HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0733.Pavlakovic et al.07-04-23 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2005-0733,2005-0734
UNION# OLB229/05, OLB230/05
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pavlakovic et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Reva Devins
Jean Chaykowsky
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Pamela Checkley
HR Manager
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
April 18, 2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick
disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding grievances. 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.
These grievances relate to the Employer's procedure for approving vacation requests. The
Employer has advised employees that it will only schedule vacations that are less than a full
week after it has considered requests for full week blocks. As a result, when a senior employee
submits a vacation request that includes single days, all or part of that request might be
considered after vacation is awarded to a more junior employee. The grievors allege that this
violates Article 8.10 and 8.11 of the Collective Agreement. The grievors were not in fact denied
any vacation requests and therefore do not seek an individual remedy.
The Employer did not suggest that the approval process was required to prevent disruptions in its
operations. Rather, it was submitted that the current practice was in aid of ensuring a satisfactory
distribution of vacation for all of its employees. It did not dispute, however, that Article 8.10 and
8.11 require that vacation time be approved in order of seniority.
Although I appreciate that the Employer is attempting to generate a vacation schedule that
satisfies as many employees as possible, this Board has considered Article 8.10 and 8.11 and
determined that it establishes "a scheme whereby employees will, on the basis of seniority,
indicate and obtain their summer vacation preference. There are only two caveats to the selection
of vacation periods: First, that the employer's operations not be disrupted. And second, that all
employees receive at least two consecutive weeks of vacation between May and October."I
1 OLBEU (Elford/Sabourin) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario ( Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 814/92., 815/92
(Kaplan), at p.22
3
The Employer in this case did not suggest that their current practice was necessary to avoid
disruption to their operation nor to ensure that their other obligations under the collective
agreement could be met. The Employer must consider and approve all vacation requests in order
of seniority without regard to the length of the request. The Employer can restrict vacation
entitlement to ensure that its operations are not disrupted, however, that determination must be
made in each individual case in a manner that respects the seniority rights that are accorded in
Article 8.10 and 8.11.
The grievance is allowed.
~Dated at Tor~Y of April 2007
- . ._;:\1 . ~ ~ -:
,"', '~
'" ~ I,.
!i . ^ "---,,
<S: ~ ''I: . .
~~ ~ 0" 0".'
_ __ ftJ!J.:.N_~~(
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair