Manager's time off not good enough reason to say no
An office assistant at the public works department in Lake Cowichan, B.C., was denied a vacation request for two days off, despite putting in the request well before the collective agreement’s time limit.
Candace Kitagawa, who had worked for the employer since 1987, asked for Aug. 3 and 4, 2017, off, but she was turned down by Nagi Rizk, superintendent of public works.
Kitagawa’s role in the office included interacting with the public, but she was not allowed to make any decisions. If one was required, it was forwarded to Rizk or CEO Joseph Fernandez.
When she took time off in the past, Kitagawa’s role in the office was usually replaced by the head gardener or another gardener from the 10-person public works department.
For the past 13 years (as long as Rizk worked in the department), Kitagawa testified there was an agreement between her and Rizk that he would take off the first two weeks of vacation in August, and she would book off the last two weeks, so one of them was in the office at all times.
But Kitagawa testified, “There is not a written agreement about it.”
Kitagawa said she wished to leave town for those days because an annual country music festival called Sunfest was scheduled for that weekend and she wanted to leave town with her husband to avoid the extra crowds.
Rizk refused to allow the two vacation days, but he did approve 34 other days throughout the year. He said that because the head gardener was scheduled to be off those days, Kitagawa couldn’t book off at the same time.
Two other gardeners were available to take her place, according to Rizk, but because it was a busy time of year, it was unreasonable to pull one in and leave the town covered by only one gardener for those two days.
The union, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1-1937, grieved the decision and said the employer unreasonably denied the request and this was especially unfair due to her long-service time.
Both parties should “co-ordinate vacation time based on seniority and advanced notice,” according to the collective agreement.
The employer argued that the long-standing agreement between the parties meant Kitagawa should have taken her time off outside the first two weeks of August.
Arbitrator Paul Love upheld the grievance and ordered the town to approve Kitagawa’s time off.
“In my view, this is an unreasonable reason to deny the grievor’s request given her lengthy seniority, her seven months’ advance notice given, the availability and easy fill-in of her job by others, the short period of overlapping absence with Rizk and the lack of hardship or business case proven by the employer,” said Love.
“There was no evidence of any employer hardship or problems arising from overlapping absences of the grievor and Rizk.”
Rizk’s time off should not affect Kitagawa’s vacation because of his management position.
“The fact that Rizk would also like to take his vacation at the same time as the grievor’s Aug. 3 and 4 request is not relevant to the employer’s consideration of the grievor’s request. Rizk is likely an excluded employee and not a member of the bargaining unit. If he were a member of the bargaining unit, the grievor would have clear priority for vacation scheduling over Rizk as she has some 17 years more seniority than him,” said Love.
Reference: Corporation of Village of Lake Cowichan and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufactuing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Interational Union, Local 1-1937. Paul Love — arbitrator. Marcia McNeil for the employer. Steven Rogers for the employee. July 14, 2017.
