Overtime denial not enough to breach agreement: Arbitrator

Employer's overtime allocation analysis flawed: Arbitrator

When a last-minute poultry run was offered to truck drivers at a Saskatchewan chicken processor, a senior employee wasn’t assigned the hours by the employer.
Clint Young agreed to accept the run, but he was denied the work after the employer gave it to another worker to top up his two-week hourly level, which guaranteed all workers received at least 80 hours of work per pay period.
On Sept. 21, 2016, Gaetan Duret, plant manager, received a call from a supplier in Alberta to arrange for a pickup on Sept. 23. 
“We got from loads of fowl from Ponoka, Alta., at the last moment for this Friday night. Whoever is interested has to respond by 5 p.m. To balance out the hours, I might change the schedule for the rest of the week so that everyone gets their 80 hours. First guarantees will be done and then overtime will be allotted,” read a text from the employer’s logistics manager that was sent to all drivers. 
Young plus five other drivers accepted the pickup, which the employer estimated would take about 14 hours. It was scheduled for a Friday, which was a regularly scheduled day off. 
A senior driver was given one run, while the three most junior drivers were also given the assignment. Young and another senior driver were not.
Young filed a grievance that alleged Gurpreet Ghag was given the run — in violation of the collective agreement — as he was junior in seniority to Young.
But the employer, Prairie Pride Natural Foods, said it adjusted Ghag’s routes so that before adding in the extra run, his hours for the week would be 30. Ghag’s other routes were given to a driver with more seniority that Young.
The Ponoka run took longer than expected and Ghag earned 19.25 hours of overtime for the trip. 
“Overtime shall not be allocated to any employee that may provide hours of work in excess of the basic work week, unless no employee that would be working less than the basic work week is available and willing to do the work,” read article 11.06, which overruled the seniority provision, said Prairie Pride.
The union, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Local 1400, argued that even though the employer adjusted various schedules to adhere to its guarantee of 80 hours every two weeks, the Ponoka run should have been considered overtime and therefore offered only to the most senior employees.
Arbitrator William Hood agreed and upheld the grievance.
“We order the employer to pay (Young) for 17.875 hours at the rate of time and one-half, less six hours at the rate," said Hood, backed by fellow board member Maurice Werezak, but not by Ricardo Corvino, who wrote a dissenting opinion. 
(Young was already paid six hours for the week in question, which brought his total to 80 hours for the two-week period.)
“Overtime is not a concept tied to the guarantee of 80 hours per two-week pay period. The only reference to overtime in the guarantee is that overtime hours may be counted to satisfy the guarantee. There is no reference that the guarantee of 80 hours per two-week pay period sets a threshold for overtime in article 11,” said Hood. 
“The employer's analysis of allocating overtime based on hours worked in a two-week period as opposed to the one-week period is flawed,” said Hood. 
“The union's analysis is preferred.”
Reference: Prairie Pride Natural Foods and the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400. William Hood — arbitrator. Leah Schatz for the employer. Dawn McBride, Sachia Longo for the employee. March 9, 2018. 2018 CarswellSask 133

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!