HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1491.Gurini.11-05-16 Decision
Commission de
YCrown 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#2010-1491
UNION#2010-0682-0004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gurini)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREReva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONJean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERRick Redwood
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
District Manager
Camille Clements Pitchkur
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING
May 12, 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 is a CSR. The manager in her store was absent for an extended period of
approximately 18 months, commencing in January 2009. The Assistant Manager was
assigned as the Acting Manager and the Grievor assumed the duties formerly performed by
the Assistant Manager. The Grievor acknowledges that she initially assumed these duties
on her own, without being asked by management to perform the role of acting Assistant
Manger. In January 2010, when the District Manager attended at the store, she asked him
about her role and he confirmed that she wRXOGEHWKH³$FWLQJ$VVLstant Manger but that
that there would be no change in her status DVD&OHUN´7KH*ULHYRUGLGQRWDVNIRU
premium pay at this time nor did she expect to receive additional compensation.
[3]After reviewing the provisions of the Collective Agreement, the Grievor now seeks
premium pay for the period when she was the Acting Assistant Manager. She relies on
Article 6.12 (b), which provides an hourly premium where an employee is designated by
the Employer to replace another employee in a higher classification.
[4]The Union and the Employer agree that Article 6.12 (b) does not apply to acting
assignments at a retail store, but was intended to apply solely at the warehouse and head
office. The Employer further submits that it has never paid a premium when retail staff
serve as Acting Assistant Manager or Acting Product Consultant.
- 3 -
[5]In light of the parties shared understanding of the restricted application of Article 6.12 (b), I
find that the Employer has not violated any provision of the Collective Agreement and the
grievance is therefore dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 16 day of May 2011.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair