GSB#2013-1517

UNION#2013-0499-0007

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Potvin)

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

Pam LeMaistre Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

April 9, 2014

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding disputes. Appendix 2 incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement and confirms that where grievances are referred to the mediation/arbitration 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 expedited mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2.

2The Grievor was the successful candidate for an acting position in the Maintenance Department. He alleges that while he was there he was denied any over time in either his temporary placement or within his former department. He recalled one instance where he was offered overtime, however, he believed that it was only offered to him after he complained that he was being denied over time while others were regularly assigned considerable over time opportunities.

3The Employer denied the allegations and stated that the Grievor worked a number of over time shifts in December for a total number of hours that was comparable to those worked by other employees in the maintenance department. The Employer produced copies of the letter confirming the dates of the Grievor’s assignment and the Ottawa Warehouse Attendance Schedule that listed all employees and the hours worked in the months of October, November, December and January of the relevant years. The Grievor was unable to produce any records to the contrary, but had a distinct recollection that he did not work any over time in this period.

4While I accept that the Grievor has a sincerely held recollection that he was denied overtime while he was in his acting assignment, that recollection is in direct opposition to the business records that are used to determine pay entitlements. According to the LCBO’s business records, the Grievor worked several over time shifts in December. Although the Grievor refused to accept these records as accurate, he did not put forward any basis on which to dispute them, other than his own recollection of events.

5Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the Union has failed to substantiate the grievance. The events at issue took place over two years ago and the most reliable evidence was the Employer’s payroll records. I accept the Attendance Schedule that was produced by the Employer as evidence that the Grievor was in fact given overtime opportunities during his acting assignment.

6The grievance is dismissed.