Lik

I don't know exactly how your union is gonna interpret this, but I see how the union rep is trying to spin this -- she is trying to spin this matter into "more senior staff gets first pick in shifts", and by extension of priority shift picking, that also determines when the senior staff's vacation days are.

There is certainly logic behind that line of reasoning. IIRC, you were saying that previously, work hours were picked as a single, entire 40-hour block. Should you choose to continue fighting it, I think you should focus on this past, long standing practice of picking an entire 40-hour block and use it to dispute the union rep's past practice claim.

But if the union ruling determines that shift picking doesn't necessarily mean choosing single batch block of hours, then I think you'd be more or less out of luck.

-Lik

cllo

thats what i think too. the union rep (very rude i would say) is try to say senior staff get first pick.
but base on the agreement. they get first to assignemnt the longest shifts. they can decline a longer shift for a shorter available shift. as article 8.05(a) in the attactment eariler. NOT FIRST PICK.
and a later article. "in situations other than emergencies, the scheduled employees are entitled to forty-eight hours notice of any change in their respective work schedules" and "this provision is intended to provide scheduling flexibility when business needs change."
my understanding of that article is employer can change schedule by their need. seniority doesnt apply. I think this is why they left out the casue "seniority can pick shift", which is part of a older collective agreement. To avoid conflict between the two cause.