HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1796.Hay et al.11-10-05 DecisionCommission 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#2007-1796
UNION#2007-0499-0058
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hay et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREMarilyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONVal Patrick
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERPamela LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Eastern Regional Office
HR Manager
HEARING
October 4, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This decision flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and OPSEU in
Ottawa, Ontario on October 4, 2011. For purposes of these sessions, the parties have agreed to utilize an
expedited process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties will attempt to
resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they have agreed that the Vice-Chair will determine the
matter without formal proceedings. The parties have further 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 have also agreed that any decision is to provide only brief reasons, if any. This process
expedites the release of any decision. If it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the
issues involved are of a complex nature, the parties have agreed that the case may be taken out of the
H[SHGLWHGSURFHVVDQGSURFHVVHGWKURXJKµUHJXODU¶DUELWUDWLRQ6XFKZDVQRWWKHFDVHKHUH$OWKRXJK
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]This grievance alleges a violation of Articles 4 and 1.1(c) of the collective agreement. The
remedy sought is for tasks to be assigned by senioULW\7KHHPSOR\HU¶VJHQHUDOSUDFWLFHLVWRDVVLJQMRE
tasks by seniority where operationally feasible. There is no collective agreement requirement to do so. In
the circumstances here, the employer assigned forklift work to a junior employee for the sole reason that
it was providing modified duties to the junior employee because that employee suffered from a temporary
disability. Article 2.1(b) of the collective agreement expressly recognizes and incorporates the provisions
of the Human Rights Code WKH³&RGH´
6HFWLRQ