Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0539.Baldwin and Lyng.88-04-13/-. : OPSEU (kldu1n a Lpag) and The Crown fn Right of Oncrrto (Winircty of rhc Cnvlromenc) N. Wicchnick J. SolbetS A.C. Staplecon T. Kadvcn Counrcl A.?. Tataruk COUnSal July 20, 19.47 September 2S, 1987 Employer DECISION The Oaard in an award dated April 10, 1987 found that the griovorr, on the bsrir of thr dutirr being prfotmrd by them in Harch of 1964, viro improperly clarrlfird at that time. The Board then loft it to thr partLea, in thr first inrtancr , to attempt to fashion a ruitable remedy. The parties in racmt months have gone a long way. through the introduction of a nev ‘Environmental Officer’ l orira, tovard resolving this and other outrtanding grirvancer having to do with thr vay in vhich the grirvors have been clasalfiad. Their currmt positions have beon more fully #et out in correepondence forvardad to thr aoard eincs the herring on Septembbrr 2Sth, and vhicb the 8oard doer not consider necrrrary to rrproduco, pirticularly aa the l xchanga of correspondence appeara to be continuing. I yor presant purposes, the only iseue for decision by tAr Board is the date to vhicb rotroactivo payment to ths grlavorr is to b* made under their 1984 griovanee, and the l videncm of nr. Baldvin (agrwd to dirpoeo of the irruo for Itr. Lyng as vifi) togrthor vith the relevant case lav in that regard has BOY been ilacrd before ua. The preront grievance vas filed on Harcb 16, 1984. Mr. Baldvin joined the Rinirtry of the lnvironmant in 1969, and for a period of aom year8 has been an officrr in the - 2 - Local Union, including President thereof. It was his V~CV that the expansion over time of the duties of the Environmental Tochnicianr btoup , of which nr. Baldwin and Hr. Lyng are members, had rendered the cla66ification standsrds for the series obsolete. Ur. Ssldvin ~6 avare that the Ministry in 1982, it would appear partly in response to the growing number of grievances, had embarked upon a field audit of the Environmrntsl Technician6 group in order to aonitor the usage and application of Classification Standards vlthin the group, and identify any positions which appeared to be classified either too high or too lov. At 6 meeting of the Employee Relations Committee in December of 1982 (from which the Union’s claim for retroactivity datas), IQ. Baldwin presented a brief to management on behalf of all of the employee6 in that group asking the Rinietry to go further and undertake a full revfev of the Cl6ssific6tion Standards themselves. The brief began: The purpose of this brief is to demonrtrate that the classification standards %wiroamental Tecbnicfsns’ presently do not reflect the changing duties of a significant number of the employees in the series. As a result, the numbNN of grievance6 from this series has increased substantially in recent years.~ The Government has, by auditing position6 in the series, begun a raviev; ve that this be expanded to include a request clarsiffcation review. We vish td submit this brief to demonstrate the need for a cl666ification -3- review to be conducted by thr Civil Service Commirrion and ve formally mako this -requert. and after setting out the ways in which the jobr had changed ovar time. concluded: Thr management rtsff present for thir meeting included Robert Bucnr, Director of Pertonnrl for the Irinirtcy, who normally attends such meetingr, and Grant nlllr, Director of the Central Region, who normally does not. When the employerr’ brirf had boon gone over, nr. nillr indicated that he felt the rubmiarion had merit, and urged that romething br done for the erployeor in that group. In conclurion, we fool that thir brief drmonrtratar the justification for a clarrification review and the Environmental Technicians in the ninirtry of the fnvironment, C*8p*ctfully request that the Clas6if&C8tiOn be revirved by tha Civil Service Commirrion. llr. 8urn8 himrolf mado BO commoat at the meeting. on rareh lj, 1983, howover, 111. Burnr wrote to Nr. Prank Wright. Chairman of the O.P.S.K.U. Employee Relations Group, rairiag-roar quoatioar and concerns about rho porition l rpresaed by Ilr. Brldvin at the Oecambar mrrting. The covorlng latter from It. Burns read: I am oncloring a rrsponro to the brief submitted on behalf of tnvironmeatal Officers concsrniog the Coviroamntal Technician Clasrification Standacdr. ; I I i . -4- The response la reflactive of the concern I raised at tha meting of December 16, 1982, when I pointed out that the 18~~66 raised did not encompaaa all within the aeriea, but rather po6itiona .concentratad on a 6616ct group. The text of the reaponaa then concluded on the following cautionary note: . . . (d) The brief la 1ntcnde.d the juatiflcation for .-. to dcionatrate a and the . . . claralrlcation review Environmental Technician6 1x1 thb ainiatry requbat that the cla6aification be reviewed by the Civil Service Commiaaion. (On these points, it should be noted that the factora concrrninq the unsuitability of the series are not reflective of a11 position6 tn the aeciea. Alao, the series, having been cra6ted by the ninfatry of the Snvironmmt and who are the predooinant users, would not.b6 reviewed by thb Civil Service Commiaaion unleaa it was recommended by the JUniatry that change6 v6re nace66ary). Mr. Baldwin teatifiod that he was not discouraged by that comment from Rr. Burna, however, as he knew an audit was ongoing. and trelieved the Xlniatry would find that h6 and his colleague6 uera-falling outride their claaaification atandacda, and would thua recommend the raviav ha aouqht.’ -5- On S6pteAber 7, hovrvor, nr. Baldwin received thr following response from Hr. Burns, through nr. Wright, to the rmployeoa’ request for a rrvirv: I . Thr quoation of the current validity of any class aetira la a matter that those of us who have been 1~ the compensation buainoaa iA thr Province for some considerablr prriod of time have had to live with. St has always bean recognized that a class rtandard cannot bo ell incluaivo in trrma of the vast variety of duties, reaponaibilitiea, and accountabil)tiea which rxirt to cover all applicetiona. Personnel Officeca must continually live with thb knowledge thet functions change, in some carma in priority, in some easer reaponaibility, and in some cares value. It la within this aroa of applying atandardr, just es you do IA your bualneaa, where jUdg6A6AtS must bo made. It la the opinion of this ninirtry that the atandarda which exist for the Lnvironmrntal Technicien l ecioa can bo rbadily interprrted in trrma of currant job requireaanta within the Iliniatry of the Environment. The letter thrn vent on to add: The iaaur as far as I am concerned la a i",i iaauo from your memberr point of view as you are fully aware, the area to &lve pay issues and inequitira la not throuqh changing class standards but rathrr through the Collective bargaining pcocaaa. The niniatry’r position with respect to the intorpcotatlon of tha class l taodarda has recently bOOA l tronqly~rr-enforced by grievance award 107/03 involving nichael 1. Parker from our Southveatr~n ROgiOA61 Office. if you have AOt received a copy of this award, I have - . enclosed J Copy fOC your infors6tiOn. I would draw perticularly to your attention, the second paragraph on page 7 where the Union’s position and the “fi;;t:; interprrtation ware outlined as : -It ia suggested on behalf of the qrievor thet the LT 4 claaaification series, which la dated April, 1975, la out of date because it has been overtaken by technological advancer aedb since that time end that thb reaultiriq higher level of technical COmpbtbnCb Cequirbd of the qrievor placer his position in the’ ET 4 classification. It seems to us that the Employer’s elbaa standard mat be conaidbred to be referable to the state of the art, that la, to the current stage .of development of their subject matter. It if were otherwise, the standards would be in constant change, which la surely a contrediction in terms.’ I believe the firm statement of the Public Service Grievance Board panel’s unanimous decision la a full confirmation of the poaitioo which haa been taken by my staff and I would reitbrate my earlier expression to you that I am not preparbd at this time to recommend to the Civil Service Commission that the standards be altered. Hr. Baldwin testified that he was disappointed with that response of the ?liniatry, but dbcided to take -m- Mr. Burn’s advice and pursue the matter through COlleCtiVe-beiqeiAiAg channels. Ee accordingly inquirbd of the 1984 union negotiating teas , when it had been formed, vhether,it would deal with thb matter of Clara Standards. nr. BAldwin received their response approximetely the end of December, 1983, end it vaa thet the way to pursue the matter -7- vaa not at the barqaininq table, but through Civil Service Commission review, or *other meana’r nr. 8aldvin was then ready to qribve. OA January 20, 1904, hovevec, Ur. BaldviA diacuaaed the entire rituation with one of the two Diatcict Officers ~ookinq after his office in Welland, and the Officer advised him that a broad review vaa currently under way, and urged fir. Saldvin to hold off. nr. Saldvin agreed. Subaequbntly, however, in further diacuaaiona with the District Officer and others. Rr. Baldwin leerned that the greviev~ under way would only involve the re-writing of job l pacificationa, and not a review of Clara Standards. Rr. 6eldviA accordinq~y dbcided to grieve, and did so on narch 16, 1964. Rr. Baldwin acknovledqea that manaqement itself never indicated to him that it felt he vea’improperly elaaaified, @Ad l cknovledqea that he could have grieved much earlier. 88 testified, however, that he chore not to because he felt there were non-adversarial mechaAiama that could be pursued. Be further stated that the first time he felt he bad gotten l o unequivocal %oa to hie qoeitioa was at the second stage of the grievance procedure, after he had grieved. Se added that an oarliar ‘audit. of his position had produced an l djuetment for him in 1975, and that up to the second stage of his grievance, thero were proceaaea under way which he felt could heve led to a aatiafactory resolution. : I I / . -8- The materiel proviaiona of the Collectfve agreement affecting thb quO6tiOA of retroJCtivity orb: 27 .l It is the intent of this Aqteement to adjust as quickly as possible any complaints or differbncea between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this Agreement, including any quOetiOA 66 t0 whether a matter is arbitrable. 27.2rl AA employee who bellevea he has a complaint or a diffbrencb shall first discuss the complaint or diffarencti with his auperviaor Within twenty (20) days of first becoming aware of the complaint or difference. The Board’s juriaprudbncs has interprbted from those provisions that the normal cut-off for the retroactive adjustment of a grievance is 20 days prior to the date that the grievance vaa actually filed. But the eases have, on the other hand, made it equally clear that.that la not a hard-and-fart rule. Aa expressed in Re Smith, for example, care #237/U, issued March 5, 196S, at pager 6 and 7: The usual rule la that, barring the existence of cirsumatancea which would make it inequitable for the JUniatry to rely upon it, retroactivity will be limitbd to the period of time within which it was perAiaaible for the qrievor to file his qrievence. In the case of this Collective Agreement, that period la 20 dayr prior to the day upon which the qrievaoce ectuelly was filed. See fi -9- OPSZU and niniatru of the Attorney-GbnOraL, G.S.S. 71/76, in which the Board atatedr- 'While it 16, in our ViOV, clear that the employer failed to coaply with the provisiona of Article 10.3 throughout the period from January 28, 1976, we do not believe that there l nployoea vho initiated their complaint only on Say 2S, 1976, mey properly claim relief throughout that prriod. TO the contrary, tnd to hold otherviae, would be to improperly penalize the employer tot the breach of an l qrebment of which it vaa not aware. Thus, vhero as here, the breach of the agreement la in the nature of a continuing one, boards of arbitration have conaiatently limited an employee’s right to claim damages for the bteach of the agreement to the period of time within which it vaa permiaaible to filb his qrlevence. Rer Union Gas Co. of Canada Ltd. . 2 L.A.C. (2d1 45 .~~~~.. ~~ (Ueatherill). -Rei Automatic Screv Hachine Products Ltd. (1972) r L.A.C. 396 (Johnatonf. Re: rational Auto Radiative nJAUfJCtUriAq Co. There VU nothing in the present case to indicate that claaaification cases were poaaeaaed of l ucb peculiar charactrrirtice a6 to render inapplicable this general rule. The Board then vent on to characterize the line of -- l exceptiona~ to that general rule as follows: IA spite of this, it woe auqqeatad in the l ubmi8aiona of the Wnion that for whatever reason, the Board refused to apply the rule in Re Booper and niniitry of Government Serv~cea, G.S.B. n/l7 Swan), and opted instead for retroactivity to the date upon which the - 10 - grievor made known to nanagement his scouplaint” reg5rdle55 of whether it was in the form of a grievance. Upon review, however, it does not appear that the case in question is at all inconsistent with what already has been said. In that case, the circumstances were Such as to makr it inequitsble for the Ministry to rely upon the rule. There, the Ilinistry took unilateral action in response to the griever’s complaint which might have resulted in the reclassification that he sought. The Board then continued: The fact6 of the present case do not appear to raise any similsr equity against the hinistry. To be successful, such an equity would have to be in the form of a promissory estoppcl, i.e., that the representations of Ms. bartin amounted to a clear and unequivocal promise to the grievor that all arpectr of the settlement of the 11 grievances, including retroactivity, would be applied across the rysten; that ~6. Martin intended the grievor to act in reliance upon this representation5 and, that the griever did act in reliance upon it in circumstance5 where it would bo inequitable to permit the ainistry from going back on the promise. See Central London Property Trust Eouse Ltd. 119741 Combo (19511 1 (Bratty), at pp. 6-8. And at page 8 concluded: In the present case, it does not appear that the representations which were made to the grievor by 165. llartin veto of such character as to r;;d:eany equity against the Hinistry. - 11 - remarkr vere not clear and they l ooma to have been of goneral nature. According . unquivocal; a broad, to the grlovor’r own testimony, thr rprcific question of rrtroactivity aover VII addrrrred. lot all that the l vidonco trndr to indicate, the trmarkr might xolrly have mounted to a rrprerentation that if a rhift to the clarrification of Social Worker 1: were to occur as a result of the grievances, that’rhift vould bo applied l croee the Board. Thir la, ln fact, uhat happened. . . . In fight of the above, it is the conclusion of the Board that thr circumtancee of the prrrent cam do not raise any equity against the Mnistry, and accordingly, the linistry ir entitled to rely upon the urual rule limiting recovery in the case of continuing violations of the Colloctlve Agreeaent. The facts ielating to retroactivity in & BooPer, referred to by the panel, are not fully set out. The rationale for the Boscd’l decision therein, hovever, ir~ret out at pagee 18 and lg. Attor riforring to the general rule ret out,.foc example, in Re Vukojo, above, the Board Vent oa to deJ1 with the exceptiona to that rule JJ follovrr : -- With respect, this care doer not limit recovery ln every l ituatioa to the date of filing a formal grievance. 8ece the gciavor had made his ‘complaint* on or befoco Septerbor 1, 1985 in the foci of a request for ceclassificatlon. BiS requeet apparently l t with at least tacit approve1 fro8 l vocyono concerned exempt the clarxiflcxtioa offLeon of the Civil Service Couiroion, who alone vere l npovered to uke the fia~l decision. In - 12 - such cir&JtJnce6, it wobld have been premJture fOC the gCiOVOC t0 file J fOCmJ1 gC.ieVJnCO Until it JppJJKOd thJt. his requert would be refused. Nev0rthe1e66, the evidence clearly establishes that the job content on which the pre6ent grievance is baaed existed before September 1, 1975 and that rerponrible officlJl6 of the Employer had received and were conridering the grievor~s request by thJt date. A8 none of the rubsequent delay in decirion-making can be laid to then grievor, he is entitled to be con6idered to be improperly clJ66ifiOd ae of September 1, 1975, and ve 60 find. Similarly, see u, CJse #&gg/94, issued nay 16, 1985, wherein the Board vcote, at page 8: The griJvor ha6 asked for COClJSJifiCJtiOn Jr Of March 2, date on vhich he YJS formally 1963, the cecla66ified as an Arboriculturirt 3. The grievance va6 not filed until June 4, 1964. But the evidence VJS Clear that the gcievor and hi6 8upervi6or6 vere extremely dirturbed by the cla6sification from the beginning, and the ceJ6on for the grievor'o delay WJS thJt his 6uporviJorJ continued to attempt to have the recla6JificJtfon corrected. It VJS ‘only when it appeared that nothing would help except an Jppeal'to thia Board that the grievor filed his grievance. In these circumstances, .the gcievor must be reclareifled as of Ilarch 2, 1983, and compensated for any 1088 he ruffered a6 a rerult of the incorrect clJJaificJtion. Thir line Of care6 vas a66erred Jnd again applied in the very recent ca6e of Re: Lovman, eJJe 113182 etc., celeJ6ed only on Augurt 10, 1987, and accordingly filed - 13 - vith us after our ovn heJcing. The Board runmarised the fact8 material to cetroactiVity in that c~80 JJ follov6r J$ pJge 4a The matter of the Grievora’ clJr6ification has been .an issue rinse veil before their entry into the bJrgaining unit. Variour sup0rvi6or6 supported their COqueSt for recla66ificJtion. After the Crievorr came into the bJrgJining unit Jnd CaiJed the issue of their ClJ66ifiCatiOn, they were advised that their Suporvi6or6 vece making cepce6entation6 to have their job6 recla66ified upward. It VJS only in the l umaer of 1981 thJt they vece Jdvirod that there vould be no change in clJ6Jification. Shortly thereafter, the grievaneor vere filed. ?rom there the Board aptly stated: In our viev, the circumstances in the instant case are not dissimilar from those in BOODer. The Grievor6 l xpre66ed diJJatiJfJCtion vith thelr ClJ8eifiCJtiOn to their respective supetvirors. Various Supecvl6orr made reprerentation6 on their hhXh;f,tO have their C~666ifiC6tiO~ . But the matter remained unresolved until the summer of 1961 vhen their reguests for reclarJification vere denied. Ia there circua6tance6, it vould bo 1nequitJble to limit cetcoJctlvity to the-tin. period CoC filing J grievance a6 the Gtievocr celled on the efforts of was rest entirely with the Grfe~orr. The lloo or decision has been folloved by the &a- in the c~ae of CuCnoV ind Nq, / . 1. - 14 - 635/64, 636/U (SJSU~~S) and vu1 also referred t0 in Smith, au rJ. line of jurirprfie eve oped by this a+ Given this BoJCd, it ir JppropriJte that the Grievers be conpenrated for the period of the delay but only since HJrCh 1, 1990 when they became members of the bargaining unit Jnd entitled to fiursue their claim. (Omphalil Jdded) The Board went on, however, to carefully delimit the nature of its response, and the cJses it felt it was following, with thi6~CJUtiOn: This 16 not to SUggOSt that an employee vho COmplJinS t0 a SUpOCViJOC and even ceceiver a sympathetic response can ignore the timl limits fOC filing a . grievance under the collective agreement. The CJse Jt hand i6 an UnUSUJl one in vhich nanagcment became actively involved in the Grievorr~ elsim and, by their OffOCtS, kept the claim JliVe over a long period of time. It 16 Only in these Un,igUO circum6tJnce6 thJt the Board has recognized anexception to the usual arbitral rule limiting the period of retroactive payment of CO~p~nSJtiOl, to the time for filing J grievance under the collective agreement. Theta was, before the GCieVJnCO Settlement Board on thie IIJP)~ point Jnd at the saac time a6 Re: Lowman, -m- the case of Re: Boyle, being #675/65, and which issued two days later than RO Lowman. The Board in Re BOYh aptly set out the compeffnq policy cOnSidOration6 which surround this issue of retrbactivity, Jnd more SpeCifiCJlly, of the kind6 - - IS - of circurJtance6 vhlch hrve led the Board to c6rve out exception6 to the ‘IO-day” rule. At pJg0 lf, the 8oaCd wrote, in Jddce66ing the i66uO Of a COtCOaCtiVO date: A more appropriate date would be July 24, 1984 vhen’thr XiniStCy did expect that a11 the clerks be ‘fully knovledgeJble' on ~11 of the four main functions. EOVOVOCr to ChOOSO thJt date would be to ignore that line of CJS~S vhich hJve limited compensJtion to a period 20,dayl prior to the dJte of,thr grievance. Those CaseJ reflect the viev thJt vhore thrre 16 a continuing cour6e of conduct vhich cJn be the 6ubject of a grievJnce Jt any time, i.e. a continuing grievance, ‘grievorr’ vho postpone their dociJion to grieve Jnd reek relief Jbould not be able to claim compensation COtCOJCtiVely to J point in ttmb when they could have but did not grieve. There are Sound policy reJson6 vhich support that approach. If there are diSpUtO6 or differracer brtwen the parties they should be aired and not permitted to 11mm.r. Yet there 16 a competing pollep vhich corn.6 into play la this case. That i6 the policy in favouc of rattling diSpUte6 short of invoking the grievJnce procedure and hJving r6course to the Grievance Setthment 6oJrd. A rigid application of the ‘20, day rule. vould discourage employee6 from 6tteapting through Kerr format BeJnJ to 66ttlJ their dirpufe. With respect to the facts before it, therefore, the Board wrote: In the inrt6nt case the employees began to have some concern6 in early 1985 about thOir'ClJ#JifiCatiOn. They had - 16,- known since July 1984 that they vere CO6pOn6ib~O for all Of the function6 although not ~11 of them had been trained at that time. BY the end of 1984 training had virtu6lly been completed on .rll, of the functions. In early 1985 attempt6 vere m6de to h6ve the position COC~JSSified by CeVCiting the po6ition specification in a VJY which would more Jccurrtely reflect the job JS it changed and submitting it to Personnel for ClJ66ifiCJtiOn. ThoSO effort6 vere unsuccessful but they should be applJuded. ClJ66ificJtiOn OffiCOrJ are far more competent thJn Ye are to ClJSSify job6 and t0 the OXtent that ClJSSifiCJtiOn disputO6 CJn be ce6olved by those most competent to do 60 the p6rtier should not be di6courJged from seeking relief through Juch informal meen6. Thus, ve do not believe it 6ppropriate to apply the 20 day rule vhere informal effort6 had been made to achieve a settlement Of a dispute short of recour66 to arbitrJtion. Those efforts should be ancouruged and, in the OVOnt that they are not 6UCCO66fUl in achieving 6ettlemmt Jnd it become6 . necerrary to grieve, such relief JS might bo avarded by the GrisvJnce Settlement Board rhould be retroactive to the point vhore rteps were firlt taken to rettle. the grievance informally. WQ agree vith those remarks, and do not find them inconslrtent with the pcinciple6 expressed by the Board in the cases precudlng.bh~cr management has been made fully avare of the complaint, and i6 actively in the proce66 of . ..~ cevieving..itr~ the parties vould bo little served by the BoJCd adopting a,porition which would force the employees concerned to “formal.i.6~.~,~, Jn~d~~potentiJlly.polarisrr the situation by gcieving~befoce.management has had the opportunity to render - 17 - it6 d.ci#iOn. In thr pt868nt Case thJt decirion vJ6 not in fact reJched Jnd com84unicat8d by the employer until Mr. Rurnr' l8tt.C of boptenber 7, 1983, JdViSing the grievorr, through the Union , no reviev action by management was about to br initiated, and that the matter would have to be pursued, it at ~11. through other ChJnnOlS. Certainly mJnJgement va6 aware of the nature of the gcievors~ clrim froa the time that it VJS rJi6.d in the meeting of December 16, i962, Jnd it ie impor6ible to see any unfair prejudice to the employer in taking that claim, which ultimately vas vindicJted, bJck to thrt date. With receipt of Hr. Burns’ letter on September 9, 1983, hovever, that period of COJSOnJblO forrbeJrance on the grievers’ pact came to an end. At that point, the Union knev vhat the l mployec~r anaver VJE, and the gcievocr.knev what StepI, apart from the po66ibility of Jchieving romothing through th? independent route of contrect negotiJtlon6, they hJd to tJk8. They did not decide to take thoao steps until Jpproxiutely JJnuary 20th. and Ye l ee nothing in thr-board’s case lav which would ruggrrt a policy bJsi6 for extending the period of retroectivity through thJt period of delay. - 18 - Mr. 8aldwin was, JS we said however, CeJdy to grieve on or Jbout JanUJCy 20, Y384. But there then occurred the intervention of the District Officer, and that, it #eem$. to US, ie not without further 'SignifiCJnce. It WJ(I the uncontradicted evidence of Ur. Baldwin that the District Officer at that point Jdvised nr. BJldvin that a further review VJS under way, and urged Mr. Baldwin to hold off until the ?!inistcy’s inVO#tigation was completed. NC. Baldwin complied, until further d!6cusJions made it-apparent that the review under WJy VJS going to atop short of the ClJSJ-StJndJCd problem that Xr. Ealdwin.w~6 seeking to havac -. w- addreseed. At that point, Hr. Baldwin filed the present .. grievence. once again, thereforer it seems to us rcJsonablc that the period of retroactivity ought to revert back 20 days from the point of thJt diseuuion on January 2Oth, when Hr. Baldvin othetviee vould have filed hie grievance, or in other VOCdS to JJnUJCy 1. 1984. It i6 accordingly our order that retcoactlvity for the present grievance date back to December 16, 1962, but excluding the period September 9 to December 31, 1983. DATED at Toronto thie 13th day of April,, 1988. ,. ..* * 1 .-I .,, It. G. Hitchnick, Vice-ChJlrmJn (Addendum Jctrchad) L ADDEXDIJU this IS an impOrtJnt md comm*ndab~m decision. For, in this weud, the 80Jrd has come down firmly on the side 04 those JUtn0riti.s who 9iv. some credence to pJrti.s trying to 69ttl. J di.PUt. informJlly end who JcknOuled90 the BOJPd’. r9span~ibility, under those clrcunetances, to be flex/ble when JSJeSSin9 J ClJi.8 for r.trOJCtivity. In my view, thJt kina of appruach encourages b.tt.r (Jnd more reJlistic) 1Jbour r.lJtionr. Hou.v.r , Jt the risk of appearing unaopreciative oi th. BcJrd’s VJlOr in this CJSQ, somethin more needs to be SJid. It ha, b.*n my .xp.ri.nC. thJt my claim ior retroactivity invariJbly invokes J recxtrtion of JrtlCl. 27.2.; which sp.Jks to the time firm. *Ithin Welch Jn l mo~0y.e mJy fl;e . 9rievJnc.. thi. is tne ClJUU upon which 8oUd8 have trJditionally relied to limit the term of l ny PbtPOJCtl v. pJym.nt. The BoJrd has used thi. b.nchmJrk in th. belief thrt to do othorwi.. would b. to ponJl!x. an l mployu tmpropmrly for br.Jch of Jn Jpreement of which it WJS unaww.. And, in 9MOrJ1, that’s probably a fJir l ouph bJl Jnci n9 of the interests at StJk.. But, vi th respect, that kind of reasoning fails in thr CJS. of l clJssificJtion pri.vJnc*. Let’s not forget what l ClJSeificJtion 9riwJnco is Jll JbOut. Quit* simply, it rrises when a group of rmployrmr l ssute that the cont.nt of their work hJs 0.~7 incorrectly l vJ1uJt.a and that the VJIU. of their work hae bomn incorrectly compeneatmd. In a us0 of this sort, therm nil 1 nwu bo any pmalty to the l mployrc; ouit. the contrJry, th. prejudice hJ. beon borne entirely by the employ.... All that’s hrppened to the l moloyer is thJt for J specified period of timo, it has had tkm bmn.fit of employee. at J cut-r&m cost. In my view, thJt’J why clJs.ificJtion 9rievJnce. hJw to b. viewed diff.r.ntly by thm Board. mo moment . Qroup Of l mploy~~r COKI. forward with J C1Ji.b that they have bun ilaproperIy ClJSSifiOd (whothor formally framed or otherwise), ie thm moment at vshicn an l ployer has bmm put on nOtiC0. Jnd .hould.th. grievance succeed, then th. bJlmcin9 of intersets surely makes J comp.llin9 U9ument for rrtroectivity bJck to the initiJ1 complJint.