GSB#2010-2050

UNION# 2010-0378-0055

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cardillo)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Gerry Lee

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Val Patrick Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Neil Lenihan Liquor Control Board of Ontario Counsel

HEARING

July 29, 2011.

Decision

1The parties referred the above captioned grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.11 and Appendix 2 of the Collective Agreement. This decision is with respect to the grievance of Mr. Jason Cardillo who is employed as full time Maintenance Service Person at the LCBO’s Whitby warehouse location. The Union and the Grievor claim that the Grievor should have been paid double time as opposed to time and one half for work performed on Saturday July 30, 2010, pursuant to article 6.6(a) of the collective agreement as this was the Grievor’s second consecutive day of overtime.

2The Employer’s position in this matter is that the Grievor worked his regular afternoon shift from 4pm to midnight on July 29, 2010, and then agreed to work an additional four hours of overtime at the end of such shift finishing at 4am on July 30, 2010. The Grievor then returned to the workplace and worked his regular afternoon shift from 4pm to midnight on July 29, 2010, and was paid his normal straight time rate of pay. The Grievor returned to the workplace on Saturday July 30, 2010, and worked a 8am to 3:45pm daytime overtime shift whereby he was paid at time and one half for such hours. The Employer maintains that as the Grievor worked his regular shift in between the two periods of overtime, the Grievor did not work on two consecutive shifts and, as such, is not entitled to double time. The Employer relied upon: Ontario Liquor Board Employees’ Union (Robinson) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario, GSB No1696/93 (Dissanayake, Vice Chair) in support of their position.

3At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I had jurisdiction to deal with this matter. Following extensive and well presented details of the facts and circumstances surrounding this dispute by both parties’ representatives, I am of the view that it is not necessary to set out their positions in any further detail. Accordingly, I will render a succinct “bottom line decision” disposing of this matter.

4Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties during the course of our mediation-arbitration session and after a review of all of the documentary evidence presented, the grievance is hereby dismissed.