Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gurini) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 2011 CanLII 36418

GSB#2010-1491

UNION#2010-0682-0004

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gurini)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Jean Chaykowsky Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Rick Redwood Liquor Control Board of Ontario District Manager

Camille Clements Pitchkur Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

May 12, 2011.

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect timely disposition of grievances. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly referred for expedited mediation-arbitration and that, after a failed mediation effort, the Vice-Chair should issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent.

2The Grievor is a CSR. The manager in her store was absent for an extended period of approximately 18 months, commencing in January 2009. The Assistant Manager was assigned as the Acting Manager and the Grievor assumed the duties formerly performed by the Assistant Manager. The Grievor acknowledges that she initially assumed these duties on her own, without being asked by management to perform the role of acting Assistant Manger. In January 2010, when the District Manager attended at the store, she asked him about her role and he confirmed that she would be the “Acting Assistant Manger but that that there would be no change in her status as a Clerk 3”. The Grievor did not ask for premium pay at this time nor did she expect to receive additional compensation.

3After reviewing the provisions of the Collective Agreement, the Grievor now seeks premium pay for the period when she was the Acting Assistant Manager. She relies on Article 6.12 (b), which provides an hourly premium where an employee is designated by the Employer to replace another employee in a higher classification.

4The Union and the Employer agree that Article 6.12 (b) does not apply to acting assignments at a retail store, but was intended to apply solely at the warehouse and head office. The Employer further submits that it has never paid a premium when retail staff serve as Acting Assistant Manager or Acting Product Consultant.

5In light of the parties shared understanding of the restricted application of Article 6.12 (b), I find that the Employer has not violated any provision of the Collective Agreement and the grievance is therefore dismissed.