HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-2087.Tymecki.12-11-01 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#2010-2087
UNION#2010-0163-0025
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tymecki) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Val Patrick
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Michael O’Reilly
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Director, HR Services Western Region
Lori Thorpe
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Advisor, HR Services Western Region
HEARING October 26, 2012.
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the timely
disposition of grievances. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly
referred for expedited mediation-arbitration and, after a failed mediation effort, that the
Vice Chair should issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent.
[2] A permanent, full time employee was scheduled to work afternoons. Her schedule was
subsequently changed to days, on consent, to perform unanticipated work. The Grievor
submits that she was available to perform the 8-hour day shift and that it was unnecessary
to shift change a permanent employee. She seeks compensation for the full 8 hours that
could have been assigned to her.
[3] The Employer maintained that it acted within management’s rights to assign work. In this
instance, the full time employee agreed to have her shift changed to days and the vacant
afternoon shift was given to the most senior casual employee, someone other than the
Grievor.
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I have determined that the Employer
was within its rights to assign work, as it deemed appropriate. In this case, the
assignment was made in full compliance with the Collective Agreement: the shift change
was with the consent of the employee involved and the most senior casual employee filled
the vacant afternoon shift.
[5] The grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 1st day of November 2012.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair