HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0396.Behm.12-09-13 DecisionCrown Employees Commission de
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
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 T61.: (416) 326 -1388
Fax (416) 326 -1396 T61ec.: (416) 326 -1396
BETWEEN
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
1�1
Ontario
GSB #2012 -0396
UNION #2011- 0378 -0095
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Behm et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
BEFORE Gerry Lee
FOR THE UNION Val Patrick
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Neil Lenihan
Human Resource, Service Manager
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING August 31, 2012
Union
Employer
Vice -Chair
-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 a group grievance comprising of seasonal employees regarding overtime
equalization. Specifically, the Grievors claim that on November 26 and 27, 2011, the
Employer asked full time employees if they wished to work two separate back -to -back
shifts (8am to 4pm and then 4pm to 12 midnight) on each of the aforementioned dates.
The Grievors are of the view that after the full time employees are asked for the first set
of shifts, the second set of shifts should be offered to seasonal employees prior to offering
such overtime shifts to the full -time employees. The remedy requested by the Grievors is
that they be paid time the appropriate overtime premium for the shifts in question.
[2] The Employer cited article 6.6 (b) of the collective agreement as well as a Memorandum
of Agreement found at page 229 of the collective agreement as the rationale behind their
decision to offer the shifts in question to full time employees prior to offering such
overtime work to seasonal employees.
Article 6.6 (b) states:
Where there is a requirement for overtime to be worked, it shall first be
offered to full -time employees on a rotational basis. Where sufficient
personnel do not volunteer, such overtime shall then be offered to
permanent part -time employees or in logistics facilities to seasonal
employees and then to casual employees. Failing sufficient volunteers,
overtime would be assigned to the least senior qualified employee.
[3] The employer explained that this article requires that the Employer only canvass seasonal
employees after no full time employee volunteers for the overtime shifts in question. The
Employer added that the 8am - 4pm shift may not suit some full -time employees for
various reasons whereas a 4pm - 12 midnight shift may be acceptable. Accordingly, the
Employer believed that if they asked seasonal employees to work the second shift
without first canvassing the full time employees, such full time employees would likely
-3-
grieve that the employer violated article 6.6 (b) of the collective agreement. The
Employer also referenced the following section from the above mentioned Memorandum
of Agreement in support of their position:
Overtime hours will not be offered to an employee where such hours will
result in the employee working more than (2) full shifts in any 24 hour
period. To clarify, each employee must have a minimum of one shift off
(not working), in any 24 hour period.....
The Employer stated that this clause was introduced several years ago to prevent workers
from performing a "triple shift" and indicates that the parties have had a long standing
practice of allowing full time workers to work two back -to -back shifts.
[4] 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.
[5] 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, this grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 13th day of September 2012.
Gerry ee, ice -Chair