GSB#2013-3944, 2014-2408, 2014-2770, 2014-3187, 2014-3245, 2014-3356, 2014-3617, 2014-3726, 2014-3884, 2014-4217, 2014-4459

UNION#2013-0499-0080, 2014-0499-0050, 2014-0499-0067, 2014-0499-0083,

2014-0499-0087, 2014-0499-0094, 2014-0499-0107, 2014-0499-0117, 2014-0499-0125, 2014-0499-0131, 2014-0499-0142

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

Janice Johnston

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frank Inglis and Brodie MacRae Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Erin Charbonneau Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

Carlos Valencia Liquor Control Board of Ontario Ottawa Retail Centre] General Manager

HEARING

October 26, 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 are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, where a mediated agreement is not attainable and the grievance remains unresolved, the parties have agreed that the Vice-Chair will determine the matter without formal proceedings. The process provides that the Vice-Chair shall issue a decision which shall be applicable only to the case heard, shall be without prejudice, 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 and shall provide only brief reasons, if any.

2On October 26 and 27, 2016 the parties at 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 grievances that are the subject of this decision were ones that the parties agreed to deal with.

3The grievances before me all allege that the grievor was either not offered overtime or was refused overtime on nineteen shifts. The grievances allege that this occurred because he is on a permanent accommodation or as it was put on other occasions, because he is on modified work duties. There is no dispute that the grievor suffers from a disability which the employer is currently accommodating.

4During the mediation process the employer was willing to concede that on nine of the dates raised in the grievances, that the grievor could have performed overtime work on those occasions. However, the parties remained in dispute regarding whether or not the grievor could have performed work on other dates raised in the grievances.

5The issue of the accommodation of the grievor’s disability was central to the discussions which took place during the process. I am satisfied that any and all issues which could give rise to a complaint pursuant to the Human Rights Code have been thoroughly canvassed and dealt with. In coming to the conclusions which follow I have taken them into account in determining the appropriate remedy.

6After carefully considering the documents provided, the other evidence before me and the submissions of the parties I have concluded that the grievor should be compensated for an additional two shifts. He is therefore to be paid a total of sixty-four hours at time and one half. The hourly rate to be used to calculate the amount owed to the grievor should be the hourly rate which was in effect as of July, 2014.

7The grievances are therefore upheld in part.