HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0887.Isherwood.13-10-10 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#2012-0887
UNION#2012-0162-0006
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Isherwood) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Val Patrick
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Deborah Groves
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Counsel
HEARING October 7, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the speedy
disposition of grievances. Appendix 2 incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement
and confirms that where grievances are referred to the med/arb 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 mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2.
[2] The Grievor, Kristopher Isherwood, grieved a loss of hours following his voluntary transfer
due to health and safety concerns at his home store. He claimed a loss of 10 hours for each
of the 4 weeks that he was transferred, and the loss of one Sunday shift at premium rates at
the commencement of his transfer. The Grievor alleges that the loss of hours constituted a
reprisal for his refusal to work and was in contravention of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act. He did not attend the Arbitration, however, was advised that the matter would be
proceeding.
[3] The Employer confirmed that the Grievor’s previously scheduled hours for the first two
weeks following his transfer were honoured in accordance with the Collective Agreement.
The Grievor was not scheduled for Sunday hours at his regular store prior to his transfer;
therefore he was not guaranteed that shift. The Employer further maintained that the
Grievor did not suffer any loss of hours in the final two weeks. It maintained that the
Grievor would have been scheduled for 50.5 hours in his regular store, based on his
availability and seniority, and that he actually worked 51 hours in that same period.
Therefore, there was no loss arising from his transfer.
- 3 -
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that there is no violation of the
Collective Agreement or any other governing legislation. The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 10th day of October 2013.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair