HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-2803.Union.14-01-02 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2013-2803
UNION#2013-0999-0103
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Union) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Joseph D. Carrier Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Val Patrick
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Justin Diggle
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Counsel
HEARING December 12, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This is a policy grievance filed by the Union. In dispute is a new deportment policy
introduced by the LCBO on October 31, 2013 (“the “Policy”). The parties are currently
bound to a collective agreement the term of which is April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2017
(the “Collective Agreement”).
[2] In response to this new Policy, the Union filed a Union Policy Grievance dated
November 9, 2013 under OPSEU File #2013-0999-0103 and GSB File #2013-2803 (the
“Grievance”). The parties agreed (on a without prejudice basis) to an expedited process
by which the Grievance was referred to arbitration and was scheduled for a hearing on
December 12, 2013 before me.
[3] On December 12, 2013, representatives of the LCBO and the Union and their legal
representatives met with me. Amendments to the Policy were agreed to, and accordingly,
in this unique situation, it was agreed that I would issue this Award.
[4] As part of the proceedings, the parties made representations with respect to the
reasonableness of the Policy. Having heard these representations, and having reviewed
the Policy as amended by the Employer, December 20th, 2013, I find and declare that the
Policy is reasonable and non-discriminatory, it is supported by considerations of health
and safety and the employer’s business interests and is properly balanced with the
interests of the employees, it is an acceptable exercise of the LCBO’s rights under the
Collective Agreement, and is compliant with the applicable legal principles set out in Re.
KVP Co. Ltd. and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2537 (1965), 16 L.A.C. 73
(Robinson), as outlined below:
A rule unilaterally introduced by the company, and not subsequently agreed to
by the union, must satisfy the following requisites:
1. It must not be inconsistent with the collective agreement.
2. It must not be unreasonable.
3. It must be clear and unequivocal.
4. It must be brought to the attention of the employee affected before the
company can act on it.
- 3 -
5. The employee concerned must have been notified that a breach of such rule
could result in his discharge if the rule is used as a foundation for discharge.
6. Such rule should have been consistently enforced by the company from the
time it was introduced.
[5] Based on the positions of the parties, it is also declared that this Award shall survive the
expiry of the Collective Agreement.
[6] This Award fully disposes of the issues raised by the Grievance or matters that could
have been raised in same.
Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of January 2014.
Joseph D. Carrier, Vice-Chair