GSB#2009-3233, 2009-3398, 2010-1915

UNION#2009-0164-0061, 2010-0164-0003, 2010-0164-0051

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Robertson)

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

Deborah Grove Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

May 14 & 15, 2012.

Decision

1This award flows from a med/arb session held between the LCBO and OPSEU in London, Ontario on May 14 and 15, 2012. 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 adjudicative process.

2This decision deals with three grievances filed by Mike Robertson (the “grievor”), a permanent full-time controller at the employer’s London, Ontario logistics facility. GSB File #2009-3233 is a claim for four hours of overtime work on December 22, 2009. GSB File #2010-1915 is a claim for overtime from 2005 to the date of the filing of the grievance in January 2010. GSB File #2009-3398 is a claim for meal allowance for December 21 and for December 22, 2009.

3The claim for four hours of overtime is a claim that overtime be distributed by classification. The Memorandum of Agreement forming part of the collective agreement and dealing with the distribution and equalization of overtime for logistics facilities requires that overtime be offered to permanent full-time employees who are at work, by shift, by the classification that normally performs the work. The grievor, although employed in the classification that normally performs the overtime work required on December 22, 2009, was not at work on the shift when the overtime was distributed, and has, therefore, no claim to the work.

4The claim for overtime between the period 2005 and January 13, 2010 when the grievance was filed alleges that the grievor was denied overtime hours between midnight and 8:00am. The vast majority of the claim is untimely. Furthermore, no particulars were provided with respect to any overtime opportunity claimed, only an assertion that junior employees and employees from outside the controller’s department worked overtime performing controller’s work. That assertion, without more, does not give rise to a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

5The claim for meal allowance is based on the filing of two “receipts” for the $10.00 allowance. However, the documents filed are not receipts. They are a written assertion by the grievor that he purchased groceries in anticipation of unforeseen overtime and consumed those groceries on December 21 and December 22, 2009 as his meals, having accepted unforeseen overtime on each day. The collective agreement speaks to the “reimbursement” of the cost of a meal in circumstances of unanticipated overtime. Reimbursement contemplates proof that costs were incurred in respect of the meal. I am not satisfied that the grievor’s mere assertion that “food and beverage was purchased”, albeit written, is sufficient.

6Having regard to all of the above, these grievances are hereby dismissed.