Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0651.Whyte.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# 2007-0651 UNION# 2007-0499-0023 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Whyte) 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 Merv Whyte (#2007-0499-0023) alleges that the employer acted contrary to Articles 21 and 1.1 of the collective agreement. The remedy sought is for the grievor to be classified as a ?Clerk Grade 5 (Retail Depots Only)?. The grievor works as a Customer Service Representative in a retail depot location. Retail depots are part of the employer?s retail division. The grievor is seeking to be reclassified to the higher rated position of Clerk Grade 5. Article 1.1 is the recognition clause. Article 21 is titled ?Assignments and Job Postings?. Article 1.1 provides a mechanism for determining whether or not a new classification is to be placed within the bargaining unit. Article 21 provides a job posting mechanism for a new classification or a vacancy and provides for movement up the salary grid within a classification. Neither of these provisions of the collective agreement provides a basis for the filing of a classification grievance. The job description for the ?Clerk Grade 5 (Retail Depots Only)? identifies that classification as an inventory specialist. There are currently no incumbents in the Clerk Grade 5 position. By contrast, a large number of Customer Service Representatives work 3 throughout the employer?s retail division, including at the retail depots. The duties and responsibilities of that position include a broad range of retail functions. It would appear that the job functions performed by the grievor do not reflect the duties of the Clerk Grade 5 position. In addition, the provisions of the collective agreement cited in the grievance do not support the remedy sought. However, and more to the point, Section 51(2) of theCrown Employees Collective Bargaining Act precludes the Board from making any order which would ?require a change to be made in the classification of an employee?. Simply put, the Board is precluded from reclassifying this employee. Notwithstanding that the claim appears to lack merit, the Board is precluded by statute in any event from providing any remedy in this case. There is therefore, no basis on which to engage an inquiry. Having regard to the above, this grievance is hereby dismissed. rd Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3 day of June, 2008. Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.