HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0965.Nunes.99-04-09I
,-
-
EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE
DE L’ONTARK)
COMMISSION DE
RiiGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STRE-ET WEST; SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G lZ8
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST; BUREAU 800, TORONTO (Oh!) M5G IZ8
TELEPHONE/liLiPHONE : (416) 326-7388
FACS/M/LE/TkiCOP/E : (416) 326-1396
GSB #0965/98
OLB #3 15/97
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before --
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Liquor Boards Employees’ Union
(Luis Nunes)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
BEFORE
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
Susan L. Stewart Vice-Chair
Don McDermott
Grievance Officer
Ontario Liquor Board Employees Union
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
John D. Harris
Manager, Employee Relations
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING March 26,1999
Grievor
Employer
DECISION
_ . .
i ,“. ! ; .: c \ *._ ;
This decision deals with a grievance dated September 16,
1997, filed on behalf of Mr. L. Nunes. The grievance alleges a
violation of Article 6.4 (a) of the Collective Agreement,
relating to a change in schedule, and claims premium pay. This
matter proceeded pursuant to the expedited process in the
Collective Agreement. There was no objection to my jurisdiction
to hear and determine the grievance. - i
The facts were not in dispute. Mr. Nunes was on vacation from
Monday July 21 to Friday August 1, 1997, scheduled to return to
work on Tuesday August 5, 1997, following the Civic Holiday. Mr.
Nunes returned to his day shift on August 5, 1997, at which time
he became aware that his schedule commencing Monday August 11,
1997-, had been changed from the day shift to the afternoon shift.
The change in the shift schedule had been posted on July 31,
1997. Employees who were present at work were provided with a
letter advising of the change. Mr. Nunes received his letter
upon his return to work.
Article 6.4 of the Collective Agreement states that:
Hours of work shall be posted at least two weeks
in advance for each establishment and there shall
be no change in the schedule after it has been
posted unless notice is given to the employee
one week in advance of the starting time of the shift . . .
The position of the Employer was that notice was provided to
2
Mr. Nunes by virtue of the revised schedule being posted. It is
the position of the Union that the Employer was obliged to notify
Mr. Nunes personally of the change to his schedule if it were to
avoid the' penalty.
In my view, the language of Article 6.4 providing for notice
to the employee of a change in schedule contemplates more than
simply posted notice. This would appear to have been recognized
by the Employer by virtue of its practice--of providing individual
written notice to employees who have been affected by a change in
schedule. However, the absence of an employee from the workplace
due to vacation makes the practice of providing a letter at the
workplace is of no practical assistance in terms of actual notice
to an employee who is away from the workplace on vacation. It
would be unworkable and unrealistic, however, to require the
Employer to engage in an attempt to locate the employee while on
vacation in order to ensure that personal notice is provided. In
my view, a practical interpretation of the notice requirement
which would require little more of the Employer but would give
the employee the opportunity to be aware of any change of
schedule would be to require the Employer to send the letter to
the employee's home. The date that the letter is issued is to be
considered the effective date of the notice.
For the foregoing reasons it is my conclusion that notice of
the schedule change was not provided to Mr. Nunes in accordance
3
with the provisions of the Collective Agreement. The claim for 7
l/2 hours at the rate of time and one-half is allowed. I retain
jurisdiction to deal with any difficulties the parties may
experience in the implementation of this decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of April , 1999