GSB#2010-0769, 2010-0770, 2010-0771, 2010-0772, 2010-2201, 2010-2202

UNION#2010-0499-0024, 2010-0499-0027, 2010-0499-0036, 2010-0499-0037, 2010-0499-0045, 2010-0499-0081

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Delorme)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Jean Chaykowsky and Frank Inglis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Pam LeMaistre Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

April 8, 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 seeks payment at a premium rate for the time he spent responding to Notices of Intention to Discipline (NOID’s). The Grievor received the NOID’s at home and prepared his responses on his own time. He does not have access to a personal computer and therefore attended at a public location to prepare his response. On each occasion he spent between 1.5 to 3.5 hours traveling, preparing and forwarding his response. He acknowledged that some of the NOIDs were duplicates of letters for which he had already prepared a response, however, he was of the view that a separate response was required for each delivery.

3The Employer acknowledged that it had sent a number of NOIDs to the Grievor’s home, as required under Article 26.5 of the Collective Agreement and related cases issued by the Board. The NOID detailed potential disciplinary action and asked the Grievor to respond within a set time. The LCBO denies that the Grievor was required to respond or that this was assigned work for which the Grievor is entitled to compensation.

4Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that there is no provision in the Collective Agreement that expressly requires the Employer to compensate employees for the time they spend responding to a NOID. Nor is there any evidence before me that on these occasions the Grievor was entitled to be paid for the time he spent responding to properly issued NOIDs.

5The grievances are dismissed.