HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1517.Potvin.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#2013-1517
UNION#2013-0499-0007
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Potvin) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Jean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pam LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING April 9, 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 was the successful candidate for an acting position in the Maintenance
Department. He alleges that while he was there he was denied any over time in either his
temporary placement or within his former department. He recalled one instance where he
was offered overtime, however, he believed that it was only offered to him after he
complained that he was being denied over time while others were regularly assigned
considerable over time opportunities.
[3] The Employer denied the allegations and stated that the Grievor worked a number of over
time shifts in December for a total number of hours that was comparable to those worked
by other employees in the maintenance department. The Employer produced copies of the
letter confirming the dates of the Grievor’s assignment and the Ottawa Warehouse
Attendance Schedule that listed all employees and the hours worked in the months of
October, November, December and January of the relevant years. The Grievor was
unable to produce any records to the contrary, but had a distinct recollection that he did
not work any over time in this period.
[4] While I accept that the Grievor has a sincerely held recollection that he was denied
overtime while he was in his acting assignment, that recollection is in direct opposition to
the business records that are used to determine pay entitlements. According to the
LCBO’s business records, the Grievor worked several over time shifts in December.
Although the Grievor refused to accept these records as accurate, he did not put forward
any basis on which to dispute them, other than his own recollection of events.
- 3 -
[5] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the Union has failed to
substantiate the grievance. The events at issue took place over two years ago and the most
reliable evidence was the Employer’s payroll records. I accept the Attendance Schedule
that was produced by the Employer as evidence that the Grievor was in fact given
overtime opportunities during his acting assignment.
[6] The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of April 2014.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair