COURT FILE NO.: 663/03
DATE: 20040521
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O'driscoll, meehan and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
THE ONTARIO LIQUOR BOARDS EMPLOYEES' UNION
Applicant
- and -
THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO) and THE CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Respondents
Ron Lebi, for the Applicant Union
Ian Godfrey, and Rhonda Shirreff for the Respondents, The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
HEARD: May 21, 2004
o'driscoll J.: (Orally)
[1] The applicant, The Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union (Union), seeks judicial review of the award of the single Arbitrator, dated October 30, 2003, who dismissed the grievance which alleged a breach of the Collective Agreement with regard to holiday and overtime pay.
[2] The grievor alleged that he was not paid in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement for work he performed on November 11, 2002, Remembrance Day. The two relevant articles of the collective agreement:
7.4 "In addition to the entitlement to holiday pay, where an employee is required to perform work on a paid holiday (refer to Article 7.1), he/she shall also be entitled to receive payment in the amount of two (2) times their regular straight time hourly rate for all hours worked on the holiday.
7.6 In addition to the entitlement to holiday pay, where an employee is required to report for any period of work on a paid holiday (refer to Article 7.1), he/she shall be paid a minimum of hour (4) hours at two (2) times their normal hourly rate of pay. Where an employee performs work in excess of four (4) hours, he/she shall be entitled to a minimum of the normal daily hours of work at two (2) times their regular hourly rate of pay as set out in the Salary and Classification Schedule."
[3] In their factum, counsel for the respondent Liquor Control Board of Ontario state:
- "In this case, the Arbitrator considered the meaning of articles 7.4 and 7.6 and reasonably concluded that on a plain reading there was an apparent contradiction between the two articles. The Arbitrator then looked for a reasonable interpretation that would give all the words used in the two articles some meaning while at the same time resolving the apparent contradiction.
Reasons for Decision, p. 21 to p. 23
- Ultimately, the Arbitrator concluded that article 7.4 applied in the grievor's circumstances (i.e. when an employee is scheduled in advance to work on a paid holiday) and that article 7.6, which provides for a greater premium payment, applies to employees who are not scheduled in advance, but are nevertheless "required to report for any period of work" on a paid holiday."
Reasons for Decision, p. 21, to p. 23
[4] In view of the circumstances of this case, the Arbitrator, in our view, came to a reasonable conclusion based on the record before him. Consequently, the application fails and must be dismissed.
[5] After hearing submissions, I have endorsed the back of the applicant's Application Record as follows: "This application is dismissed for the oral reasons given and recorded. Counsel for the respondent has submitted a draft Bill of Costs showing $17,757.50 fees, plus disbursements, plus GST. Counsel for the applicant stated that he was "dumbfounded" by this amount. We have considered the matter and we have fixed costs at $5,000, all inclusive."
O'DRISCOLL J.
MEEHAN J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 21, 2004
Date of Release: June 16, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 663./03
DATE: 20040521
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O'driscoll, meehan and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
THE ONTARIO LIQUOR BOARDS EMPLOYEES' UNION
Applicant
- and -
THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO) and THE CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O'DRISCOLL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 21, 2004
Date of Release: June 16, 2004