Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0033.Group.96-11-20 7i .~. ONTARIO EMPLOYlS DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1ZS TELEPHONEffELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILEffELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 33/93 '- OLBEU # OLB052/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Onder THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OLBEU (Group Grievance) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of ontario (Liquor Control Board of ontario) Employer BEFORE p Knopf Vice-Chairperson FOR THE J Noble GRIEVOR Legal Counsel Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union FOR THE M. Gage EMPLOYER Counsel Liquor Control Board of Ontario HEARING November 14, 1996 J " ! EXPEDITED ARBITRATION AWARD This case anses because of a severe snow storm which occurred on December 11, 1992 It affected operatIOns of the Durham warehouse and the employees' ability to get m to work. The Umon gneves that the Employer did not treat all the employees equally or fairly Some employees were able to make It m to work for the day shift. Some tned to get m and were unable to naVIgate the roads successfully Other employees realized the ImpossibilIty of travel and phoned in to mdlcate that they would be unable to make It m to work because of the weather conditions. Midway through the sluft, the Employer realized that there were not enough employees present to contmue operatIOns. The sluft was sent home. It was the Employer's mtentlOn to pay everyone who arnved at work for the day shift for the full day's pay In the course of the arbitration It became known to the Employer that some employees were tlllstakenly only paid for four hours and had the other half of the sluft deducted from the Sick credits or had pay deducted. The Employer has undertaken to review the records and ensure that everyone who arnved on the sluft will be made whole for the day At the parties' request the Board remamed seized With the Implementation of that undertakmg. A second shift was scheduled to begm at 4 00 P m. the same afternoon. Because of the weather conditions, the Employer contacted the employees on that shift m advance and adVised them not to report to work. Those employees were paid for the sluft, and no deductIOns were made from their attendance credits. ~ '" <" - 2 - The employees who were scheduled for the day shIft who were not able to make It to the work place were not paid for the shift. They were advised that they could use the attendance credit for the day, or a vacation day, or take no pay The Union asserts that the employees who were unable to make It in to work for the day sluft were treated unfaIrly 10 comparison to the employees on the afternoon shift who were advised not to report for report to work and yet who were paid for the full shift. The arguments and the case law submitted by counsel for both parties have been considered carefully The Issue in tlus case IS whether the employees on the day sluft who were unable to make It 10 to work because of weather conditions were treated unequally or unfaIrly in companson to the employees on the afternoon shift who the Employer advised not to report to work and who were paId for the slnft. For purposes of this expedited arbitration, the complex questions of whether or not there IS an ImplIed duty of fairness or whether there was an actual reqUIrement to pay for the afternoon slnft need not be resolved. Assummg, without deciding, that there may be a duty of fairness that can be implIed from the contract, It is the conclusIOn of this Board that no unfairness occurred 10 the circumstances of this case. The severe snow storm made It difficult if not Impossible for employees to attend work. The few who were able to make It m to work made contmued operations Impossible The Employer cannot be faulted for notIfymg the people on the afternoon shift not to attempt to make it to work and yet at the same time to pay for the sluft. ~ ----- tJ. - 3 - SImilarly, the Employer cannot be faulted for send 109 the employees on the day ShIft home when operations became frustrated. These employees were also properly paid for the full shift. The questIon then becomes, should the employees who were unable to make It 10 for the day shift receIve the same compensation as the other two groups of employees mentIOned already? Through no fault of these employees they were unable to get to work. The Employer recognizes that they made bOlla fide attempts to get to work. The policy in place in this work place IS that leave of absence IS available to an employee If mclement weather prevents their being able to report to work. In the situation at hand, the Employer granted those employees attendance credits, vacation credits or leave of absence WIthout pay, depending on their mdivldual circumstances. It cannot be concluded that tlus was arbitrary or unfaIr When the Employer took the responsibihty of sending people home or calling off the shift, It also undertook the responsibihty for compensatmg those employees. Tlus is a different situation from employees who, albeit for no fault of their own, were unable to attend work. If those employees were to receive one full sluft's pay or compensation they would receive an unfair advantage over the employees on the day sluft who actually worked for half the shift. The Employer's stated reasons for makmg a dlstmctIon between the employees who did and did not attend work was ratIOnal, based on eXIstmg pohcy, and faIr and eqUItable under all the circumstances. Accordmgly, the gnevance IS dIsnussed. However, the Board retams JunsdictIOn over the ImplementatIOn ., I r:' \- ~ (&. . - - 4 - I I of the Employer's undertaking with regard to ensunng full compensatIon for the I employees who did make It 10 to work for the day shift. - DATED at Toronto, Ontario, tlus 20th day of November, 1996 aula Knopf - Vice-Chairperson ~