HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0958.Caldarola.99-04-13EMPLOY& DE L4 COURONNE
DE L’OKTARK)
COMMISSION DE
RCGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST; SUl?ESOO, TORONTO ON MiG lZ8 TELEPHONElTiLiPHONE : (416) 326- 1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST; BUREAU 800, TORONTO (ON) A&G lZ8 FACSIMILEfT~LkOPIE : (416) 326-1396
GSB #0958/98
OLB #3 57/96
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Liquor Boards Employees’ Union
(Joe Caldarola)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE Susan L. Stewart Vice-Chair
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
Don McDermott
Grievance Officer
Ontario Liquor Board Employees Union
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
John D. Harris
Manager, Employee Relations
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING March 26,1999
DECISION
The grievance before me was filed on behalf of Mr. J.
Caldarola and relates to the loss of an overtime opportunity.
This matter proceeded pursuant to the expedited process in the
Collective Agreement. There was no objection to my jurisdiction
to hear and determine the grievance.
The issue to be determined is whether an overtime
opportunity was "offered" to Mr. Caldarola in accordance with
*Article 6.6 (b) of the Collective Agreement. On Friday, November
16, 1996, an overtime opportunity became available for Saturday,
November 17, 1996. A message was left for Mr. Caldarola at 2:30
p.m. advising of the overtime opportunity and requesting that Mr.
Caldarola call as soon as possible. Mr. Caldarola was scheduled
to work at 4:00 p.m. that day and arrived at work at around 3:30
p.m.- He became aware of the overtime opportunity but at that
point he was advised that he was not eligible for the overtime
because he had not responded within a half hour. Mr. Caldarola
was unaware of the half hour requirement. The Union was also
unaware of the half hour requirement. The Employer has since
provided the Union with a copy of its written guidelines
governing overtime opportunities.
At the hearing I made an oral ruling allowing the grievance.
While it is readily apparent that efficiencies must govern a
process such as canvassing overtime opportunities, if a rule such
as the rule here is to be applied to deprive an employee of an
opportunity to work overtime it is only reasonable that notice of
such a rule be provided. In the circumstances here such notice
was not provided and I am not persuaded that the grievor was
given an llofferf' within the language of the Collective Agreement.
Mr. Caldarola is entitled to his claim for a shift at the
overtime rate and I retain jurisdiction to deal with any
difficulties the parties may experience in implementing this
decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of April , 1999
S.YStewart
,LW& A .__ - Vice-Chair