FPSLREB Decisions

The grievor filed two grievances, alleging that he was entitled to standby pay. He alleged that there was a de facto standby requirement by which the employer expected him to be available to attend to emergencies at its premises 24/7. The employer argued that the grievor was paid for his callback overtime when there were emergencies but that he was not entitled to standby pay, as there was no requirement for him to be on standby. The Board found that the grievor was not on standby. The evidence established that he was not designated by letter or list for standby, in accordance with the collective agreement. Part of his work description was that he had to be responsible, along with his manager and other employees, for being on a list of employees that security could call 24/7. This established a shared responsibility among those whose names were on the list and not strictly upon the grievor himself. This requirement of the work description was not sufficient to establish a standby requirement. The grievor also testified that had he not answered the calls, he believed that he would have been disciplined. There was no evidence to support that claim.

Grievances denied.