HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1570.Gandhi.08-11-28 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2007-1570, 2007-1573
UNION#2007-5107-0010, 2007-5107-0020
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gandhi)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Randi H. Abramsky
FOR THE UNION
Craig Flood
Koskie Minsky LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Jodi S. Gallagher
Counsel
Heenan Blaikie LLP
HEARING
June 9, July 18, October 24, November 10,
November 21, November 24, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]The parties requested an expedited decision on the Union?s motion that the discipline
imposed on the grievor, Harish Gandhi, is void ab initio, on the basis that the Employer
violated Article 26.3 of the parties? collective agreement. Having now heard and
considered the viva voce evidence and the agreed facts, the jurisprudence and arguments
of the parties, I rule as follows. A full decision on the merits will be issued as soon as
time permits.
[2]The Union?s preliminary motion on the basis of Article 26.3 is allowed in part. Under the
specific facts of this case, I conclude that the meeting of May 30, 2007 was a meeting
within the ambit of Article 26.3 of the collective agreement.
[3]The discipline of the grievor based on the allegations of Ms. B (whose full name is not
necessary for this decision) is void ab initio. The Employer cannot rely on those
allegations to support the discharge of the grievor. For clarity, this includes all of the
allegations set forth in the June 5, 2007 NOID.
[4]This does not, however, void the discharge of the grievor because the discharge was
based on other alleged acts of misconduct which were not the subject of the violation of
Article 26.3.OBLEU (Franssen) and LCBO, GSB No. 1638/96 (Mikus, Vice-Chair).
The allegations contained in the NOID dated June 26, 2007 may proceed.
3
In addition, the Employer has also alleged two post-discharge incidents. I make no ruling at this
time on the use that the Employer may make of those allegations, but the Employer will be
allowed to lead evidence about them.
th
day of November, 2008.
Dated at Toronto this 28
Randi H. Abramsky, Vice-Chair