GSB#2009-1454

UNION#2008-0378-0110

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Knight)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Adrienne Couto Liquor Control Board of Ontario Counsel

HEARING

February 3, 2011 and February 11, 2011.

Decision

The Proceedings

1This grievance is one of a number of grievances arising out of a job posting in September 2008. The Employer, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (hereafter “LCBO”) posted five vacancies for Warehousepersons at its Durham Retail Service Centre (hereafter the “Durham Warehouse”). The grievor, Marlon Knight, was senior to four of the five successful candidates. The Union, Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union grieves on his behalf that it was a breach of the collective agreement for the LCBO to have passed over the grievor in awarding the posted jobs. The applicable collective agreement provision is found at article 21.5(a) which reads as follows:

21.5 (a) Where employees are being considered for promotion, seniority will be the determining factor provided the employee is qualified to perform the work.

2The LCBO takes the position that the grievor was not “qualified to perform the work” because of his extensive absenteeism. For its part, the Union says that the grievor was qualified to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position, as he had been doing the job in a casual or seasonal capacity for a number of years, having been an employee since 2001. Those arguments are dealt with more extensively below.

The Facts

3This matter proceeded largely by agreed statement of facts. The parties also called viva voce evidence. I have carefully considered all of the evidence, but only advert to some of it in the following summary.

4The job posting included the following requirements:

“Applicants must meet the following basic requirements:

(a) satisfactory past work performance

(b) satisfactory discipline and attendance record

5Mr. Vic Araujo was the General Manager of Operations of the Durham Warehouse. He was responsible for selecting the successful applicants for the five posted positions. No interviews were conducted. Mr. Araujo reviewed a summary package prepared by the Human Resources Department, the applicants’ employee file and the employees’ WSIB files and medical notes files as applicable. He determined whether each applicant met the following criteria:

1. Must have previous experience at the Warehouse Worker 3 level or related work experience.

2. The position requires forklift skills.

3. Ability to work in tier and tunnel picking areas at heights up to eight (8) storeys.

4. Ability to lift weights of up to sixty (60) pounds on a repetitive basis.

5. Ability to stand for prolonged periods of time and ability to work in isolation.

6. Knowledge of material handling procedures and safe working practices.

7. Satisfactory discipline record.

8. Satisfactory attendance record.

6He assessed each of the criteria as having been met, not met or marginal, where the applicant only just met the criteria under consideration. Paragraph 29 of the Agreed Statement of Facts summarizes that approach to assessing the attendance criterion and paragraphs 30 and 31 summarizes how he applied his assessments:

29. With respect to the qualification of a “satisfactory attendance record”, and as set out in Mr. Araujo’s guideline entitled “Attendance Criteria for Promotion”, attached as Exhibit 8, an applicant received a:

1. “Y” if, in the 3 years preceding October, 2008, each year the employee was absent 15 days or less due to illness or a without pay absence (“WPO”).

2. “M” if, in the 3 years preceding October, 2008, the applicant had acceptable attendance (i.e. less than 15 days absent due to illness or WPO) for 2 of the 3 years.

3. “N” if, in the 3 years preceding October, 2008, for 2 years or more the applicant was absent for 15 days or more due to illness or WPO days.

Absences due to emergency leave, bereavement leave, paid or unpaid authorized leaves of absence and WSIB related absences were not included in assessing the applicant’s attendance and were not included in the “15 day count”. In addition, Mr. Araujo considered the following in assessing whether an applicant would receive a “Y”, “M”, or “N”:

4. Absenteeism patterns

5. Whether the employee’s attendance had improved

30. If an applicant was noted as having all “Y’s” (yes’) with respect to all eight (8) qualifications, the applicant was promoted. If the applicant had up to two (2) “M’s” (marginals), but otherwise had all “Y’s” (yes’), the applicant was promoted. If the applicant had more than two (2) “M’s” or any one (1) (no), they would not be promoted. This is set out in Mr. Araujo’s notes entitled “Qualifications to Promote”, attached as Exhibit 9.

31. Mr. Araujo started his review with the most senior applicant and progressed through each of the applicants by seniority (from most to least senior) until the five (5) positions were filled.

7Mr. Araujo determined that the grievor’s attendance record failed to meet the standard being applied; that is, a maximum of 15 days per year in the three preceding years. Mr. Araujo testified that 15 days was adopted as the standard because that is the number of attendance credits to which an employee is entitled under the collective agreement. The three year period was chosen because discipline and letters are expunged from an employee’s file after three years.

8The grievor’s attendance record is as follows:

 Year Sick Days Days Absent without Total
 (paid and unpaid) pay for reasons
 other than sickness
 2001 .5 --- .5
2002 11.07 --- 11.07
2003 11.17 4.1 15.27
2004 23.15 4.7 27.85
2005 16.1 9.8 25.9
2006 17. 14.6 31.6
2007 33.7 14.6 48.3
2008 15.8 9. 24.8
2009 31.9 17.6 49.5
2010 1. 3. 4.

9The cut-off date for purposes of the job competition was October 19, 2008. As at that date, the grievor had been absent a total of 24.8 days in 2008. The data before and after the relevant period was put into evidence in anticipation of the Union’s position that the grievor’s absences were uncharacteristically high during the relevant period.

10The Durham Warehouse has an attendance management program. The grievor received seven letters pursuant to that program between February 2003 and February 8, 2010. In his annual performance appraisals for 2006, 2007 and 2008 the grievor’s attendance/punctuality was rated at “poor performance” with the notation “attendance must improve”.

11In a Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts, the grievor’s absences were further outlined as follows:

Absences of August 27, 2007 to September 11, 2007

1 The Grievor was absent from work, without authorization, from August 27 to September 11, 2007. During this period, the Grievor called security each day and reported that he was "sick". He did not provide any documentation confirming that he was sick in respect of this period. The Grievor's supervisor in respect of this period was Charles Edison, Order Processing Manager of the Durham Retail Service Centre (the "Durham Warehouse").

2 By letter dated September 5, 2006 (misdated), the Grievor was advised that disciplinary action may be taken against him as a result of his unauthorized absence from work commencing August 27, 2007. He was further requested to provide a written statement explaining this matter. A copy of the letter dated September 5, 2006 is attached as Document 1.

3 By letter dated September 10, 2007, the Grievor responded to the LCBO's letter dated September 5, 2007. In this letter, the Grievor advised that he was aware of his "absences at work over the past two weeks" and the "reason for [his] continued absence is due to personal reasons." The Grievor further advised that he understood "the impact [his] absences may have caused to the successful operations of the company" but he "needed the time off due to excessive reasons beyond my control". The Grievor also advised that he was "now ready to continue to be a productive and hard worker as I have always been." A copy of the letter dated September 10, 2007 is attached as Document 2.

4 By letter dated September 14, 2007, the LCBO acknowledged receipt of the Grievor's letter dated September 10, 2007 and further advised that a meeting was scheduled for September 21, 2007 to discuss the Grievor's unauthorized absence from August 27, 2007 to September 11, 2007 with the Grievor and his union representative. A copy of the letter dated September 14, 2007 is attached as Document 3.

5 On September 21, 2007, a meeting was held with the Grievor and his union representative. Mr. Edison and Mr. Neil Lenihan, Human Resources Manager, attended at the meeting on behalf of the employer. At the meeting, the Grievor advised that he and his partner were going through "a lot of things", that they were "splitting up" and that there were "financial things like mortgage" and a "lot of arguments and fighting." The Grievor advised that he had been absent from August 27, 2007 to September 11, 2007 because he "had to see people", "talk to people" and was "stressed out". He stated that this was not an "ongoing occurrence". Further details of the meeting of September 21, 2007 are contained in the notes taken by Mr. Lenihan and Mr. Edison, dated September 21, 2007, attached as Documents 4 and 5, respectively.

6 The Grievor did not request any accommodation, leave of absence or time off with respect to the issues he identified at the meeting of September 21, 2007. Further, the Grievor did not indicate that he required further time off or would be absent in the future in respect of the issues identified at the meeting of September 21, 2007. Rather, the Grievor indicated that the issues he had been experiencing were resolved and that he would not be absent in the future due to same.

7 Following the meeting of September 21, 2007, by letter dated September 26, 2007, the LCBO issued to the Grievor a letter of counsel regarding his unauthorized absence from work from August 27, 2007 to September 11, 2007. A copy of the letter of counsel is attached as Document 6.

Absences of late June to July 2008

8 In or around late June, 2008 to early July, 2008, the Grievor advised Mr. Edison that he required two (2) to three (3) days off due to personal reasons involving the Grievor's girlfriend and legal proceedings in respect of the Grievor's domestic situation. Two days of vacation were granted on July 8, 2008 and July 9, 2008 in respect of this request.

9 Mr. Edison was not the Grievor's supervisor at the time he made the above-noted request.

10 At the time of the Grievor's request, Mr. Edison advised the Grievor of the availability of the Employee Assistance Program and encouraged him to call the Program. Mr. Edison has no knowledge as to whether the Grievor did, in fact, call the Employee Assistance Program.

11 Other than for the two (2) to three (3) days noted in paragraph 8 above the Grievor did not request a leave of absence, further time off (as vacation days or otherwise), or request any accommodation in respect of his personal situation or his reported "stress".

Grievor's discussions with Charles Edison regarding his Personal Situation

12 The only discussions that the Grievor had with Mr. Edison regarding his personal situation are those that occurred in September, 2007 and June/July, 2008, as described above.

12Mr. Araujo gave evidence regarding the process he followed in assessing the candidates and the importance to operations of reliable attendance by the warehousepersons. Costs are incurred when product is not received efficiently and when product is not shipped when planned. Absences contribute to such costs. He also explained his assessment of the grievor’s attendance as well as his assessment of the attendance of the successful applicants. He said that attendance had always been a factor in awarding such promotions.

13Mr. Araujo agreed in cross-examination that the busy period for the warehouse is from April to December, and during that period both full-time and seasonal employees, like the grievor, work full-time hours. Accordingly, the impact on operations of absences of seasonal employees, like the grievor, is no different than the impact of absences of full-time employees. He also agreed that seasonal, full-time and casual warehousepersons all perform the same job and all could be assigned anywhere in the warehouse. There was also no question that the grievor was able to do all aspects of the warehouseperson’s job. He was said to have done it well and faithfully, but for his absences, since 2001.

14As to the attendance management program, the program applies similarly to seasonal and full-time employees. Mr. Araujo said that the denial of the promotion of seasonal employees to full-time positions because of poor attendance had nothing to do with their ability to perform the functions or duties of their job of warehouseperson.

15Mr. Araujo was also asked about the extent of his knowledge of the grievor’s personal situation that might have accounted for some of his absences. Those circumstances are largely dealt with in the supplementary statement of facts set out above.

16Mr. Araujo was asked about one of the successful applicants who had had absences excused which related to his marital break-up. That employee had provided proof to his manager of various appointments and court dates that required his absence from work and was given leave. Mr. Araujo also said that if there were no such specific leaves required, but rather the absences resulted from needing time off due to the stress of the situation, an employee should ask for an unpaid leave of absence so that the LCBO could arrange in advance for a replacement. Such requests are required to be in writing.

17The grievor also testified. He said that his relationship difficulties led to absences from work. He said that he told a supervisor, Charles Edison, that he had banking issues to deal with and that he was stressed out. That took place in August 2007. The grievor received a letter of counselling in September 2007 regarding an unauthorized absence. That letter was signed by Mr. Edison and includes the following:

During our meeting you stated that you were going through some stressful events in your life. You stated that you did not want to come in because you were stressed out. As we discussed during our meeting you were calling into security on most days indicating that would be absence due to sickness.

18In June 2008 the grievor told Mr. Edison that he would need to miss three days off for banking and a domestic issue. The grievor did not elaborate in his evidence. His evidence was to the effect that he is one to guard his privacy. Mr. Edison gave him the telephone number of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). He was in touch with the EAP every two weeks or so. He did not give Mr. Edison any details. The grievor took a day off in August 2008 for a court appearance. He did not tell Mr. Edison or Mr. Araujo because he thought it would affect his job. His evidence was generally to the effect that he was under significant stress. He did not apprise Mr. Araujo of his situation until January 2009, after the job competition.

19The grievor said that the majority of his absences were related to the stress he was under from his domestic situation. Some absences were for appointments related to his situation, but generally the quality of his work suffered and he would call in sick when he was particularly under stress. He had bills to pay and could not take a leave of absence without pay so he went to work when he was capable and called in sick when he was not.

The Submissions of the Parties

20The Employer submitted that it may, subject to any specific provisions in the collective agreement to the contrary, establish reasonable qualifications for a position and that its decision should be given deference. It also submitted that regular attendance was a reasonable qualification for a full-time warehouseperson. Further, a pattern of absenteeism supports an inference of future poor attendance until a reasonable standard of attendance is achieved for a reasonable period of time. Such an inference can only be rebutted by the Union with cogent evidence. Further, the Employer said that it is established GSB jurisprudence that attendance is a reasonable criterion in making an assessment, pursuant to article 21.5(a).

21The Employer said that employee absences have the same impact whether it is casual, seasonal or full-time employees who are absent. Additional costs are incurred by way of overtime or hiring of temporary workers. Absences may result in certain lines being shut down in the warehouse. Delays in the receipt of product may result in demurrage charges, and delays in shipping product to the stores may result in costs thrown away due to the under-utilization of employees in the stores to which product has not been delivered when expected. Accordingly, absenteeism is a problem, with real cost consequences to the Employer.

22It was also submitted that article 21.5(a) must be seen in context. It is Appendix 4 that applies to the LCBO Logistics Facilities, including the Durham Warehouse. Article 4-3.1 of Appendix 4 applies specifically to this situation. That article reads as follows:

4-3.1 Promotion of a Seasonal employee to a permanent full-time vacancy, at the entry level, shall be in accordance with Article 21.5(a). An employee assigned to such position shall also be covered by Articles 21.8(a) and (b).

The promotion of a seasonal employee to a full-time position is to be contrasted with movement from casual to seasonal status, which is governed by article 4-4.1:

4-4.1 Casual employees who work for seven hundred (700) hours or more, exclusive of overtime, in any consecutive twenty six (26) week period shall thereafter be considered to be seasonal employees.

23It was said that the importation of article 21.5(a) introduces the notion of being “qualified to perform the work” which is not required when moving from casual to seasonal status, even though the warehouse work being performed by all three classifications is identical. “Qualified” must mean more than just being able to do the tasks of the position and may reasonably include an assessment of attendance and discipline. Mr. Araujo’s evidence was that attendance had always been considered in promotions of the type under consideration here.

24It was also submitted that seasonal employees do not have the same guarantee of hours as do full-time employees. Given the requirement of full-time employees to work 37.5 hours per week, a good attendance record as a seasonal employee is a prediction of success as a full-time employee. The Employer also reviewed other terms of the collective agreement noting the differences between seasonal and full-time employees.

25The employer also submitted that the standard of attendance used by Mr. Araujo was reasonable. The grievor fell far short of meeting that standard of fewer than 15 days absent in each of the preceding three years. It was reasonable to infer that the absences would continue. Although the grievor said the majority of absences were because of the breakdown of his spousal relationship, there was no cogent evidence as to the degree to which those circumstances contributed to his poor attendance. It said that the Union had not rebutted the presumption that the absenteeism would continue. Further, his explanation for his absences only covered August 2007 to 2009, and his excessive absenteeism predated that period. He had received numerous warnings that his attendance had to improve, yet it did not. Accordingly, the grievor was not qualified for the position, and his application for the position was rightfully passed over.

26The Union had two branches to its analysis. First, it said that attendance was not an appropriate criterion of qualification to do the work of warehouseperson. Second, even if it were, it was unreasonably applied to the grievor.

27The Union submitted that article 21.5(a) is not a competition clause. That clause should be strictly construed where seniority rights are involved, especially where, as here, the duties and functions of both positions are identical. Further, it was submitted that seasonal employees often work full-time hours, and there is no different impact on the Employer between an absent seasonal employee and an absent full-time employee. The Union submitted that discipline might be an appropriate qualification because it has an impact on the performance of the job. It said that attendance is not a reasonable qualification since employees’ absenteeism does not impact their ability to perform the tasks of the job. Here the grievor has been doing the same job working essentially the same hours and cannot be said to be unqualified to do the job. The standard being applied must relate to the job being filled, and good attendance does not relate to the job of warehouseperson.

28The Union also submitted that no deference was due to the employee’s decision if it was a breach of the collective agreement.

29In the alternative, the Union said that the assessment of the grievor’s attendance record did not give sufficient consideration to his individual circumstances. It said that he was forthright with Mr. Edison about the reasons for his absences. Those explanations were not evident on his file as considered by Mr. Araujo during the job competition.

30In reply, the Employer submitted that the case law supports good attendance as a job qualification. Manifestly, an employee is not able to do the job if he/she is absent. Also, there is not a substantive difference in using disciplinary records and performance records in promotion situations. In addition, some of the Union’s cases relate to situations where exceptional attendance is required. Here, it is reasonable attendance that is required as a qualification.

31The Employer also said that the Union’s differentiation between discipline and attendance as qualifications is not supported by the collective agreement language here. Under this collective agreement, casual employees move to seasonal employee status with the passage of time. Neither discipline nor poor attendance stands in the way. There is a different standard when moving from seasonal to full-time and both discipline and attendance are relevant considerations.

32As to the fact that the grievor’s explanations were not on file, they could excuse so few days that there could be no impact on Mr. Araujo’s considerations.

33The parties relied upon the following authorities: Brown & Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th ed.); General Dynamics Canada v. Independent Union of Defense Contractors (Lynch Grievance) (2006), , 150 L.A.C. (4th) 41 (Brown); Commercial Bakeries Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 461 (Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector) (Power Grievance) (2001), , 96 L.A.C. (4th) 50 (Newman); Re I.T.T. Communications, Division of I.T.T. Canada Ltd. and I.B.E.W., Loc. 2038 (1973), , 4 L.A.C. (2nd) 420 (Flynn); Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto and C.U.P.E., Local 2316 (1990), 11 L.A.C. (4th) 403; OLBEU (Miller) and LCBO, GSB No. 348/82 (Samuels); OLBEU (Sam) and LCBO, GSB No. 0936/98 et al (Dissanayake); OPSEU (Union Grievance) and Ministry of Transportation, GSB No. 0211/02 (Brown); Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. and I.A.M. Lodge 1522 (Bowers), [2002] C.L.A.D. No. 65 (Chapman); Goodyear Canada Inc. and U.S.W.A., Local 189 (Forsey), [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 1045 (Tims); Northside Community Guest House and C.U.P.E. Local 1876 (1991), , 18 L.A.C. (4th) 353 (Outhouse) (N.S.); St. Vincent’s Guest House and C.U.P.E. Local 1082, Re (1992), , 24 L.A.C. (4th) 129 (Christie); Mike Doyle’s Gardner Motors Inc. and U.S.W.A. (1995), 48 L.A.C. (4th) 41 (Carrier); British Columbia Ferry Corp. and B.C.F.M.W.U. (re) (1999), , 81 L.A.C. (4th) 129 (Albertini); Delta Faucet Canada and U.S.W., Loc. 2699 (Siegler) (Re) (2006), , 152 L.A.C. (4th) 310 (Burkett); Dashwood Industries Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 1-500 (Ellis Grievance) (2007), 161 L.A.C. (4th) 124 (Newman) (Ontario); OLBEU (DeBonis) and LCBO, GSB No. 113/85, 116/85, 117/85 (Forbes-Roberts); OLBEU (Bechard) v. LCBO, GSB No. 0900/97 (Watters); OLBEU (Dyer) v. LCBO, GSB No. 506/80 (Saltman);

Decision

34The starting point is, of course, the provisions of the collective agreement. The grievor was a seasonal employee at the Durham Warehouse when he applied for a full-time position at the warehouse. Accordingly, Appendix 4 of the collective agreement applies. Certainly, the individual terms of the agreement are to be viewed in the context of the agreement as a whole. For the sake of convenience, section 4-3.1 and 21.5(a) are as follows:

4-3.1 Promotion of a Seasonal employee to a permanent full-time vacancy, at the entry level, shall be in accordance with Article 21.5(a). An employee assigned to such position shall also be covered by Articles 21.8(a) and (b).

21.5 (a) Where employees are being considered for promotion, seniority will be the determining factor provided the employee is qualified to perform the work.

Employees at the warehouse start as casual employees. As per article 4-4.1, seasonal status is obtained by working 700 hours in any consecutive 26 week period:

4-4.2 Casual employees who work for seven hundred (700) hours or more, exclusive of overtime, in any consecutive twenty six (26) week period shall thereafter be considered to be seasonal employees.

35It is agreed that all warehousepersons, whether of casual, seasonal or full-time status, perform the same duties. Given that casual employees become seasonal employees automatically and seasonal employees become full-time employees in order of seniority, if qualified to do the work, some meaning must be ascribed to those words. The Union says that “qualified to do the work” is a reference to the duties and responsibilities of the warehouseperson position. However, there is no dispute that there is no difference in the job duties of a casual, seasonal or full-time warehouseperson. Accordingly, the Union’s interpretation would effectively read those words out of the collective agreement.

36In many of the cases relied upon, both discipline and attendance have been held to be considerations that amount to being qualifications. An example of discipline being treated as such is found in OLBEU (Miller) and LCBO, supra, at page 4, as follows:

We do not agree with counsel for the grievor when he suggests that the disciplinary record can never be considered for purposes of promotion. In our view, it all depends on the language of the collective agreement concerning promotion. In our case, the agreement requires that the applicant be “qualified to perform the job”. If there are elements of the disciplinary record which bear on the applicant’s qualifications to do the job, then these elements can be considered. The disciplinary record per se is not relevant, but there may be matters in this record which do assist the employer to judge the applicant’s qualifications to do the job. . . .

37A similar analysis applies with respect to the grievor’s attendance record. It is not the record per-se which is relevant, but rather matters in the record which assist the Employer to judge the applicant’s qualifications to do the job.

38Here, the job promotion is from seasonal to full-time in essentially the same job. The full-time job requires a commitment to regularly work 37.5 hours per week. There are many enhanced terms and conditions of employment with the achievement of full-time status. Given that the position under consideration involves, at its core, a commitment to work full-time hours, it was more than reasonable for the Employer to require a satisfactory attendance record as part of the qualifications for the job in the job posting, and to consider the attendance record of the grievor, as it did.

39The second step in the analysis is a consideration of whether there are matters in the record which assist the Employer to judge the grievor’s qualifications to do the job. As set out in the agreed facts and in Mr. Araujo’s viva voce evidence, the Employer went through the attendance record and did not include absences due to emergency leave, bereavement leave, paid or unpaid authorized leaves of absence and WSIB absences. Having calculated the grievor’s net attendance record, Mr. Araujo applied a reasonable rule as to determine whether the resultant attendance record was satisfactory. Both the fifteen days absence per year and the three preceding year period were derived from the collective agreement. The cut-off date was October 19, 2008. On the evidence at the hearing, the grievor had not met the standard since calendar year 2002.

40The Union also said that the grievor had absences related to a separation from his spouse. Having considered the evidence, I find that days directly attributable to those circumstances and brought to the Employer’s attention would not alter the outcome even if taken out of the record. The grievor believed that the majority of days of absence from June 2007 to 2009 related to his domestic circumstances. Even taking that as so, these were days that were taken as sick days, not as authorized leaves. He candidly said that these circumstances were not brought to the Employer’s attention because to do so would have had a financial cost to the grievor. Further, one absence in 2007 resulted in a letter of counselling. The importance of satisfactory attendance was brought to the grievor’s attention on many occasions to no avail, and no adequate explanation for a sufficient number of the absences was given to the Employer.

41In all of the circumstances, it was appropriate to consider the attendance records of the applicants for the full-time warehouse jobs and to require that the record be satisfactory. The job at issue is a full-time position and it was appropriate to make an assessment of the candidates’ qualifications as it related to their commitment to work full-time hours. The standard applied to make the assessment was reasonable and it was reasonably applied to the grievor.

42The grievance is dismissed.