HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2215.Hamilton.19-10-31 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# 2015-2215
UNION# 2015-0378-0080
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hamilton) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer
BEFORE
Nimal Dissanayake
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Natalie De Haney-Stewart
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Senka Grahovac
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Counsel
HEARING October 28, 2019
-2-
DECISION
[1] A grievance dated July 20, 2015 filed by Mr. Lee Hamilton (“grievor”), a seasonal
employee at the LCBO Warehouse in Whitby, Ontario, came up for hearing before
me on October 28, 2019. He grieves the employer’s decision to screen him out
from a competition for a full-time position, for which he had applied.
[2] When the Board convened at 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 2019 as scheduled, union
counsel advised that the grievor had not shown up. The employer moved that the
grievance be dismissed. I invited the union to present any information and
evidence it may have relating to the grievor’s non-attendance. Union counsel filed
print-outs of a number of e-mail communications she had with the grievor following
receipt of the Board’s notice of hearing, and also detailed telephone conversations
she had with the grievor in the days leading up to the hearing.
[3] The evidence indicates that the union counsel had discussions with the employer
about the grievance. The employer’s position was that the grievor was screened
out because he had a record of discipline. She then communicated the employer’s
position to the grievor, and discussed with him the merits of his grievance and the
chances of success.
[4] The evidence is that the grievor indicated to counsel that he was inclined not to
pursue the grievance. In an e-mail, counsel directly requested the grievor to inform
whether he was proceeding or withdrawing the grievance. The grievor did not
respond. Counsel sent a number of subsequent follow up e-mails which were also
not responded to. At 8.13 A.M. in the morning of the hearing she again sent an e-
mail, advising that she was going to the hearing, and requested that the grievor
meet her at the coffee shop in the building where the Board is located. He did not
respond to that e-mail either. He had not shown up at the Board at 10:35 a.m.
when the Board rose for the day, having heard submissions from the parties.
-3-
[5] Union counsel’s position was that she was not prepared to withdraw the grievance
without confirmation from the grievor that he did not wish to proceed. Employer
counsel submitted that based on the evidence, the Board should conclude that the
grievor had abandoned the grievance.
[6] Having regard to the evidence, I agree with the employer’s position. I am satisfied
that the grievor had proper notice of the hearing. His failure to communicate with
his union representative and his non-attendance at the hearing, lead me to
conclude that he has, in law, abandoned the grievance. Accordingly the grievance
is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 31st day of October, 2019.
“Nimal Dissanayake”
______________________
Nimal Dissanayake, Arbitrator