HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0769.Delorme.14-04-15 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#2010-0769, 2010-0770, 2010-0771, 2010-0772, 2010-2201, 2010-2202
UNION#2010-0499-0024, 2010-0499-0027, 2010-0499-0036, 2010-0499-0037, 2010-0499-0045,
2010-0499-0081
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Delorme) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Jean Chaykowsky and Frank Inglis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pam LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING April 8, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick
disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding disputes. 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] The Grievor seeks payment at a premium rate for the time he spent responding to Notices
of Intention to Discipline (NOID’s). The Grievor received the NOID’s at home and
prepared his responses on his own time. He does not have access to a personal computer
and therefore attended at a public location to prepare his response. On each occasion he
spent between 1.5 to 3.5 hours traveling, preparing and forwarding his response. He
acknowledged that some of the NOIDs were duplicates of letters for which he had
already prepared a response, however, he was of the view that a separate response was
required for each delivery.
[3] The Employer acknowledged that it had sent a number of NOIDs to the Grievor’s home,
as required under Article 26.5 of the Collective Agreement and related cases issued by
the Board. The NOID detailed potential disciplinary action and asked the Grievor to
respond within a set time. The LCBO denies that the Grievor was required to respond or
that this was assigned work for which the Grievor is entitled to compensation.
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that there is no provision in the
Collective Agreement that expressly requires the Employer to compensate employees for
the time they spend responding to a NOID. Nor is there any evidence before me that on
these occasions the Grievor was entitled to be paid for the time he spent responding to
properly issued NOIDs.
- 3 -
[5] The grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of April 2014.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair