HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0460.Cummings.11-11-24 DecisionCommission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
UqJOHPHQt des griefs
Board
dHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pl. : (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
Fa
GSB#2009-0460
UNION#2009-0379-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Cs) umming
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Marilyn A. Nairn
FOR THE UNION
Jean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Pamela LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING
November 18, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This award flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and
OPSEU in Peterborough, Ontario on November 18, 2011. 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 proFHVVHGWKURXJKµUHJXODU¶DUEitration. 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 Penny Cummings (#2009-0379-0008) alleges that the employer has
violated Articles 2.1(b), 4.1, 4.2, 5.2(b), 8.6(a) and (b), and 21.5(a) of the collective agreement.
7KHUHPHG\VRXJKWLVIRU0V&XPPLQJV WKH³JULHYRU´
WREHµPDGHZKROH¶7KHJULHYRUZRUNV
as a Customer Service Representative in a Peterborough retail location.
[3]The grievor began working for the LCBO as a casual employee on March 13, 1982.
There is no dispute that, further to an agreement between the parties and the consequent
DSSOLFDWLRQRIDFRQYHUVLRQIRUPXODDSSOLHGLQ WKHJULHYRU¶VFDVXDOVHQLRULW\GDWHEHFDPH
January 7, 1988. The grievor subsequently became a full-time employee on September 9, 2002
and the employer accepts that her full-time seniority date is September 9, 2002.
[4]As a result of changes negotiated into the collective agreement in 2009, the grievor filed
this grievance. Those changes resulted in employees having broader posting rights than
previously existed. Seniority is a factor in postings. The grievor is claiming that her seniority
date ought to include her casual service and be recognized as January 7, 1988.
- 3 -
[5]Article 4.2 of the collective agreement is clear and unambiguous. It provides:
A casual employee who is appointed to permanent staff shall begin employment as
permanent staff with a fixed seniority date that shall be equal to his/her first day of
employment as permanent staff.
[6]The grievor started out as a casual employee. She was appointed to permanent staff, and
her first day of employment as permanent staff was September 9, 2002. That is her appropriate
full-time seniority date. There is no basis on which she is entitled to have her service as a casual
employee count towards her permanent full-time seniority. Permanent full-time seniority and
casual seniority are different entitlements under this collective agreement. Casual seniority is
defined and calculated based on Article 31.5(a)(i) of the collective agreement. Article 4 regulates
seniority for permanent full-time staff.
[7]There has been no violation of the collective agreement. This grievance is hereby
dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 24 day of November 2011.
Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair