HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-3209.LeClair.14-11-20 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#2013-3209, 2013-3296, 2013-3297, 2013-3437, 2013-3438, 2013-3750, 2013-3751, 2013-4209,
2013-4210, 2013-4248, 2013-4428, 2013-4429, 2013-4430, 2013-4431, 2014-0010
UNION#2013-0498-0004, 2013-0498-0006, 2013-0498-0007, 2013-0498-0009, 2013-0498-0010,
2013-0498-0011, 2013-0498-0012, 2013-0498-0005, 2013-0498-0008, 2014-0498-0001,
2014-0498-0003, 2014-0498-0005, 2014-0498-0006, 2014-0498-0007, 2014-0498-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(LeClair) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Frank Inglis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Yolanda Watson and Laurie Blackstone
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Managers
HEARING November 19, 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 parties further agreed that this decision will also apply to the grievances filed by the
Grievor on May 12, June 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, July 6, August 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, September 21,
October 5, 19, 26 and November 2 and 9, 2014.
[3] The Grievor is a casual CSR currently working a restricted number of hours on a medical
accommodation. The Union alleges that the LCBO has violated Article 32.6, formerly
Article 31.7, by scheduling the Grievor for Saturday shifts when she could be assigned
hours during the week. Her medical restrictions do not preclude Saturday assignments,
however, the Grievor feels that she is unfairly required to work every Saturday even
when employees with less seniority are scheduled to have Saturday as a day off.
[4] The LCBO maintains that Article 1.1 (c) provides that it is the exclusive function of
management to “manage the operation” including “the scheduling and assignment of
work.” In the LCBO’s submission, Article 32.6 governs the distribution of hours and
ensures that the senior employee gets the highest number of hours, but it does not provide
shift preference rights. The LCBO further maintained that they require flexibility when
scheduling to permit consideration of all relevant factors such as business volume,
deliveries, French language requirements and the availability and restrictions of other
staff. Saturdays is a high volume day and all employees hired after July 1, 1996 are
required to maintain minimum availability, including Saturday. In the absence of clear
language limiting management rights, the LCBO submitted that they are free to schedule
casual employees as best meets their operational needs.
[5] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that there has been no violation
of the Collective Agreement. Management has expressly reserved the right to direct the
work force and assign and schedule staff. The Collective Agreement provides specific
exceptions for permanent full time employees: days off will be on a rotational basis and
employees are entitled to 15 Saturdays off per year [Article 6.4 (a) (iii)]. There is no
comparable exception for casual employees.
[6] In the absence of clear and unequivocal language restricting management’s rights, I do
not interpret the requirement in Article 32.6 that hours of work will be “allocated
according to seniority” as a limit on which days casual employees are assigned as their
days off. I would therefore dismiss this aspect of the grievance.
[7] The Grievor also raised concerns regarding where her medical information is kept and the
allocation of hours to her in weeks when she was approved to take a Saturday off. With
- 3 -
respect to these concerns, the parties consented to a Board order that the Grievor’s
medical file be kept at the Regional office and not at her store and that the LCBO will
pay her a total of 12.5 hours, for weeks when she took a Saturday off.
[8] I therefore order that the Grievor’s medical files be kept at the Regional office and that
the LCBO pay the Grievor for 12.5 hours, plus applicable percentages in lieu of benefits,
less statutory deductions. I will remain seized in the event that an issue arises with respect
to the application or interpretation of this award.
[9] The grievances are otherwise dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of November 2014.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair