons we have given, we are not prepared to challenge the
reasonableness of the employer's assessment that her abilities
are not in fact relatively equal to Mrs. Haydon's. In the
result and for the reasons given, this grievance must be denied.
Dated at Toronto this 13th day of May 1977.
D. M. Beatty
Chairman
I cor.cur
Mary Gibb
Member
I Concern
H. Simon
Member