Running Head: Grievance Report

GRIEVANCE REPORT

Vs.

Loblaws vs. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1006A (UFCW)

Labour Relations, HRM4122

Bishakha

Kimberly Ann David

Maria Isabel Garcia Dussan

Ngoc Van Du Nguyen

Christian Rattray

Mojdeh Mohammadsefat Roudsary

Surabhi Sood

July 28, 2020

Team Report

Table of Contents

Analysis 4

Clarification of Issue 4

Stakeholders Identification 7

Rationale for Union 9

Rationale for Management 10

Rationale for Chosen Strategy 10

Summary of Research 11

Decision-making 13

Negotiation Tactics 15

Summary of the Grievance Process and Key Events 16

Step 1 – Informal Grievance with the Direct Supervisor 17

Step 2 – Formal Grievance and Investigation 18

Step 3 – “The Final Attempt Before Arbitration” (McQuarrie, 2015, p. 313) 20

The Next Steps 21

Rationale for Outcome and Tactics Used During Simulation 23

Conclusion 25

References 28

Appendix A: Grievance Process at Loblaws 31

Appendix B: Midnight Shift Premium 33

Appendix C: Grievance form & Employee’s Signatures 34

Appendix D: Notification from Loblaws to inform employees 39

Appendix E:  Exchange of emails between Shop Steward and Supervisor 40

Team Report

Appendix F: Exchange of email between the Union Representative and Department Manager
about the Second Meeting 43

Appendix G: Exchange of emails between Union Representative and management of Loblaws

for the meeting 44

Appendix H: Projected cost of Wages and Arbitration 45

Executive Summary
Team Report

The report highlights the grievance which is brought forward by the union on the behalf

of the employees of Loblaws, College Square, Ottawa. The cause of the grievance involves the

reduction in the night shift premium from $1 to 50 cents for all employees working regular hours

after 10 p.m. as opposed to what was agreed upon in the existing collective bargaining

agreement.

The report underlines a deep rooted analysis of the grievance issue through a detailed

analysis of the situation and the identification of the root cause of the grievance. It draws

attention towards the employee’s grievance and confers that in detail by scrutinizing the whole

scenario. It would further recognize the parties involved from both the management’s and

employee’s end and will outline their importance. Supplementary to that it will provide the

rationale for the position involved for both the union and the management. This will include

participants from the management side including all the night shift employees, the Shop Steward

and the Union Representative, and the union side includes the Supervisor, Department Manager,

Payroll Manager and the Labour Relations Officer. Furthermore, it will shed light on the strategy

used by both the parties in the situation to find their way through.

In addition, the report will further discuss the steps followed in the grievance procedure.

It highlights the research and confers about the stages that lead in solving the grievance. The

outcome analysis stresses upon the rationale of key incidents of the grievance process. It further

describes the tactics used during the simulation while final agreement. Moreover, it compares the

budget that would be incurred by the management on paying the premium to the employees or

going for arbitration and discusses the timeline involved in the same. Finally, the conclusion

underpins the decision taken by the management in response to the grievance settlement.
Team Report

Analysis

Grievance can be defined as the “alleged violation of one or more terms of the collective

agreement” (McQuarrie, 2015). As a best practice, the collective bargaining agreement should

include a grievance handling procedure to resolve disagreements about the interpretation,

application and administration of the terms of the collective agreement (McQuarrie, 2015). The

grievance process in the organization fosters a positive relationship between the employees,

union and the employer, as all the involved parties work together constructively to address the

grievance issues and feel satisfied with its outcomes (McQuarrie, 2015). Both the union and the

employer can file grievances against the other party in most procedures, but it is common for the

union to file a grievance against the employer, since the employer is responsible for controlling

the day to day workplace operations (McQuarrie, 2015). Hence, an effective grievance process

can be a boon in resolving complex workplace issues and foster a cooperative and positive

environment in the organization (McQuarrie, 2015).

Clarification of Issue

The parties involved in this grievance issue include Loblaws, which is a Canadian

supermarket chain with a store presence in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario

and Quebec (Loblaws, n.d.). Loblaws is the subsidiary of Loblaw Companies Limited which is

Canada's largest food distributor (Loblaws, n.d.). The store in consideration here is the Loblaws

store located at the College Square Mall in Ottawa at 1980 Baseline Rd. The grievers include all

the part-time and full-time store associates who work night shifts. The shift times for these

employees are post 10 p.m. at night which involves duties such as night stocking of the shelves,
Team Report

inventory stock up, and preparing the shopping packets for customers who did an online-store

pickup purchase.

As per the collective bargaining agreement, all employees including both full-time and

part-time employees who work night shifts i.e. after 10 p.m. are entitled to receive a night shift

premium pay of $1.00 per hour for all regular hours worked after the aforesaid timings

(Appendix B). These rates are not applicable for the positions which already have the keyword

“night” included in their position name such as night clerk, Baker (Nights), and Assistant Night

Manager as their wages already include the premium in their wage structure (K.A. David,

personal communication, July 22, 2020). The collective bargaining agreement signed between

both the parties was effective from November 3, 2019 till June 30, 2024 (K.A. David, personal

communication, July 22, 2020). Because of Covid-19, the sales for Loblaws had decreased since

February 2020 with significant decrease in profits. Since the footfall of the store mostly included

college students, there was less traffic of customers since the closure of colleges due to the

pandemic. In consideration to the organizational losses, Loblaws notified their employees

through the Workday app about the reduction in the night shift premium from $1.00 to 50 cents

because of the decrease in sales during these unprecedented times. This was not taken well by the

employees who were entitled to this premium since it was agreed and signed upon the collective

bargaining agreement (Appendix B).

Since the employees worked unusual hours which is different from the regular day shifts,

they thought they were compromising on their sleep schedule and working hard for the

organization in lieu of that extra premium. Although the customer in-store traffic had reduced,

the employees believed that the work had increased in the night shifts since they had to stock up

the inventory and prepare the shopping packets of the customers who ordered online. Also, the
Team Report

online orders had increased since the customers did not find it safe to shop inside the store, so the

store associates had to arrange their pickup order for the next day and arrange them accordingly.

The dissatisfaction of this move affected the employees which led one of the employees to raise

the issue to the Shop Steward on behalf of all the employees. The grievance was noted by the

Shop Steward and a meeting was arranged between the steward and the supervisor. The

supervisor was clear in mentioning that the organization was not in a position to pay the

complete premium for night shifts as the workload had decreased leading to less work

responsibilities of the employees working at night. The grievers (employees) were not satisfied

with the supervisor’s response which led to the initiation of a formal written complaint which

followed the grievance procedure as per the collective bargaining agreement (Appendix A). The

grievance went up to the union representative and the Department Manager which was followed

by a meeting between them (Appendix A). The meeting was not fruitful and did not culminate in

the desired action for the employees, which led to a final meeting between the union and the

management (Appendix A).

The type of grievance addressed here is a “group grievance” (McQuarrie, 2015). It is the

complaint raised by a group of employees who are affected at the same time by “an action taken

by the management”, following which a group grievance can be filed by them (Canadian Labour

Congress, 2015). Since the issue of reduction in the night shift premium affected a group of

employees including all the full-time and part-time store associates working at night, the

grievance in this case can be considered as a group grievance (McQuarrie, 2015).

Team Report

Stakeholders Identification

Loblaws is represented in this case scenario by the Supervisor, the Department Manager,

the Payroll Manager and the Labour Relations Officer. On the other hand, the employees’ side

included the group of affected employees or grievers, the Shop Steward and the Union

Representative. The union that represents Loblaws is named as United Food and Commercial

Workers (UFCW), Local Number 1006A (Loblaws, n.d.).

The grievers are the part-time and full-time store associates who work night shifts at

Loblaws store located in the College Square Mall, Ottawa. These employees were entitled to the

night shift premium pay, thus, once they received the notification on the Workday app they

raised their concerns on this regard to the Shop Steward and the union representative. The

grievers are the ones that felt affected by the company measure and considered it was necessary

to start a grievance complaint to defend their rights.

The Shop Steward was appointed by the union as its acting representative to speak for

and defend the interests and grievance of the employees. She knew the problem from the

beginning and further represented the grievance to the supervisor on behalf of the employees and

was attentive to all the grievance process to ensure it was correctly followed (McQuarrie, 2015).

The Shop Steward had an excellent understanding of the collective bargaining agreement, the

applicable and relevant legislation to the case (McQuarrie, 2015). She helped employees to

resolve their dissatisfaction because of the violation of the collective agreement (Bemmels, 1994,

cited by Peterson & Lewin, 2000; McQuarrie, 2015).

The Union Representative knows the collective bargaining agreement and has experience

in managing the relations between management and employees. Its primary role at the workplace
Team Report

is to represent employees in their interactions with the employer, faculty that has been recognized

by provincial and federal laws (McQuarrie, 2015). During the case, the union representative

participated in the last step of the grievance procedure and she was informed all the time about

the process since the issue went up to the department manager. The union representative was

allowed to negotiate in favour of the employees working conditions with the employer following

its “duty of fair representation” (McQuarrie, 2015).

The Supervisor played a key role during the early stages of the grievance procedure. Her

response in the first step and the grievers’ reaction to it determined the continuance of the

process since it was not possible to achieve an agreement to solve the case in the first stage.

Supervisors are the close contact with the employer and are the ones that first solve the

employees’ concerns and know directly the daily operations and activities with employees.

The Department Manager is the one responsible for managing employees and budgets

(Betterteam, n.d.). She knows all the operations and procedures. She is the next in line above the

supervisor and she is also in charge of managing the relations with the associates and the union in

the representation of the employer.

The Payroll Manager is responsible for maintaining the payroll information through

collecting and entering data, administrating information regarding earnings, taxes, deductions

(Payroll Manager Job Description, 2012). She also has knowledge of the company budget and

how it has been affected during this unprecedented situation. She helped to develop strategies to

keep a balance between company incomes and the value of the company’s payroll. The payroll

manager presence was important in the union and management meeting since her knowledge of

the company financials and her participation in the decision-making process of the reduction of
Team Report

the night shift premium will allow the management to express their arguments clearly at the

meeting.

The Labour Relations Officer is responsible for resolving the disputes that can be

generated between management and employees, she has the ability to negotiate collective

bargaining agreements or coordinate grievance processes, as well as managing employee’s

complaints, coordinate grievance hearings and other meetings (CareerPlanner.com, n.d.). She

knows how to negotiate and manage the relations with the union. During this case, the labour

relations officer was able to evaluate the union complaints and arguments to verify their validity

and counterargument against them in order to defend the employer’s position.

Rationale for Union

Union on behalf of the employee’s filed grievance against the management of Loblaws.

The main reason behind the grievance was that the employees felt betrayed by the management.

While signing the collective agreement effective from November 3, 2019 till June 30, 2024 and

stated under Article 14 - Wage Schedule, it was decided beforehand that that the employees

working the midnight shift shall be entitled to a shift premium for all regular hours worked after

10 p.m. at the rate of $1.00 dollar per hour (Appendix B). The employees were upset since they

compromised on their sleeping patterns and worked hard for these shifts to earn the entitled

premium pay. They believe that they risk their lives during Covid-19 situation, come at night,

stock the shelves, the inventory and prepare for all the shopping orders for the pickups the next

day, after this much effort they deserve for the premium pay.
Team Report

This can leave a negative impact on the employees of the Loblaws and can also hinder the

healthy working of the organization (McQuarrie F. A., 2015). Union on the other hand seeks to

provide justice to grievers for not getting what they deserve (McQuarrie F. A., 2015).

Rationale for Management

Contrary to what the employee’s feel, the management believes that reducing the night

shift premium is fair in comparison to employee’s reduced workload .The management of

Loblaws is trying to justify their situation to the union and the grievers (employees of the

Loblaws) that company’s sale has been adversely affected by Covid -19 and there have not been

enough sales from last couple of months. Management explains that the customer circulation at

the store has reduced greatly due to the unprecedented situation which has led to a significant

decrease in the sales and profits and moreover they believe that the employees working night

shift do not have much work. The stocks on shelves last more, the inventory doesn’t need to be

filled more often. The organization is struggling to not layoff the employees and help them

support their families with at least a secure job and income. As the store is close to the Algonquin

college, the customer traffic was significantly reduced which mostly consisted of college

students. Considering the sales drop, the employees should be glad they still have their jobs

retained in the organization.

Rationale for Chosen Strategy

Every negotiation that happens between union and management has certain stages from

which union and management must pass (McQuarrie F. A., 2015). Each stage of negotiation has

sub-processes which influence both the management and the union (McQuarrie F. A., 2015).
Team Report

At the time negotiation in this case both union and management used a distributive

bargaining strategy because both the parties strongly believed that they were correct at their part.

The distributive bargaining strategy is due to the fact that one party’s aims go against the other

party’s objectives, known as a win-lose scenario. (Bargaining Strategies in Conflict Resolution:

Distributive and Integrative Bargaining, 2013) Each conflicting party needs to win, and end up

with the best outcome (Bargaining Strategies in Conflict Resolution: Distributive and Integrative

Bargaining, 2013).Rationale for using used distributive bargaining strategy by union was because

it was stated in the collective bargaining agreement signed between both the parties, where it was

mentioned under Article 14 - Wage Schedule, that the employees working the midnight shift

shall be entitled to a shift premium for all regular hours worked after 10 p.m. at the rate of $1.00

dollar per hour Dated: 8th May 2020 (Appendix B). On the other hand, the rationale behind

management using this strategy is that company’s sales have been adversely affected by Covid-

19 and there have not been enough sales from the last couple of months and they also believed

that the employees working night shift do not have much work. The stocks on shelves last more,

the inventory doesn’t need to be filled more often. As both the parties were not able to make any

decision, the situation led to three steps of the grievance process.

Summary of Research

Unions are a legislative framework for the economic aspects of the employment arrangement

that guarantees conformity with the equity rights created, such as charging a premium for

working overtime (Pohler & Luchak, 2014). These equity rights are enforced with the help of

collective agreement articles which provide higher pay rates for overtime [or premium for night

shifts] (Pohler & Luchak, 2014). Another application of unions is resolving conflicts in the

labour-employer relationship.
Team Report

Conflict is an inseparable part of the employment relationship (Peterson & Lewin, 2000). In a

unionized environment these conflicts are usually negotiated and resolved through collective

negotiations (Peterson & Lewin, 2000). Grievance procedure is the main mechanism through

which labour-management negotiations are continuously happening (Peterson & Lewin, 2000).

Grievance procedure has a positive impact on organizational performance and is a very

good formal approach to resolve conflicts; however, it is worth mentioning that high grievance

filing is a symptom of low informal conflict handling skills in the organization which is also a

sign of poor management that can deteriorate organizational performance in long term (Peterson

& Lewin, 2000).

Supervisors and Shop Stewards play a key role in resolving the issue at the first stages.

Regarding the role of Shop Steward, studies suggest that complaining to the Shop Steward is

often the precursor of filing a grievance and a knowledgeable Shop Steward who has a good

command on the collective agreement can help employees in resolving a dissatisfaction

(Bemmels, 1994, cited by Peterson & Lewin, 2000). According to studies the rate of grievance is

higher in companies where employees complain to their Shop Steward, on the other hand this

rate is lower for companies with considerate or democratic supervisors (Peterson & Lewin,

2000). As the behavior of supervisors and Shop Stewards are an important part of grievance

procedure, human resources should appraise the performance of these two groups of employees

periodically and increase their knowledge of collective agreement mechanisms (Peterson &

Lewin, 2000). In the case of Loblaws, as the Shop Steward had a good command on the

collective agreement article pertaining to the night shift premium, she was able to negotiate the

problem with a strong reason. On the other hand, however, the supervisor did not professionally

encounter the situation and made the issue more complicated. Although the conflict was finally
Team Report

resolved with the interference of the union, as the management of the company was not able to

solve the issue informally, they should revise their problem solving and decision-making

procedures to prevent future conflicts.

Another study conducted by Cappelli & Chauvin investigated the reasons why employees

decide to file a grievance instead of quitting or remaining silent as other options of dissatisfaction

(1991, cited by Peterson & Lewin, 2000). They concluded that the cost-benefit analysis of

grievance filing depends on the situation of the labour market (Peterson & Lewin, 2000). The pay

rate offered by competitors as well as unemployment rate are two influential factors here,

meaning that if the unemployment rate is high, employees prefer to file a grievance instead of

quitting the organization or giving up (Peterson & Lewin, 2000). In the uncertain situation of

Covid- 19, the employment rate is not high in the market and employees are losing their jobs, so

it was more rational for the employees to file a grievance. They also did not give up since they

knew that they have the support of collective agreement and their union.

Decision-making

For one thing, when a dispute arises in the organization, the first recommendation for

managers is to resolve the issue informally, this can be done by talking to employee's

representatives, supervisors, and union representatives (Griffith, 2010). One of the critical roles

of managers is dealing with employees who feel they have been subject to unfair behavior

(Griffith, 2010). The best approach is rectifying the situation amicably since tribunal cases can be

costly for the party who is unreasonable and [sometimes make the relationship more

complicated] (Griffith, 2010). In the case of Loblaw's, the employer side decided not to resolve

the issue amicably as they believed it is justifiable to cut the cost when they are financially in a
Team Report

bad situation. They also thought that as the unemployment rate is high due to Covid-19, their

staff will not react to their unfair behavior.

For another thing, unions must take into account that their decisions should be in

accordance to "duty of fair representation" which means they act must not be of bad faith or

discriminatory inherent (McQuarrie, 2015). Dishonesty, revenge, hostility, involving factors such

as gender and race are some kind of bad practice and unions should avoid them (McQuarrie,

2015). UFCW Canada took into account this duty, followed the best practice, and obeyed the

legal and moral aspects in filing a grievance in merely legal framework.

Another worth mentioning issue is that using problem solving skills and positive

attitude toward collaboration is one of the most advantageous aspects of grievance procedure

which can lessen arbitration cases (Quinn, Rosenbaum, & McPherson, 1990). However, in

Loblaws the parties decided not to collaborate as both parties were of the opinion that they have a

robust argument and are able to win the case.

A final consideration for both parties in decision making is the cost of an arbitration

hearing (McQuarrie, 2015). Whenever the union considers the issue is yet unsolved, they may

consider a claim to an employment tribunal (Griffith, 2010). The average cost of a one-day

arbitration hearing is estimated at $ 22000 (McQuarrie, 2015). The employer party first decided

to insist on their position and did not accept to turn the night premium shift to the agreed amount

mentioned in the collective agreement. However, after conducting the cost-benefit analysis they

decided to give up before the union brought the case to the arbitration.
Team Report

Negotiation Tactics

Replacing position with interests is one of the main rules of negotiation in grievance

mediation (Quinn, et al, 1990). In other words, recognizing, expressing, and evaluating

agreement alternatives and applying problem solving skills to achieve a mutual gain is the

foundation of grievance which can be achieved by participating in real grievance meetings,

workshops, and learning communication skills (Quinn, et al, 1990). In Loblaws the parties

decided not to follow this approach and chose to follow distributive bargaining strategy. The

reason behind this decision was that both parties were of the opinion that their argument is

justifiable.

FACT (Framing, Anticipating, Clarification and Tactics) is the acronym used by

SHRM summarizing four elements of the negotiation planning process (Posthuma, 2010).

Frames are a way of thinking in understanding a problem (Posthuma, 2010). Negotiators should

be careful to choose a win-win or joint gain approach which is based on respect and dignity

instead of considering issues as a battle who have a winner and loser, which is called distributive

win-lose negotiations (Posthuma, 2010). Anticipation means all issues arisen in the conflict are

being anticipated (Posthuma, 2010). Thinking about what the other party wants helps negotiators

to focus on interests not positions (Posthuma, 2010). By focusing on the interest of both parties'

negotiators may come up with creative solutions (Posthuma, 2010). Third element is clarification

which means negotiators have to identify their priorities and expectations and " evaluate the

situation objectively and begin the negotiation with challenging yet discussable positions and

clear expressions of their interests” (Posthuma, 2010). A bad practice is to start the negotiation

too close to the goal point or so vague that the other party cannot understand what is really

expected (Posthuma, 2010). Finally, effective negotiators prepare their negotiation tactics before
Team Report

the real meeting (Posthuma, 2010). Unless the negotiator is inexperienced and does not ask for

enough, it is better to state our challenging yet discussable demand first (Posthuma, 2010).

"Making smaller changes in your bids or taking longer to respond sends a signal to your

opponent that you may not be willing to make many more concessions." Is the best tactic

introduced by Posthuma (2010). In the case of Loblaws, it seems that the union part won the case

since they cleverly followed the rules of negotiation game playing. At the first stage, the Shop

Steward brought the issue to the attention of the supervisor with a respectful manner. The

employee side also asked the employer to follow the collective bargaining which was a

challenging yet discussable offer. The management party could act more mature and negotiate

based on FACT rules. In this case, if they followed a win-win approach instead of distributive

win-lose negotiations the final outcome could have been different and they could have negotiated

on cutting the shift rate to .75 $ as a mutual gain result. Overall, negotiation skills of union

coupled with lack of negotiation experience and skills of management party resulted in winning

of the union and employees.

Summary of the Grievance Process and Key Events

As mentioned above, the grievance was derived from the decrease in the night shift

premium pay by 50 per cent, from $1.00 to 50 cents (Appendix B). According to the employees

and the union’s perspective, such a decision has breached the currently effective collective

agreement. As a result, the group of employees who were affected by the pay adjustment of

Loblaws has decided to file a grievance to the union, aiming to oppose the new pay (Appendix

C). All the steps taken by employees and the union did strictly follow the grievance procedure

issued in Article 13 under the Collective Agreement of Loblaws (Appendix A).

Team Report

Step 1 – Informal Grievance with the Direct Supervisor

Firstly, on 29th April, which was a day after the date the employees received notification

with respect to new premium pay for night shift via Workday app (28 April 2020), the affected

group of employees complained about the unreasonable amendment to the Shop Steward

(Appendix D). Such was aimed to seek for an assist of the union, specifically the Shop Steward,

from the first step of the process (McQuarrie, 2015).

The Shop Steward then took necessary steps to clarify the employees’ claim and the

circumstances, mainly based on the initial documents such as notification about the new pay on

Workday app, the collective agreement, combining with what employees have stated and their

signatures of employees. Following the assessment of the validity of the grievance, the Shop

Steward was aware of the apparent violation of the current collective agreement in this conduct.

In the greater details, the Article 14 of the Collective Agreement which is in terms of the wage

schedule was breached, and such an infringement placed an adverse implication on employees

who work night shifts (Appendix B). Therefore, this grievance was classified into the “group

grievance” regarding compensation.

Subsequently , after determining that the grievance’s rationale was valid and reasonable,

the Shop Steward on behalf of the group of employees sent an email to the immediate supervisor

of the group, bringing the grievance to the notice of the supervisor and discussing with the

supervisor about time and location for the informal meeting (Appendix E).

Next, the Shop Steward and the Supervisor had a discussion on 30th May (Appendix E). In

the meeting, the Shop Steward expressed the concerns regarding the pay alteration, pointing out

the unfairness in the new pay because the night shift employees have to expose themselves in the
Team Report

Covid-19 easy-to-be-infected environment, disturbing the normal schedule of physical body

operation of human beings. The Shop Steward also stressed that the pay change was obviously a

breach in the collective agreement. Regarding the supervisor’s standpoint, the company decision

is totally reasonable since the revenue of the store has been suffering a lot. Furthermore, Loblaws

has been so kind when the company just cut half of the pay. Hence, the supervisor refused to

resolve the grievance in the way that the employee’s desire, and the given main reason was her

inadequate authority. Lastly, the meeting ended with the unfavourable settlement for the

employees, thus, the union went to the next phase of the grievance process.

Step 2 – Formal Grievance and Investigation

After this first informal meeting of which the result did not work out in the way the

employees expected, the Shop Steward made an official written grievance based on the employee

grievance form (Appendix C) and sent to the direct supervisor on 1st May, 2020, which was then

sent the Labour Relations and the Payroll Department-Human Resources. The form had the

signatures of both sides, including the union and the Shop Steward appointed by the union, and

each of them kept a copy of the written grievance, while the HR Dept kept the original one

(Appendix C). Besides, the signatures of 25 employees in the group affected is attached to the

written complaint (Appendix C). Concerning the compensation grievance, normally the ultimate

goal of grievers is to attain the monetary rewards (Section 4: Grievances, 2015). Once the final

decision has been made, especially when the grievance has been brought to the arbitrator, those

who signed supporting the grievance are likely the only ones that are subject to the new more

favourable compensation (Section 4: Grievances, 2015). Hence, the document that contains the
Team Report

signatures of employees in the affected group has a noteworthy importance in this complaint

process.

The next progress was that the management’s side and the union conducted the

investigation on their own. This investigation went deeper into the matter in comparison with the

assessment mentioned previously where both sides collected the evidence by various methods

such as interviewing the employees, gathering reports from multiple departments of Loblaw. In

terms of Loblaw’s side, the supporting documents included but not limited to:

● The financial statements and reports with the sale statistics of the store in the first two

quarters in 2020, supporting the rationale of the new premium pay for night shift – loss in

revenue.

● The rationale and explanation for the alteration in premium pay for night shift obtained from

the Payroll Department.

Some documents gathered by the employees and union side were:

● The effective collective agreement;

● The notification of the new premium pay for night shift;

● The documents signed by 25 employees who were impacted.

Then, the meeting between the Department Manager and the Union Representative took

place on 3rd May, 2020. After listening to the concerns of the union, the Department Manager

supported the rationale and the arguments provided by the Supervisor in a meeting prior to this

which was indicated before with the evidence demonstrated by documents and statistics. The

Department Manager stood by the stance of the righteous decision made by the organization to
Team Report

reduce the premium pay in order to compensate for the reduced sales, profits and customer loss at

Loblaws. As a result, the final outcome of this meeting did not satisfy the expectations of the

union and employees. Therefore, the grievance process proceeded to the next phase, which was

the final step prior to the grievance being brought to arbitration (McQuarrie, 2015). In addition,

the union also completed and submitted the form in Appendix C to the Department Manager.

Step 3 – “The Final Attempt Before Arbitration” (McQuarrie, 2015, p. 313)

At the final step of the internal grievance process, the meeting took place with the

participation of several stakeholders on both sides on 8th May, 2020. The management’s team

consisted of the Department Manager, the Supervisor, the Labour Relations Officer and the

Payroll Manager. The employee’s side consisted of the Union Representative and the Shop

Steward who chaired the meeting from their end. The Union strongly stressed that the

organization’s decision was an obvious breach of the collective agreement which was

unreasonable and unfair to the employees. Moreover, they also pointed out the disadvantageous

position Loblaws was in, if the case was transferred to arbitration, as well as the costly arbitration

cost which would be faced by the organization since they had a weak case. With respect to the

arguments of the employer, they stressed that the rationale of cost reduction was taken as an

alternative for the layoff of employees in the organization due to the Covid-19 situation. The

meeting did not bring out a final settlement right away but the management demanded 4 business

days to evaluate their next steps.

After the evaluation of the comparison costs between agreeing to the union’s demands

and the arbitration costs to be incurred by the management, they decided to agree to the demands

put forward by the Union and the decision was made to revoke the reduction in the night shift
Team Report

premium and settle on the previous agreeable terms in the collective bargaining agreement,

which resulted in the win of the union and the employees leading to night shift premium being

revised to the original payment condition of $1 for all regular hours worked after 10 p.m. as per

the collective bargaining agreement (Appendix A). Such a settlement which was in the sake of

employees’ benefits was stated out in the form submitted by the Union (Appendix C)

The Next Steps

The next step includes the evaluation of the management to understand the repercussions

faced by the organization if the grievance was transferred to arbitration as the next move versus

the cost incurred if the night shift premium was paid as per the terms and conditions mentioned

in the collective bargaining agreement.

The progression of steps after the last meeting between the management and the union

paves ways for the estimation of the arbitration cost in this way and how it could lead to being a

costly affair for the organization.

According to the Canadian Arbitration Association, the cost per hour for an arbitrator

ranges from $250 per hour to $800 dollars per hour (Canadian Arbitration Association, 2020).

Some arbitrators have set half day or full day rates that the association indicates they can be

contacted to provide the organization with a quote (Canadian Arbitration Association, 2020).

Arbitration can be very time consuming so as imaginable the cost could be quite high if the

grievance procedure doesn’t result in an agreement (Canadian Arbitration Association, 2020).

The average timeline for arbitration according to LCIA (Arbitration & ADR Worldwide)

is three months. (LCIA, 2017)

Team Report

An additional reason not to prefer arbitration includes that the arbitrator’s decision is final

(Canadian Labour Congress, 2015). If Loblaws does not have the arbitrator rule in their favour,

then they will have to abide by the undesirable decision either way (Canadian Labour Congress,

2015).

“48 (1) Every collective agreement shall provide for the final and binding settlement by

arbitration, without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the

interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement, including any

question as to whether a matter is arbitrable. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 48 (1).” (Ontario Labour

Relations Act, 1995)

Another next step is to consider how costly the decision to revert to the original premium

pay cost of $1 that the employees want per hour for their premium pay and compare it to the

savings that are to be had long-term should Loblaw’s reduce the premium pay to the 50 cents per

hour. The other comparison would be to the cost of the grievance process as a whole and

determine that this is a cost-effective process that makes the grievance process worth the

decrease in the premium pay. This is also referred to as the Return of Investment (ROI)

(Hasting.R, 2012)

Loblaws must also consider that each grievance adds up over time (Hasting.R, 2012). So,

it is best to determine what the overall ROI will be and if it would encourage employees to

initiative more grievances the more leeway that the employees get (Hasting.R, 2012).

An additional factor in the next steps are to consider what kind of culture that the

organization wants (Hasting.R, 2012). It is important to consider the impact of the relationship

between the employees and the employer when a grievance occurs (Hasting.R, 2012). If the
Team Report

employees had a very critical concern that they filed a grievance for and did not get their way the

weight of the effect this has on the overall culture needs to be evaluated (Hasting.R,2012).

Rationale for Outcome and Tactics Used During Simulation

As mentioned in the rationale for decision-making above, arbitration was not the ideal

scenario in both instances for a variety of reasons- and in this case, it was the high costs involved

if the grievance went into arbitration. The settlement on this decision did not come simply, since

both parties believed that they had legitimate reasons backing their case. Loblaw refused to

mediate at the end of the third step in the grievance, but after following a cost-benefit analysis,

the employer decided that conceding to the demands of the union was a better decision than

allowing the union to take the case to arbitration.

Arbitration is quite time-consuming to the point where it is considered a slow process due

to complicated disputes and complex legal issues to be tackled (McQuarrie, 2015). Besides, the

carrying out the legal formalities of the process is lengthy, causing possible intimidation between

either parties who might not agree with the outcome (McQuarrie, 2015). Finally, the main reason

behind the employer’s decision to not go forward arbitration for the process was due to the

possible costs to be incurred; every party would have to bear their own legal fee, discouraging

them from pursuing grievances (McQuarrie, 2015).

This process would’ve been very demanding on a party who was already facing damages

and reparations from decreased profits due to the situation of the pandemic. As opposed to laying

off employees, the management decided to reduce the nightly premium to aid in coping with the

losses. The company instead conducted what was known as a mediation-arbitration procedure or

‘med-arb’ which is a ‘method for resolving disputes during collective bargaining, but it can also
Team Report

be used for resolving disputes related to the application or interpretation of the collective

agreement” (McQuarrie, 2015, p. 330).

In the med-arb procedure, an individual is appointed by as the third-party and is permitted

to arbitrate at any stage in the grievance procedure who helps the parties reach an agreement by

mediation (McQuarrie, 2015). This informal negotiation phase helps the parties reach an

agreement on at least some of the grievance’s issues, and the mediator then writes an award on

the outstanding issues (McQuarrie, 2015).

Negotiation always either involves distributive or integrative negotiators; the former view

the situation as win/lose, whereas the latter believe in win/lose- i.e. for someone to win, the other

has to lose (Spralls III, Obilo, Garver, & Divine, 2019). Additionally, the manner of

communication and the means with which the parties present their views, as well as persuasive

techniques employed largely contribute towards the outcomes attained (Artinger, Vulkan, &

Shem-Tov, 2015). Persuasion can be defined as “the ability to influence others to change their

view or behavior to reach personal goals” and depending on the situation, the more persuasive

party was undeniably the union, whereas the employer’s side fell short with their approach

(Artinger, Vulkan, & Shem-Tov, 2015).

Arguments are normally aimed towards achieving a positive outcome, negotiators with

strong arguments are known to defend their position and fight others attempts in order to claim

higher profits- the union against management was well-equipped in this realm too (Artinger,

Vulkan, & Shem-Tov, 2015). Another tactic employed by the Union’s side was the ‘toughness’

they exhibited, a clear play on their emotional strategy- portraying themselves as having a higher

relative bargaining power than the management (Artinger, Vulkan, & Shem-Tov, 2015).
Team Report

One of the major reasons behind the outcome of the grievance process is the approach

adopted by the union; although both parties had very valid approaches to the situation, the union

along with their union representative were highly prepared for their case. They were assertive,

yet respectful with their supervisor and employed an approach that benefited their cause to the

point where it was not considered a win-win situation and the employer had to concede. The

union was thus majorly prepared with their negotiation, but the management lacked the required

skills and resources to aid in the overall process.

Thus, the grievance was resolved without the need to go into arbitration; Loblaw and the

management’s side involved in the process conceded to resume paying the night-shift premium

that was prescribed in the collective agreement.

Conclusion

The situation described in this document represents a group grievance initiated against

Loblaws store located at the College Square Mall in Ottawa at 1980 Baseline Rd. The grievance

was initiated by the store part-time and full-time associates that work during the night shifts. The

matter of discussion was the modification of the night shift premium pay of $1.00 per hour after

10 p.m. that was set in the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by both parties and effective

from November 3rd, 2019 to June 30, 2024 (K.A. David, personal communication, July 22,

2020).

The organization communicated to its employees through the Workday app that the night

shift premium will be reduced from $1.00 to 50 cents as a measure to protect everyone’s job

since after COVID-19 situation the company’s sales had been drastically affected and the amount

of work of the night employees has been diminished considerably (Appendix D).
Team Report

In order to proceed with the grievance, the employees and the organization followed the

process established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that has mainly three steps and

opportunities to solve the discrepancy before going to arbitration (Appendix A). Once the

employees received the notification where the company informed about the variation of the night

shift premium pay, one of the employees after discussing with some of her coworkers that were

also affected by this decision raised their concern to the Shop Steward who identified the

grievance and requested a meeting with the supervisor, starting with the first step of the

grievance procedure. After the meeting, the Shop Steward communicated to the employees the

explanation given by the supervisor and her negative response to reinstating the previous night

shift premium payment. Since the employees were still unsatisfied and considered the decision

was unfair and against the collective bargaining agreement, the grievance went up to the union

representative and the Department Manager who met to discuss the employees and employer

arguments regarding the modifications. During this second step, the meeting ended without an

agreement between the parties which led to the third step. The union and the management agreed

to have a meeting to discuss the problem and try to solve it avoiding going to the arbitration

process. The issue was not finished at the meeting but the management requested some days to

be able to review the arguments of the affected employees in order to make a final decision. The

organization is also interested in avoiding extra and unnecessary expenses that can be generated

during an arbitration process, especially when its case is not very strong and employees have a

valid point.

The main arguments of the employees or grievers included that they compromised their

sleep patterns and were working hard in order to obtain the premium payment that was already

established in the CBA. The amount of work was still the same since the shopping orders they
Team Report

had to prepare for pickups the next day were increasing during the pandemic. Besides, employees

were also risking their health working during this unprecedented situation and had been

demonstrating their compromise with the company. On the other hand, management explained

that the company’s sales had been adversely affected by Covid-19 situation and the measure

regarding night shift premium pay was made in order to avoid employees’ layoff. They also

mentioned that employees working during night shift did not have a lot of work due to the

significant reduction of customer traffic.

After reviewing the arguments exposed by both parties, it is possible to state that the

strategy chosen by both parties was a distributive bargaining strategy which brings a win-lose

scenario (Bargaining Strategies in Conflict Resolution: Distributive and Integrative Bargaining,

2013). The management and the union considered they had a valid point regarding the collective

agreement. The union based on the collective agreement, and the management because of the

changes brought by the Covid-19. This strategy and the impossibility of an agreement between

the parties in the early stages led the parties to go through the three steps of the grievance

process. The union followed the best practices and obeyed the legal and moral aspects in filing a

grievance in accordance with the legal framework and protecting the affected employee’s best

interest. The management had decided not to resolve the issue amicably since they considered

their decision was just and fair according to the company financial situation and the new

challenges.

Nevertheless, after the last meeting, the management reviewed the case in more detail and

made an analysis regarding case arguments and structure as well as an estimation of the cost of

an arbitration process which led them to decide not to continue with the arbitration. Instead, the
Team Report

management decided to accept the union position and reinstated the night shift premium pay to

the affected employees as prescribed in the collective agreement.

Team Report

References

Artinger, S., Vulkan, N., & Shem-Tov, Y. (2015). Entrepreneus' Negotiation Behaviour. Small

Business Economics .

Bargaining Strategies in Conflict Resolution: Distributive and Integrative Bargaining. (2013,

July 31). Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/bargaining-strategies-in-

conflict-resolution-distributive-and-integrative-bargaining.html.

Betterteam. (n.d.). Department Manager Job Description. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from

https://www.betterteam.com/department-manager-job-description-1

Canadian Arbitration Association (2020), Fees, Retrieved From:

https://canadianarbitrationassociation.ca/?page_id=19

Canadian Labour Congress. (2015, October 7). Grievances. Retrieved from Canadian Labour

Congress: https://canadianlabour.ca/uncategorized/section-4-grievances/

CareerPlanner.com. (n.d.). Labor Relations Specialist Job Description. Retrieved from

https://job-descriptions.careerplanner.com/Labor-Relations-Specialist.cfm

Cleroux, M. (2020, July 25). Simulation Preparation. Retrieved from Brightspace:

https://brightspace.algonquincollege.com/d2l/le/content/262137/viewContent/3873502/Vie

Griffith, R. (2010). Managing grievances in the workplace. British Journal of Healthcare

Management, 16(10), 490–494. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2010.16.10.78927

Team Report

Hastings. R(2012), Measure Grievances to Minimize Costs, Retrieved From:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-

relations/pages/measuregrievancestominimizecosts.aspx

Loblaws. (n.d.). About Loblaws. Retrieved from Loblaws: https://www.loblaws.ca/about

LCIA (2017), LCIA Releases updated Costs and Timeline Analysis, Retrieved From:

https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-updated-costs-and-duration-

analysis.aspx#:~:text=the%20median%20time%20taken%20for%20arbitrators%20to

%20prepare,consistently%20performing%20their%20core%20task%20swiftly%20and

%20efficiently%3B

McQuarrie, F. A. (2015). Industrial Relations in Canada (4 ed.). United States: John Wiley &

Sons Canada, Ltd.

Ontario Labour Relations Act (1995), Retrieved From: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/95l01

Payroll Manager Job Description. (2012, May 12). Retrieved from

https://hiring.monster.com/employer-resources/job-description-templates/payroll-

manager-job-description/

Peterson, R. B., & Lewin, D. (2000). Research on unionized grievance procedures: Management

issues and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 395–406.

https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-050x(200024)39:4<395::aid-hrm9>3.0.co;2-4
Team Report

Pohler, D. M., & Luchak, A. A. (2014). Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice: The Impact of

Unions and High-Involvement Work Practices on Work Ooutcomes. ILR Re, 67(4),

1063–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914546295

Posthuma, R. (2010). employee and labor relations Instructor’s manual. Retrieved July 26, 2020,

from www.shrm.org website: https://www.shrm.org/certification/for-

organizations/academic-alignment/faculty-resources/Documents/Posthuma%20-

%20Workplace%20Dispute%20Resolution_Instructor%27s%20Manual_FINAL.pdf

Quinn, T. J., Rosenbaum, M., & McPherson, D. S. (1990). Grievance Mediation and Grievance

Negotiation Skills: Building Collaborative Relationships. Labor Law Journal, 41(11),

762–772.

Section 4: Grievances. (2015, 10 7). Retrieved from https://canadianlabour.ca/:

https://canadianlabour.ca/uncategorized/section-4-grievances/#Chapter

%2013:%20Investigating%20the%20grievance

Spralls III, S. A., Obilo, O., Garver, M., & Divine, R. (2019). A Fly That Has No Counselor Will

Follow the Corpse to the Grave: Nigerian Culture's Influence on Negotiation. Journal of

Applied Business and Economics.

Team Report

Appendix A: Grievance Process at Loblaws

Team Report

(K. Hunter, personal communication, July 22, 2020)

Team Report

Appendix B: Midnight Shift Premium

(K. Hunter, personal communication, July 22, 2020)

 Team Report

Appendix C: Grievance form & Employee’s Signatures

EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE FORM Grievance No: 3148

To be used for grievances relating to or affecting the rights of specific individual(s) as per
9.4.1(A) of the collective agreement.

STEP ONE: COMPLETE SECTION BELOW AND SUBMIT TO DIRECT SUPERVISOR         

          
Clauses Allegedly Violated: Article: 14 (Wage Schedule) Section: 14.04 (c)

STATEMENT OF GRIEVANCE:

Loblaws has violated the terms agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement effective
from November 3, 2019 until June 30, 2024. According to Article 14, subsection 14.04 (c) of the
Wage Schedule, it has been stated in the contract that the “employees working during the
midnight shift shall be entitled to a shift premium for all regular hours worked after 10 p.m. at the
rate of $1.00 dollar per hour”. As per the notification received on 28 th April 2020, Loblaws has
decided to reduce the shift premium from $1.00 dollar to 50 cents with effect from 1 st May, 2020.
Grievance is filed on the behalf of the night shift employees as they want their night shift
premium to be paid as per the agreed amount in the collective bargaining agreement.

ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED: That my record be made whole in all respects,

Employees of Loblaws want their night shift premium to be paid as per the agreed terms in the
collective bargaining agreement, which requires the roll back of the premium to $1.00 from 50
cents after reduction.

EMPLOYEE: Maria Isabel Garcia Dussan RECEIVED BY: Christian Rattray

(Shop Steward) (Supervisor)

UNION REP: Bishakha Dated: 1st May 2020

Supervisor’s Reply Date: 2nd May 2020

When the grievance complaint from the Shop Steward on behalf of the employees was received
by the Supervisor, she responded to the complaint by explaining the current Covid situation due
to which the company was facing serious losses in sales, profits and customer traffic instore
which led to the reduction in the workload of the night shift workers. Amid this scenario it is fair
for the organization to reduce the night shift premium to help the organization to save the jobs of
all the employees in the organization and do not lay them off because of the financial losses in
the organization. She suggested that if the employees were not satisfied with this decision, they
can address the grievance to the Department Manager within 2 days.
 Team Report
Original Copy to Human Resources
Photocopy of signed original to Chief Steward and Grievor

If the response does not satisfactorily adjust the matter, the grievance shall, within two (2) work days
after the receipt of the decision of the superintendent concerned, be referred to the Department Manager
for review.

STEP TWO: COMPLETE SECTION BELOW AND SUBMIT

TO THE DEPARTMENT MANAGER CONCERNED

The reply does not satisfactorily adjust the grievance.

EMPLOYEE: Bishakha RECEIVED BY: Mojdeh Mohammadsefat Roudsary

(Union Representative) (Department Manager)

Dated: 4th May 2020

The Department Manager or their representative shall render a decision in writing within four (4) work
days of receipt of the grievance.

Department Manager’s Reply Date: 6th May

After the meeting with the Union Representative, the Department Manager took her time and
stated that the new premium pay for night shift is reasonable, considering the situational factors
that the store and the company was undergoing. As proven by financial report and statistics, the
footfall, sales and profits of the stores had decreased since the first quarter of this month due to
Covid-19, she addressed the reduction in the workload of the employees working night shifts as
the stocks on the shelves and the inventory would not have to be filled quite often and the work
at night was reduced considerably. She further stated that the reduction was a good move for all
the employees to not lose their stable jobs in such unprecedented times and instead a premium
reduction was given so that the company retains all the employees without having them to suffer
economically by completely losing their jobs.

If the response does not satisfactorily adjust the matter, the grievance shall within two (2) work days
after the receipt of the decision of the Department Manager concerned is referred to the Plant Manager
for review.

STEP THREE: COMPLETE SECTION BELOW AND SUBMIT

TO THE MANAGER

The reply does not satisfactorily adjust the grievance.

EMPLOYEE: Bishakha RECEIVED BY: Ngoc Van Du Nguyen

Team Report

(Union Representative) (Labour Relations Officer)

Dated: 8th May 2020

The Manager or their Representative shall render a decision in writing within five (5)
work days of receipt of the grievance.

MANAGER’S REPLY SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO UNION AND EMPLOYEE

Following the recent meeting with the Union, the management on behalf of the
organization, notifies that the premium pay for night shift workers will be changed to $1
per hour as mentioned in the collective bargaining agreement. Considering many
factors, it was understood that the employees have had additional tasks of preparing the
online pickup orders at night apart from stocking which has taken over most of the work
tasks at night. We understand that times are tough for everyone, but we would want to
keep the spirit of harmony in these tough times and sail past this. The decision will be
effective from 1st May 2020 and any retrospective payment will be released with the next
pay cycle.
Dated: 12th May 2020

(Cleroux, 2020)

Attachment: Letter Signed by 25 Employees

Team Report
Team Report
Team Report
Team Report

Appendix D: Notification from Loblaws to inform employees

Team Report

Appendix E:  Exchange of emails between Shop Steward and Supervisor

Team Report

Attachment: Letter Signed by 25 Employees

Team Report
Team Report

Appendix F: Exchange of email between the Union Representative and Department

Manager about the Second Meeting
Team Report
Team Report
Team Report

Appendix G: Exchange of emails between Union Representative and management of

Loblaws for the meeting
Team Report
Team Report

Appendix H: Projected cost of Wages and Arbitration

Projected Cost of Premium Wage:

Amount of Amount of Equation: Total Cost:

Employees: Hours to be
Paid Premium
Rate for:

25 5 hours 25 * 5 = 125/ $625/ week or

night shift (7) $2500/month
= 625

Projected Cost of Arbitration:

Median Cost of Median Time of Equation: Total Cost:

Arbitration: Arbitration:

$500 90 days 500*90 $45 000

Team Report