HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-3233.Robertson.12-5-24 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2009-0164-0061, 2010-0164-0003, 2010-0164-0051
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2009-3233, 2009-3398, 2010-1915
B
Ontario Publicloyees Union
(Robertson) Union
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
Service Emp
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Marilyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
r
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Jean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Serv
Grievance Office
l Board of Ontario
Deborah Grove
Liquor Contro
HR Manager
HEARING May 14 & 15, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This award flows from a med/arb session held between the LCBO and
OPSEU in London, Ontario on May 14 and 15, 2012. 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 processed through
‘regular’ arbitration. 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 adjudicative process.
[2] This decision deals with three grievances filed by Mike Robertson (the
“grievor”), a permanent full-time controller at the employer’s London,
Ontario logistics facility. GSB File #2009-3233 is a claim for four hours of
overtime work on December 22, 2009. GSB File #2010-1915 is a claim for
overtime from 2005 to the date of the filing of the grievance in January
2010. GSB File #2009-3398 is a claim for meal allowance for December 21
and for December 22, 2009.
- 3 -
[3] The claim for four hours of overtime is a claim that overtime be distributed
by classification. The Memorandum of Agreement forming part of the
collective agreement and dealing with the distribution and equalization of
overtime for logistics facilities requires that overtime be offered to
permanent full-time employees who are at work, by shift, by the
classification that normally performs the work. The grievor, although
employed in the classification that normally performs the overtime work
required on December 22, 2009, was not at work on the shift when the
overtime was distributed, and has, therefore, no claim to the work.
[4] The claim for overtime between the period 2005 and January 13, 2010 when
the grievance was filed alleges that the grievor was denied overtime hours
between midnight and 8:00am. The vast majority of the claim is untimely.
Furthermore, no particulars were provided with respect to any overtime
opportunity claimed, only an assertion that junior employees and employees
from outside the controller’s department worked overtime performing
controller’s work. That assertion, without more, does not give rise to a prima
facie violation of the collective agreement.
[5] The claim for meal allowance is based on the filing of two “receipts” for the
$10.00 allowance. However, the documents filed are not receipts. They are a
written assertion by the grievor that he purchased groceries in anticipation of
unforeseen overtime and consumed those groceries on December 21 and
December 22, 2009 as his meals, having accepted unforeseen overtime on
each day. The collective agreement speaks to the “reimbursement” of the
cost of a meal in circumstances of unanticipated overtime. Reimbursement
contemplates proof that costs were incurred in respect of the meal. I am not
- 4 -
satisfied that the grievor’s mere assertion that “food and beverage was
purchased”, albeit written, is sufficient.
[6] Having regard to all of the above, these grievances are hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of May, 2012.
Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair