GSB#2009-0460
UNION#2009-0379-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cummings)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE
Marilyn A. Nairn
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Jean Chaykowsky Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Pamela LeMaistre Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager
HEARING
November 18, 2011.
Decision
1This award flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and OPSEU in Peterborough, Ontario on November 18, 2011. Going into the session, the parties agreed to utilize an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties would attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they agreed that the Vice-Chair would determine the matter without formal proceedings. The parties agreed that any decision issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. They also agreed that any decision was to provide only brief reasons, if any. In doing so, the parties agreed to a process that will also expedite the release of any decision. If it became apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved were of a complex nature, it was agreed that the case could be taken out of the expedited process and processed through ‘regular’ arbitration. Such was not the case here. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.
2The grievance of Penny Cummings (#2009-0379-0008) alleges that the employer has violated Articles 2.1(b), 4.1, 4.2, 5.2(b), 8.6(a) and (b), and 21.5(a) of the collective agreement. The remedy sought is for Ms. Cummings (the “grievor”) to be ‘made whole’. The grievor works as a Customer Service Representative in a Peterborough retail location.
3The grievor began working for the LCBO as a casual employee on March 13, 1982. There is no dispute that, further to an agreement between the parties and the consequent application of a conversion formula applied in 1996, the grievor’s casual seniority date became January 7, 1988. The grievor subsequently became a full-time employee on September 9, 2002 and the employer accepts that her full-time seniority date is September 9, 2002.
4As a result of changes negotiated into the collective agreement in 2009, the grievor filed this grievance. Those changes resulted in employees having broader posting rights than previously existed. Seniority is a factor in postings. The grievor is claiming that her seniority date ought to include her casual service and be recognized as January 7, 1988.
5Article 4.2 of the collective agreement is clear and unambiguous. It provides:
A casual employee who is appointed to permanent staff shall begin employment as permanent staff with a fixed seniority date that shall be equal to his/her first day of employment as permanent staff.
6The grievor started out as a casual employee. She was appointed to permanent staff, and her first day of employment as permanent staff was September 9, 2002. That is her appropriate full-time seniority date. There is no basis on which she is entitled to have her service as a casual employee count towards her permanent full-time seniority. Permanent full-time seniority and casual seniority are different entitlements under this collective agreement. Casual seniority is defined and calculated based on Article 31.5(a)(i) of the collective agreement. Article 4 regulates seniority for permanent full-time staff.
7There has been no violation of the collective agreement. This grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 24^th^ day of November 2011.