HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0377 Williams.17-08-25 Decision
Crown 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#2015-0377
UNION#2015-0378-0024
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Williams) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Brodie MacRae
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Beverly Jordan
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING August 23, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to assist
with the timely 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, Everton Williams, filed a grievance on January 26, 2015 alleging that
management violated the Memorandum of Agreement regarding Overtime
Equalization for Logistics Facilities. In particular, Mr. Williams alleged that the
employer was unfairly and inconsistently charging for overtime hours that were
worked or offered in 2014. Mr. Williams believes that other employees received
equalization payments for 2014 when he did not as a result of the employer’s
inaccurate records. He first questioned his overtime hours when he saw the
equalization information the employer produced for the period ending December
31, 2014.
[3] The employer was unaware of any specific dates, occasions or individuals where
Mr. Williams alleged that the overtime hours were incorrectly charged in 2014.
Mr. Williams acknowledged that he did not question the accuracy of the overtime
charges before filing the grievance and could not identify any specific errors.
Nonetheless, he firmly believed that overtime in his department was not
accurately recorded.
Decision
[4] The parties have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the
equalization of overtime. The employer is responsible for tracking and
maintaining a list of overtime hours offered to individual employees. Employees
- 3 -
are charged with the applicable overtime whenever it is offered, whether worked
or declined. The running list of time charged is then used by the employer to offer
overtime opportunities, as the need arises, to employees with the least number of
accumulated overtime hours.
[5] The employer has also agreed to equalize overtime, to a maximum of 15 hours,
among employees within the same department, classification and shift.
Equalization is determined by comparing the overtime hours of individual
employees, based on the total hours charged throughout the year. The
Agreement provides that overtime equalization records will be reconciled on
January 1 and July 1 of each year.
[6] The following provisions are included in the Memorandum of Agreement:
A weekly summary of all Lists will be posted in each department, by shift,
no later than 4 p.m. on the first working day of the new work week. Such
lists shall contain the following:
a) All hours worked and offered for the previous week;
b) The total accumulated hours worked and offered to date;
c) All hours declined and the reasons that they were declined.
A copy shall also be provided to the local Union President.
…
Employees have 10 calendar days to raise queries regarding the accuracy
of the posted list except where an employee has been absent and in such
cases must be made within 10 calendar days following his/her return to
work. Failing the submission of any queries, the employer’s record shall
be deemed to be accurate.
[7] The grievor did not challenge the accuracy of the overtime charges during the
year in which they were charged, but waited until January 26, 2015 to file a
grievance. He stated that this was when he saw that he would not receive an
- 4 -
equalization payment for 2014 and therefore when he realized that the
employer’s inconsistent calculations would have a negative effect on him.
[8] Although I understand why the grievor was perhaps not motivated to investigate
and then challenge the weekly calculation of overtime hours that were charged to
him throughout 2014, the parties have considered when employees can question
the accuracy of the employer’s overtime records. The Memorandum of
Agreement clearly provides that the employer must post a weekly summary of
overtime charges and that employees then have ten days to dispute the accuracy
of the calculations. Where an employee does not raise any questions in the time
frame permitted, the employer’s records are deemed to be accurate. There is no
ambiguity in the Agreement or any discretion to allow an arbitrator to ignore the
deemed accuracy of the employer’s records.
[9] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the grievor did not
dispute the accuracy of the employer’s records within the time frame required
under the Memorandum of Agreement and that the employer’s records must
therefore be accepted as accurate.
[10] The grievance is dismissed.
Dates at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of August 2017.
Reva Devins, Arbitrator