HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1018.Hay.07-11-01 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2007-1018
UNION# 2007-0499-0036
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hay)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Reva Devins
Jean Chaykowsky
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Pamela Checkley
HR Manager
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
October 29,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick
disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding grievances. 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.
This grievance arises from the Grievor's refusal to comply with facility site safety rules despite
repeated requests from his supervisor. A three-day suspension was imposed by the Employer as
discipline for this conduct. The Grievor argues that the three-day suspension is contrary to
Articles 1.1, 32 and 26.4 (as amended on consent). Although he admits to the conduct alleged by
the Employer, the Grievor maintains that he was responding to the Employer's failure to ensure
safe working conditions.
On the shift in question, the main water supply to the warehouse had been temporarily turned off.
Consequently, drinking water was only available from large jugs, dispensed into individual cups.
The Grievor went to get a cup of water and slowly drove back to his work location carrying the
cup in one hand and driving with the other. The Grievor denies hearing his foreman offer to carry
his water back to his work site for him, but he does admit that his supervisor told him that he was
driving in an unsafe manner and that he must have two hands on the vehicle at all times. The
Grievor further acknowledged that he ignored his supervisor's request and replied using
disrespectful remarks. The Grievor subsequently apologized for his unprofessional comments.
Having heard the submissions of the parties and considered their evidence, I do not find that the
Employer violated Article 32 or 1.1. I do, however, consider a three-day suspension to be
excessive in all of the circumstances. The Grievor was aware that he was operating his vehicle in
a manner that was contrary to company policy and an express direction from his supervisor. He
had also been previously disciplined for driving with only one hand on the vehicle. Nonetheless,
the Grievor's conduct must be viewed in the context of all the surrounding circumstances. In
3
light of the exceptional circumstances on the night in question, I would allow the grievance in
part and substitute a one-day suspension for the three-day suspension that was originally
imposed.
Dated at Toronto this 18t day of November 2007
Reva Devins
Vice-Chair