HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0927.OLBEU.88-07-05EMPLOYtSDE‘A COURONNE
DEL’ONTARIO
CQMMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
893/86
920/86
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
OLBEU (Group Grievance #728)
-and-
Grlevors
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
P. Draper Vice-Chairman
G. Nabi Member
I.J. Cowan Member
For the Grievow A.J. Esterbauer
Counsel
Koskie & Minsky
Barristers & Solicitors
For the EmDloYer: R. J. Atkinson
Counsel
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storle
Barristers & Solicitors
Hearings: December 2. 1987
May 11, 1988
DECISION
This is a group grievance in which the claim is made that
the Employer has contravened Article 6. 6 (b) of the collective
agreement which reads:
Where there is a requirement for overtime to be
worked, it shall first be offered to full-time
employees on a rotational basis. Where suffi-
cient personnel do not volunteer, such overtime
shall then be offered to part-time store cash-
iers or temporary employees and failing suffi-
cient volunteers shall be assigned to full-time
employees on a rotational basis.
The Grievors are regular full-time employees working at
either Store No. 727, Terminal 1 or Store No. 72S, Terminal 2 j
Toronto ML-port. Those stores are open from 6:OO a.m. to 11:OO
p.m. 3~3 days per year; an operating schedule that inr;uc',es a:; ,
but two of the eleven paid holidays listed in ti9-e col:ective
agreement. Overtime as defined in the collective agreemsrtt
includes work performed on paid holidays. On any given i,ay
there is a mix of regular full-time and temporary or part-time
employees on duty.
At one time work schedules made no distinction between
regular work day.5 and paid ho1iday.s. Whether or not ;i regular
frill-time employee worked on a ga.ld holiday depended on whe?e
his days on and days off happened to fall. T>e re.su:t was thar
- 2 -
there was an uneven distribution of paid holiday work within
that group. In the mid-1970's a new scheduling scheme was
adooted which was designed to distribute paid holiday work
equitably amongst regular full-time employees. In 1979 a
member of the group grieved (in ef.fect) that because of that
work schedule he was being denied oaid holiday work to which he
was entitled. All concerned treated the grievance as one
Involving the issue of rotational versus l?O~liZllZ.5tiO~
scheduling of paid holiday work. As a means of set?Jing the
grievance, regular full-time employees at the two stores were
asked to state in writing their preference as beWeeP? the two
scheduling schemes. Specifically, they were aslked either t0
agree t0 permit 0 1. to decline t0 permit "variation i ri
rotational days off to a::ow'eq?ia:ization of assigned work on
paid holidays." The result favoured the equalization option;
the grievance was withdrawn and equalizatlon schedii~: ing of paid
holiday work remained in force.
The parties are agreed that equalization scheduling should
continue. What the present grievance is about is that fewer
than the maximum possible number of regular full-time employees
are
assigned to or offered paid holiday work. That 1s.
although paid holiday worlk Is distributed equitably as between
regular full-time employees, not all of the aval:able work is
first 0ffi?red t0 siich emplCoyees . instead, s 0;: e 0 : It is
allotted to temporary or part-time employees.
We firid nothizg in the settlement of the 1979 grievaxxe to
suggest that in agreeing to equalization scheduling nf paid
holiday work regiilar full-time employees were surrenderleg any
existing right to that work. Put another way, there is noth;.:rg
contained in the settlement that coiild be COCstriied as a waiver
Of the right of regular full-time employees ilr.der Article 6.6
(b) to be offered overtime work (in this case paid ??o;iday
work) before it is offered to temporary or part-time employees,
We find that the eqnalization schedilllng scheme for paid
holiday work as now administered by the Employer at Stores To.
72: and No. 728 contravenes Article 6.6 (b) of ttie collective
agreement.
The Frievors do not seek compensation for lost overtime
work. What i -5 sought is a declaration by the 3oard that
eaua;lzation scheduling - sha:: henceforth be administered in
corformity with the provisioiis of the collective agreement a~:
we so declare.
Eated at Consecon, Ontario, this 5th of JUlYt :gaa.
F. Nabi - Xember