HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0017.Langridge et al.87-10-29Between:
Before:
GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT BOARD
File Numbers 0017/86, 0018/86, 0019/86, 0020/86, 0021/86
0022/86, 0024/86, 0025/86, 0026/86, 0028/86
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Gr i evo r s
-'and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
Hearing:
OLBEU (R. Langridge et al)
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
R.L. Verity
M. Gandall
I.J. Cowan
M. Levinson
Counse L
Koskie & Minsky
Barristers & Solicitors
Vice Chairman
Member
Memb e r
P. Jarvis
Counse
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
October 7, 1987
-2-
INTERIH DECISION
In identical grievances, Ronald Langridge and nine other
Grievors alleged an Employer violation of Articles 6.2, and 3.1
"and all pertaining clauses" of the Collective Agreement in its
current method of payment for hours worked.
At the hearing, Counsel for the Employer requested an
adjournment on the grounds that he was advised for the first time on
the previous evening that the Grievor's would claim entitlement to
overtime under Article 6.5 and 6.7. Counsel advised the Board that
the Employer had been taken by surprise by this claim as the
grievances filed made no reference to any violation of Article 6.5 and
6.7. Mr. Jarvis referred the Board to the provisions of the Grievance
Procedure outlined
in Article 27. In particular, Article 27.4 reads,
in part, as follows:
"The grievance shall specify the clause or clauses
in this Agreement alleged to have been violated."
Mr. Levinson opposed the adjournment on the basis that the
Employer knew, or ought to have known, at least during mediation
sessions, that overtime was an issue. He contended that a further
delay in the proceedings would be unreasonable.
.
-3-
For reasons given orally at the hearing, the Board granted
the adjournment and fixed hearing dates for November and 12, 1987.
Under Article 27.4 of the Collective Agreement, the Employer is
entitled to notice of the Articles which are alleged to have been
violated. The grievances contain no reference to any alleged
violation of Articles 6.5 and 6.7. The Board accepts Mr. Jarvis'
explanation that the Employer, was taken by surprise.
there would be no monetary prejudice to the Union in granting the
adjournment on the understanding that the Hearing would proceed in an
expeditious fashion. In the circumstances, the Board is persuaded
that the Employer should be given sufficient time to prepare its reply
to the overtime claim.
In our opinion,
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this29th day of October, 1987.
"M. Gandall - Dissent"
M. - MEMBER
I. J'. MEMBER