Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0733.Pavlakovic et al.07-04-23 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2005-0733, 2005-0734 UNION# OLB229/05, OLB230/05 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pavlakovic et al.) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Jean Chaykowsky Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Pamela Checkley HR Manager Liquor Control Board of Ontario HEARING April 18, 2007. 2 Decision The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding grievances. Appendix 2 incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement and confirms that where grievances are referred to the mediation/arbitration process, the parties will attempt to reach a mediated resolution, failing which the Vice Chair will issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly referred for expedited mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2. These grievances relate to the Employer’s procedure for approving vacation requests. The Employer has advised employees that it will only schedule vacations that are less than a full week after it has considered requests for full week blocks. As a result, when a senior employee submits a vacation request that includes single days, all or part of that request might be considered after vacation is awarded to a more junior employee. The grievors allege that this violates Article 8.10 and 8.11 of the Collective Agreement. The grievors were not in fact denied any vacation requests and therefore do not seek an individual remedy. The Employer did not suggest that the approval process was required to prevent disruptions in its operations. Rather, it was submitted that the current practice was in aid of ensuring a satisfactory distribution of vacation for all of its employees. It did not dispute, however, that Article 8.10 and 8.11 require that vacation time be approved in order of seniority. Although I appreciate that the Employer is attempting to generate a vacation schedule that satisfies as many employees as possible, this Board has considered Article 8.10 and 8.11 and determined that it establishes “a scheme whereby employees will, on the basis of seniority, indicate and obtain their summer vacation preference. There are only two caveats to the selection of vacation periods: First, that the employer’s operations not be disrupted. And second, that all employees receive at least two consecutive weeks of vacation between May and October.”1 1 OLBEU (Elford/Sabourin) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario( Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 814/92., 815/92 (Kaplan), at p.22 3 The Employer in this case did not suggest that their current practice was necessary to avoid disruption to their operation nor to ensure that their other obligations under the collective agreement could be met. The Employer must consider and approve all vacation requests in order of seniority without regard to the length of the request. The Employer can restrict vacation entitlement to ensure that its operations are not disrupted, however, that determination must be made in each individual case in a manner that respects the seniority rights that are accorded in Article 8.10 and 8.11. The grievance is allowed. Dated at Toronto the 23rd day of April 2007 Reva Devins, Vice-Chair