HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2805.Tymecki.11-02-22 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2009-2805
UNION#2009-0163-0032
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tymecki)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Reva Devins
FOR THE UNION
Jean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Deborah Groves
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
Rafik Louli
Liquor Control Board Of Ontario
District Manager
HEARING
February 18, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect timely
disposition of grievances. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly
referred for expedited mediation-arbitration and that, after a failed mediation effort, the
Vice-Chair should issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]The Grievor was a casual employee with 5 years seniority in the London geographic
posting area. At her request, management agreed to transfer her to a store in Sarnia, which
is in a different geographic posting area. The Grievor was rehired in Sarnia at her former
rate of pay. However, management denied her request to transfer her seniority on
compassionate grounds.
[3]The parties agreed that there was no collective agreement right that entitled the Grievor to
have her seniority transferred, but that it waVZLWKLQPDQDJHPHQW¶VGLVFUHWLRQWRSHUPLWLW
The Union submitted that the Employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary,
discriminatory and unfair manner. Although unaware of the details of other employee
transfers, the Grievor knew of a number of casual employees who were allowed to transfer
and retain their seniority in their new location.
[4]The Employer submitted that it exercised its discretion in accordance with its standard
practice that seniority will only be transferred where warranted by exceptional
circumstances that have been documented by the employee. In this case, the Grievor
wanted to move because her husband found employment in Sarnia. While the Employer
was sympathetic to her situation, they considered her request as one that fell within a wide
category of cases in which employees request a transfer for personal reasons. There was no
- 3 -
evidence that persuaded them that this was an extraordinary circumstance that warranted
the exercise of their discretion.
[5]Having considered the submissions of the parties, I have determined that there is no
evidence that the Employer acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad
faith. Therefore, there is no basis to interfere with their decision not to grant full seniority
in this instance.
[6]The grievance is dismissed.
nd
Dated at Toronto this 22 day of February 2011.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair