GSB#2012-0887

UNION#2012-0162-0006

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Isherwood)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Val Patrick Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Deborah Groves Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

October 7, 2013

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the speedy disposition of grievances. Appendix 2 incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement and confirms that where grievances are referred to the med/arb process, the parties will attempt to reach a mediated resolution, failing which the Vice Chair will issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly referred for mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2.

2The Grievor, Kristopher Isherwood, grieved a loss of hours following his voluntary transfer due to health and safety concerns at his home store. He claimed a loss of 10 hours for each of the 4 weeks that he was transferred, and the loss of one Sunday shift at premium rates at the commencement of his transfer. The Grievor alleges that the loss of hours constituted a reprisal for his refusal to work and was in contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. He did not attend the Arbitration, however, was advised that the matter would be proceeding.

3The Employer confirmed that the Grievor’s previously scheduled hours for the first two weeks following his transfer were honoured in accordance with the Collective Agreement. The Grievor was not scheduled for Sunday hours at his regular store prior to his transfer; therefore he was not guaranteed that shift. The Employer further maintained that the Grievor did not suffer any loss of hours in the final two weeks. It maintained that the Grievor would have been scheduled for 50.5 hours in his regular store, based on his availability and seniority, and that he actually worked 51 hours in that same period. Therefore, there was no loss arising from his transfer.

4Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that there is no violation of the Collective Agreement or any other governing legislation. The grievance is dismissed.