The grievor’s position was discontinued and the Agency offered him another position, dependent on successful on-the-job training – the Agency terminated the grievor’s training prematurely – the grievor grieved a violation of the employment-transition provisions of his collective agreement and disguised discipline – the Agency objected to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction – the adjudicator found that, because the Agency was a separate employer designated under subsection 92(4) of the former Act for the purposes of its paragraph 92(1)(b), he had jurisdiction over the grievor’s claim of disguised discipline – he further found that, as the allegation of a breach of the collective agreement was covered by the grievance and had been discussed within the grievance process, he also had jurisdiction to entertain that part of the grievance – he determined that the allegation of disguised discipline was a sub-issue to the allegation of a violation of the collective agreement and that, in those circumstances, the grievor had the onus of establishing his grievance on a balance of probabilities – the adjudicator reviewed the Agency’s decision to declare the discontinuance of a function, the offer of employment extended to the grievor, the adequacy of the training plan and its termination, the Agency’s reasons in support of terminating the grievor’s employment and its failure to appoint the grievor at a lower level and found, on a balance of probabilities, no breach of the collective agreement and no sham or camouflage for discipline – in arriving at his conclusions, the adjudicator decided that an offer of indeterminate appointment subject to successful training constitutes a reasonable job offer under the collective agreement, that on-the-job training is appropriate training under the collective agreement and that the Agency’s right to appoint employees includes assessing whether they successfully complete the training leading to the appointment.