HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2091.Tucci.08-10-02 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#2006-2091
UNION# 2006-5109-0016
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tucci)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Marilyn A. Nairn
FOR THE UNION
Jean Chaykowsky
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Lauri Green
Manager, Employee Relations
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING
September 22, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]This decision flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and
OPSEU in Toronto, Ontario on September 22, 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.
[2]The grievance of Steve Tucci (#2006-5109-0016) alleges a violation of Articles 31.1,
51.1 and 52.2 of the collective agreement. It seeks compensation and seniority.
[3]The grievor was a casual employee hired into department #738. The grievor claims
that he should have been given work in department #938 prior to that work being
given to another casual employee, who, the grievor asserts, had less seniority. It
appears that the grievor was not getting hours in department #738 at the time.
3
The employee in department #938 (C. Driscoll), had initially been hired on a fixed term
basis. However, when that period ended, that employee had, on September 5, 2006, been
hired into department #938 as a casual employee. Article 31.7 of the collective agreement
provides that hours of work for casual employees shall be allocated according to the
seniority of the casual employees assigned to the department. The grievor was not
assigned to department #938 and had no entitlement to the hours claimed.
[4]This grievance is therefore dismissed.
nd
Dated at Toronto, this 2 day of October, 2008.
Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair