Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2216.Turner.08-06-03 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs Board des employés de la Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2006-2216 UNION# 2006-0497-0003 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Turner) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Marilyn A. Nairn FOR THE UNION Mary Anne Kuntz Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Pamela Checkley HR Manager Liquor Control Board of Ontario HEARING May 29, 2008. 2 Decision This award flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and OPSEU in Kingston, Ontario on May 29, 2008. Going into the session, the parties agreed to utilize an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties would attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they agreed that the Vice-Chair would determine the matter without formal proceedings. The parties agreed that any decision issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. They also agreed that any decision was to provide only brief reasons, if any. In doing so, the parties agreed to a process that will also expedite the release of any decision. If it became apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved were of a complex nature, it was agreed that the case could be taken out of the expedited process and processed through ?regular? arbitration. Such was not the case here. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. The grievance of Marielle Turner (#2006-0497-0003) alleges a violation of Article 21.4 (a)(i) of the collective agreement. The remedy requested is that the employer post all vacant positions within the geographical area. The grievor is a casual employee. Article 21.4 of the collective agreement requires the employer to post a vacancy in a new job classification or a permanent vacancy in an existing classification. It sets out the priority consideration of existing permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees within specified geographic areas within Ontario. There is no allegation or evidence that the employer filled a vacancy without posting it. The grievance appears to assert that the employer ought to be recognizing vacancies. Casual employees are a regular part of this employer?s workforce and those casual employees are typically anxious to obtain not only more hours of work, but also the more secure permanent part-time and full-time positions within the organization. Elements of that increased 3 job security are found in the fact that the provisions of Article 21.4 of the collective agreement do not apply to casual employees. Consideration of casual employees for posted positions is governed by Article 31.4 of the collective agreement. There is no general requirement for an employer to declare a vacancy and post it accordingly. It is part of the employer?s management rights to determine its complement of staff. The only limit on this employer?s right to decide whether a vacancy exists is a process found in the Letter of Agreement titled ?Permanent Vacancy Review? (?PVR?) in the collective agreement. That letter provides a review mechanism whereby, in the case of casual employees, if it is shown that casual employees work in excess of a pre-determined number of hours (depending on their work location), a vacancy will be declared and posted. That review is conducted annually by the corporate employer in communication with the union. There was no suggestion that this grievance arose out of a PVR review. It would also appear that any shortcoming in that process would properly form the basis of a policy grievance. I find that there has been no violation of the collective agreement. This grievance is therefore dismissed. rd Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3 day of June, 2008. Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.