Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0965.Numes.99-04-09 Decision ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO I 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE ... ~ SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-139tS GSB #0965/98 OLB #315/97 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before - THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OntarIO LIquor Boards Employees Uillon (Lms Nunes) Grievor - and - - The Crown In RIght of OntarIO (LIquor Control Board of OntarIO) Employer BEFORE Susan L Stewart VIce-Chair FOR THE Don McDermott GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer OntarIO LIquor Board Employees Uillon FOR THE John D HarrIS EMPLOYER Manager, Employee RelatIOns LIqUor Control Board of OntarIO HEARING March 26 1999 ~ I ---- DECISION This decision deals with a grievance dated September 16, 1997, filed on behalf of Mr L Nunes The grievance alleges a violation of Article 6 4 (a) of the Collective Agreement, relating to a change in schedule, and claims premium pay This matter proceeded pursuant to the expedited process in the Collective Agreement There was no objection to my jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance ~ The facts were not in dispute Mr Nunes was on vacation from Monday July 21 to Friday August 1, 1997, scheduled to return to work on Tuesday August 5, 1997, following the civic Holiday Mr Nunes returned to his day shift on August 5, 1997, at which time he became aware that his schedule commencing Monday August 11, 1997, had been changed from the day shift to the afternoon shift The change in the shift schedule had been posted on July 31, 1997 Employees who were present at work were provided with a letter advising of the change Mr Nunes received his letter upon his return to work Article 6 4 of the Collective Agreement states that Hours of work shall be posted at least two weeks in advance for each establishment and there shall be no change in the schedule after it has been posted unless notice is given to the employee one week in advance of the starting time of the shift \ The position of the Employer was that notice was provided to - . 2 Mr Nunes by virtue of the revised schedule being posted It is the position of the Union that the Employer was obliged to notify Mr Nunes personally of the change to his schedule if it were to avoid the penalty In my view, the language of Article 6 4 providing for notice to the employee of a change in schedule contemplates more than simply posted notice This would appear to have been recognized by the Employer by virtue of its practic~of providing individual written notice to employees who have been affected by a change in schedule However, the absence of an employee from the workplace due to vacation makes the practice of providing a letter at the workplace is of no practical assistance in terms of actual notice to an employee who is away from the workplace on vacation It would be unworkable and unrealistic, however, to require the - Employer to engage in an attempt to locate the employee while on vacation in order to ensure that personal notice is provided In my view, a practical interpretation of the notice requirement which would require little more of the Employer but would give the employee the opportunity to be aware of any change of schedule would be to require the Employer to send the letter to the employee's home The date that the letter is issued is to be considered the effective date of the notice For the foregoing reasons it is my conclusion that notice of the schedule change was not provided to Mr Nunes in accordance ,- . 3 with the provisions of the Collective Agreement The claim for 7 1/2 hours at the rate of time and one-half is allowed I retain jurisdiction to deal with any difficulties the parties may experience in the implementation of this decision Dated at Toronto, this gth day of April , 1999 - - \-