GSB#2014-4884

UNION#2015-0499-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Royer)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Janice Johnston

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frank Inglis and Lori Davis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mark Upton Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Advisor

HEARING

April 6, 2016

Decision

1The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement found in Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The majority of the grievances dealt with in this process are normally settled. However, if where a mediated agreement is not attainable and the grievance remains unresolved, the Memorandum of Agreement provides that the GSB Arbitrator shall issue a decision. The decision issued by the Arbitrator shall be applicable only to the case heard and shall not be used as a precedent for future cases and is not appealable. Any decision rendered must be issued within two weeks of the date of the hearing.

2On April 5 and 6, 2016 the parties at the Ottawa Retail Service Centre agreed to participate in the expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement found in Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The grievance that is the subject of this decision was one of the grievances that the parties agreed to deal with.

3At the time that the grievor filed this grievance he was working five hour shifts and was performing accommodated duties of a clerical nature. In January, 2015 although the opportunity arose to extend his shift on six or seven occasions, he was not allowed to do so and work a full 7.5 hours. Others performed the duties he had been doing. A grievance was filed claiming the loss of a total of fifteen hours pay. The employer claimed that at the most he missed the opportunity to work a total of approximately four hours.

4After carefully considering the evidence and submissions of the parties I have concluded that the grievor did miss the opportunity to work and that he should be paid eight hours at his applicable rate. Accordingly, I direct the Employer to do so.

5The grievance is therefore upheld in part.

6In the event that the parties have any difficulties with the interpretation or implementation of this award I shall remain seized.