HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1441.Opoku-Fofe.12-07-18 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2010-1441
UNION#2010-5108-0013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Opoku-Fofe) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Gerry Lee Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Val Patrick
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Yolanda Watson
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Human Resources Manager
HEARING June 29, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties referred the above captioned grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance
with Article 22.11 and Appendix 2 of the Collective Agreement. This decision is with
respect to the grievance of Mr. Kwabena Opoku-Fofe who is employed as casual CSR at
the LCBO’s Mississauga warehouse location. The Union and the Grievor claim that the
Grievor was not called into work for four 7.7 hour shifts in June 2010. The Union claims
that the Grievor was willing and able to work the shifts in question. Furthermore, the
Union asserts that the Employer failed to call the Grievor as per the standard procedure
and awarded the shifts to another employee with less seniority.
[2] The Employer provided written records indicating that the Grievor was called for each
shift that the Grievor claimed that he was not contacted. The Employer argued that their
records also demonstrate that they called employees in sequential order as per their
normal procedures. Furthermore, the Employer contended that their records show that
the Grievor was called and accepted other shifts during the same time period as proof
they were calling the Grievor’s correct telephone number.
[3] At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I had jurisdiction to deal with this
matter. Following extensive and well presented details of the facts and circumstances
surrounding this dispute by both parties’ representatives, I am of the view that it is not
necessary to set out their positions in any further detail. Accordingly, I will render a
succinct “bottom line decision” disposing of this matter.
[4] Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties during the course of our
mediation-arbitration session and after a review of all of the documentary evidence
presented, the grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of July 2012.
Gerry Lee, Vice-Chair