Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2592.Rees.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# 2006-2592 UNION# 2006-0497-0006 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rees) 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 Anna-Marie Rees (#2006-0497-0006) alleges that the employer has violated the Letter of Agreement pertaining to ?Sundays Openings?. The grievance further alleges that Article 31.1 (e)(ii) of the collective agreement should not apply on Sundays. Article 31.1 (e)(ii) provides that where a casual employee is scheduled for a period in excess of five regular hours, they shall receive one-half hour off without pay for a meal period, and a one hour unpaid meal period in circumstances where they are scheduled for nine regular hours. In either situation, the provision requires that the meal period is to be scheduled in such a way that no employee works longer than five hours without a meal period. The remedy sought by the grievance is for the grievor to be compensated for all ?forced meal periods on Sunday?. The grievor does not wish to take a meal break and was apparently scheduled for a shift in excess of five hours. The collective agreement is clear however. The employer is obliged to provide the unpaid meal break in these circumstances. That is evident from the use of the word ?shall? in Article 31.1(e)(ii). In addition, this provision mirrors the 3 requirement of sections 20(1) and 21 of the Employment Standards Act, (the ?ESA?). Both the collective agreement and these provisions of the ESA continue to apply to work performed on a Sunday. There is no exception for work performed on that day. The Letter of Agreement in the collective agreement regarding Sunday Openings simply recognizes that Sunday work is voluntary for regular full or part-time employees and is also voluntary for casual employees when such work would result in overtime for the casual employee and provided the employer is otherwise able to meet its staffing requirements that day. Scheduling of shifts and the specific assignment of breaks within those shifts is a matter within the employer?s management rights, provided it otherwise complies with the terms of the collective agreement. There is nothing in the collective agreement, for example, to require the employer to schedule the unpaid meal break as the last half-hour of a six-hour shift assignment. Rather, such an assignment would be in violation of Article 31.1 (e)(ii) of the collective agreement. I find that in the circumstances giving rise to the grievance, there is no violation of the collective agreement. Having regard to all of the above, this grievance is hereby dismissed. rd Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3 day of June, 2008. Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.