HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-4884.Royer.16-04-19 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#2014-4884
UNION#2015-0499-0013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Royer) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Janice Johnston Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Frank Inglis and Lori Davis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mark Upton
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Advisor
HEARING April 6, 2016
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the expedited Mediation-
Arbitration process in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement found in
Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The majority of the grievances dealt with in this
process are normally settled. However, if where a mediated agreement is not attainable
and the grievance remains unresolved, the Memorandum of Agreement provides that
the GSB Arbitrator shall issue a decision. The decision issued by the Arbitrator shall be
applicable only to the case heard and shall not be used as a precedent for future cases
and is not appealable. Any decision rendered must be issued within two weeks of the
date of the hearing.
[2] On April 5 and 6, 2016 the parties at the Ottawa Retail Service Centre agreed to
participate in the expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement found in Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The
grievance that is the subject of this decision was one of the grievances that the parties
agreed to deal with.
[3] At the time that the grievor filed this grievance he was working five hour shifts and
was performing accommodated duties of a clerical nature. In January, 2015 although
the opportunity arose to extend his shift on six or seven occasions, he was not allowed
to do so and work a full 7.5 hours. Others performed the duties he had been doing. A
grievance was filed claiming the loss of a total of fifteen hours pay. The employer
claimed that at the most he missed the opportunity to work a total of approximately four
hours.
[4] After carefully considering the evidence and submissions of the parties I have
concluded that the grievor did miss the opportunity to work and that he should be paid
eight hours at his applicable rate. Accordingly, I direct the Employer to do so.
[5] The grievance is therefore upheld in part.
- 3 -
[6] In the event that the parties have any difficulties with the interpretation or
implementation of this award I shall remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 19th day of April 2016.
Janice Johnston, Vice Chair