HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-00169.May.23-10-25 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2023-00169
UNION# 2023-0379-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(May) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Anjana Kashyap
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura Chartrand, HR Manager
Mark Mason
Kevin Charlebois
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING October 11, 2023
-2 -
Decision
[1] This matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration, pursuant to s. 22.16 of the
Collective Agreement. The parties agreed that this matter was properly referred
for expedited mediation-arbitration and that, after a failed mediation effort, the
Arbitrator should issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent.
[2] The Grievor alleged that she was improperly denied acting pay when the store
was without a Product Consultant for an extended period. She was assigned
many of the duties normally performed by the Product Consultant, including
stocking, ordering, and serving customers in the Vintages section of the store.
She did not attend tastings or other development opportunities offered
exclusively to Product Consultants but completed many courses and tastings on
her own initiative.
[3] Article 7.12(b) provides an hourly premium where an employee is designated by
the Employer to replace another employee in a higher classification. The Grievor
believes that she is entitled to premium pay in accordance with this provision of
the collective agreement.
[4] The Employer maintained that it was entitled to assign duties to the Grievor in
any location in the store, including the Vintages section, without designating her
in an acting capacity. The role of Product Consultant is classified at a higher
level to reflect elevated levels of education and experience, demonstrated by
passing prescribed knowledge and palate tests. Because the classification is
-3 -
based on knowledge and experience, it was the Employer’s position that it never
designates employees as acting Product Consultants.
[5] In any event, the Employer argued that Article 7.12 (b) does not and has never
applied to the Product Consultant role. It referred me to an earlier decision,
OPSEU (Gurin) v LCBO, GSB #2010-1491, (Devins), issued May 16, 2011, in
which the Union and Employer agreed that Article 6.12 (b) (now 7.12(b)) does
not apply to Retail stores.
[6] The Union confirmed that it has not changed its position and continues to accept
that Article 7.12(b) does not apply in a retail setting. The Union reserved its right
to amend its position in the future, with future grievances and/or at bargaining,
should it be appropriate to do so.
[7] Based on the parties continued shared understanding of the restricted application
of Article 7.12 (b), I find that the Employer has not violated any provision of the
Collective Agreement. The grievance is therefore dismissed.
[8] Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of October 2023.
“Reva Devins”
Reva Devins, Arbitrator