Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Metz et al) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 2011 CanLII 36563

GSB#2009-2734

UNION#2009-0375-0033

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Metz et al)

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 Grievors are casual employees. They grieve the increase in size of the full time complement at their retail location, which has resulted in a reduction in hours assigned to them. The Union does not dispute the right of management to determine complement, however, the Grievors believe that management’s decision is unfair and inconsistent with staffing at other retail locations. They want management to review the full time complement at their store and bring it in line with other ‘A’ stores in the region. Specifically, they seek the removal of one full time staff.

3The Employer submitted that it is entitled to determine complement and has done so in a fair and consistent manner across the region. The assignment of full time staff is based on the results of the PVR process and an analysis of the sales to staff ratio in individual stores. Other factors are considered, which relate to store function and operational needs.

4Having considered the submissions of the parties, I have determined that there is no evidence that the Employer acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in determining the full time complement at the Grievors’ store. Nor have they otherwise violated any provision of the Collective Agreement. Therefore, there is no basis to interfere with their decision regarding the full time complement.

5The grievance is dismissed.