HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0325.Rambeau.14-02-05 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#2010-0325
UNION#2009-0499-0096
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Rambeau et al.) 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 Yolanda Watson
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING February 3, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the speedy
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.
[2] These grievances relate to the assignment of overtime on December 21, 2009. On that
date, management offered overtime opportunities to employees on the evening shift. The
Grievors had worked on the earlier day shift and grieved that the overtime, which was
worked at the conclusion of the evening shift, should have been offered to them.
Management acknowledged that they identified a possible need for overtime while the
grievors were still on shift, however, the extent of overtime it would require was not
determined until later in the day.
[3] In the Employer’s submission, overtime is offered as a last resort. On this occasion,
actual overtime requirements were not finalised until management determined how much
work would be left uncompleted at the end of the afternoon shift. Therefore, in their
submission, it was premature to offer overtime to anyone on the day shift. The Union
submits that the Employer was aware that they would be offering some overtime and they
should have offered it to those working the day shift when they first appreciated that they
would require some work to be done as overtime.
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I have determined that in the
circumstances of this case, the Employer did not violate the Collective Agreement and
the grievance should be dismissed.
- 3 -
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of February 2014.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair