HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1056.Delorme.14-04-15 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#2012-1056
UNION#2012-0499-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Delorme) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Jean Chaykowsky and Frank Inglis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pam LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HR Manager
HEARING April 8, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick
disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding disputes. Appendix 2
incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement and confirms that where grievances
are referred to the mediation/arbitration process, the parties will attempt to reach a
mediated resolution, failing which, the Vice Chair will issue a written decision that is
without prejudice or precedent. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was
properly referred for expedited mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2.
[2] The Grievor alleges that he was unjustly disciplined when he was denied training
opportunities that were offered to another employee. The Grievor was unaware of the
details of the training opportunity, but he believed that it was “management training”.
[3] The Employer stated that the other employee works in a different department and in a
different position than the Grievor. The training he received was related to his specific
needs.
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties I would dismiss the grievance. Training
offered to other employees in other departments does not amount to disciplinary action if
it is not offered to others. Nor is there any other provision in the Collective Agreement
that requires the Employer to offer all of it’s employees identical training opportunities,
regardless of the position they hold or department in which they work.
[5] The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of April 2014.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair