HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1518.Grievor.15-02-27 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#2013-1518
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Grievor) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Frank Inglis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laurie Blackstone
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Eastern Regional Office
HR Manager
HEARING February 24, 2015
- 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] In early 2013, a breach in the operation of an online portal allowed employees to have
access to incident reports regarding resource protection. The Employer acknowledged
that the secure portal malfunctioned for a period of up to two months and that otherwise
confidential reports could be read online. They tried to fix the problem, but also admitted
that there was a second short period of time when staff had access to the portal before the
computer glitch was finally remedied.
[3] There were two incident reports on the portal that related to the grievor. The first one
recorded his purported conversation with management in which it was reported that he
alerted management to potential theft in the warehouse. The second report referred to a
Notice of Intention to Discipline issued to the grievor for unrelated matters.
[4] The grievor alleges that his conversation with management was mischaracterized in the
first incident report and that it led to the impression by those who read it that he was
informing on bargaining unit co-workers. He says that this had extraordinary
consequences for him personally and in his union role. It has placed a great deal of strain
on him and he has taken several days off as a result. He was unsure of all of the specific
dates when he left due to stress and did not always feel comfortable identifying stress as
the reason for his absence. The grievor also lost faith in the organization when
management failed to fix the security breach the first time that they were alerted to the
problem.
- 3 -
[5] To make the grievor whole, the Union requested the following remedies:
1. Confirmation that the portal is no longer accessible;
2. Management search and provide copies of all reports accessible on the portal that refer
to the grievor from February 4- April 24, 2013. That management also search and provide
copies of all communications by 3 specific members of management from January 15,
2013 to January 15, 2014, in which they make disparaging comments about the grievor to
management or union members.
3. The grievor be awarded 6 weeks of vacation
[7] The Employer admitted that there was a breach in security but maintained that it was a
computer glitch. The LCBO is prepared to remove the two incident reports that the Union
has identified as problematic, however, the remedies sought by the Union are not
appropriate. There are no medical documents regarding stress nor have specific absences
been identified. Moreover, for the period since the security breach, there have only been
11 partial days where the grievor was absent for reasons that could possibly be
attributable to stress. There is no evidence that there have been any further actions taken
by management as a result of the two incident reports at issue and it would not be
appropriate to order that management’s communications be searched and disclosed.
Decision
[8] The Employer has admitted a breach in security that permitted unauthorized viewing of
incident reports. I accept that the breach was inadvertent and neither intentional nor
malicious. The Union did not maintain otherwise. I also accept that there was the
potential for negative impact on the grievor as a consequence of his colleagues reading
the content of the first report. Nonetheless, there is very limited evidence of time lost as a
result of these events and there is no evidence that there was further communication by
management that warrants the search and production requested.
- 4 -
[9] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the following remedies are
appropriate in the circumstances:
1. The Employer will confirm that the portal is now secure;
2. The Employer will remove the incident reports at issue;
3. The grievor will receive an extra 3 days of vacation
[10] The grievance is allowed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of February 2015.
Reva Devins, Vice-Chair