HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0960.Carpenter.99-03-23OM;9RIo
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE
DE L’OWARK)
COMMISSION
RkGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
DE
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST; SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1.773 TELEPHONE/liLiPHONE : (416) 326-1388
180, RUEDUNDAS OUES’I; BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G lZ8 FACSlMlLE/TkkOPlE : (416) 326-1396
GSB #0960/98, 0961/98
OLB #382/97, 113/97
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Liquor Boards Employees’ Union
(John Carpenter)
Grievor
- and -
BEFORE
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Susan L. Stewart Vice-Chair
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
Julia Noble
Legal Counsel
Ontario Liquor Board Employees Uni&
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
Alison Renton
Counsel, Legal Services
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Employer
HEARING February 18, 1999
DECISION
There were two grievances before me, filed on behalf of Mr.
J. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter is employed in the position of
Building Maintenance Mechanic at the Durham warehouse. The
grievances both arise from claims to overtime opportunities. The
Union's position is that Mr. Carpenter ought to have been
offered overtime hours which were worked by agency employees
performing work in the Maintenance Mechanic classification. The
grievances proceeded pursuant to the expedited process
established by the Collective Agreement. There was no objection
to my jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievances.
Both grievances claim a violation of Article 6.6(b) of the
Collective Agreement. Article 6.6 provides as follows:
6.6 (a) Authorized work performed in excess
of the employee's normal work day
shall be paid at the rate of one
and one half (1 l/2) times the
normal hourly rate of the employee
unless otherwise provided in this
Agreement. All work performed on any second consecutive day of
overtime shall be paid at double
the employee's normal rate of pay.
It is understood that an employee
is to receive double rates when the
employee works on the employee's
second scheduled day off.
(b) Where there is a requirement for
overtime to be worked, it shall
first be offered to full-time
employees on a rotational basis.
Where sufficient personnel do not
volunteer, such overtime shall then be offered to permanent part-time
employees then to casual employees.
Failing sufficient volunteers,
(cl
Cd)
W
2
overtime would be assigned to the
least senior qualified employee.
Liquor Licence Inspectors, Field
Auditors, Systems Officers 1,
Systems Officers 2 and Systems
Officers 3 who perform authorized
work under Article 6.2 shall take
lieu days in payment of such
overtime work providing work
demands on Field Auditors, Systems
Officers 1, Systems Officers 2, and
Systems Officers 3 are such to
permit the Employers to grant such
lieu days no later than the end of
the second month following the
month in which the overtime
occurred. Where this is not the
case, persons in these
classifications shall be paid
overtime rates in accordance with
Article 6.6(a).
Where an employee is required to
work on a Sunday as part of that
employee's regular shift, the
employee is to be paid at the rate
of one and one half (1 l/2) times
the regular hourly rate of the
employee.
Where an employee is required to
work on a Sunday, provided the
Sunday is not part of the
employee's regular shift, the
employee shall be paid at the rate
of one and one half (1 l/2) the
regular hourly rate of the
employee. -7
The first grievance relates to four hours of work performed
on-each of four. consecutive days between March 24 and March 27,
1997. The warehouse operations were stopped during this period
for inventory purposes and the maintenance department took the
\ opportunity to engage in preventative maintenance. The work in
3
issue entailed the installation of new hydraulics on the conveyor
system. The work was performed by agency personnel
who worked from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the project and who
were licenced maintenance mechanics. While it was acknowledged
that as a Building Maintenance Mechanic Mr. Carpenter does not
ordinarily perform this particular work, it was noted that he
does possess qualifications in the area of hydraulics. He is
licenced as a stationary engineer. Ms. Noble directed my
attention to the position description for Building Maintenance
Mechanic which includes the following:
Assisting the installation, modification, trouble-
shooting, repair, overhaul or removal of the
material handling or other system/equipment
as directed.
In this regard, Ms. Renton referred to the fact that the position
description for Maintenance Mechanic refers to the more
encompassing responsibility of:
Installs new or replacement equipment.
The issue between the parties is whether Mr. Carpenter was
qualified to perform the work in question., Given,that he does
not ordinarily perform this precise kind of work and given the
distinction in the job descriptions of the two classifications
set out above I. am unable to conclude that the Union has
established that he was qualified to perform the work.
Accordingly, I am unable to find a violation of Article 6.6 (b)
of the Collective Agreement and the grievance is therefore dismissed.
4
I turn now to Mr. Caprenters's second grievance. This
grievance relates to twelve hours of overtime worked on each of
September 6 and 7, 1997. The work involved the repositioning of
the clutch on the conveyor system and included some welding work.
Mr. Carpenter was required by the Employer to become qualified as
a welder and he did so. The work was again performed by agency
employees who were licenced maintenance mechanics. Reference was
made to work performed by Mr.. Carpenter which was claimed to be
similar in nature to the kind of work in issue here, however
there was no claim that this precise kind of work was ordinarily
assigned to Building Mechanics. Again, I am not persuaded that
the Union has satisified its onus of establishing that Mr.
Carpenter was qualified to perform the work in issue and thus
that he was entitled to the overtime work. Accordingly it is my
conclusion that no violation of Article 6.6 (b) of the Collective
Agreement has been established and the grievance is therefore
dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 1999.
S.L. Stewart, Vice-Chair