HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2182.Potvin.10-01-07 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#2009-2182
UNION#2009-0499-0064
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Potvin)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Gerry Lee
FOR THE UNION
Jean Chaykowsky
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Pamela LeMaistre
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Human Resources Manager
HEARING
January 4, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties referred the above captioned grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance
with Article 22.11 and Appendix 2 of the Collective Agreement. This arbitration is with
respect to the grievance of Mr. Shayne Potvin to the effect that
a ten day suspension and final warning imposed upon him for an incident that occurred
on July 27, 2009, was, in all of the circumstances, an excessive penalty.
[2] The Employer?s position in this matter is that the Grievor engaged in an inappropriate,
aggressive and intimidating manner towards a co-worker on July 27, 2009. The
Employer stated that the grievor had a significant disciplinary record of a similar nature
consisting of two 1-day suspensions, one 3-day suspension and one 5-day suspension
(later reduced to a one day suspension due to the grievor?s participation in anger
management counseling).
[3] The Union and the Grievor acknowledged that the incident in question did occur, but not
to the extent portrayed by the employer and that the imposition of a ten day suspension
was too severe.
[4] At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I had jurisdiction to deal with this
matter and they requested that I issue a ?without precedent? decision with no reasons.
[5] Having carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, I have concluded that the
grievance succeeds to the extent outlined below:
The ten day suspension and final warning issued to the grievor on
September 11, 2009, shall be reduced to a five day suspension given the
circumstances surrounding this matter. The Employer is directed to amend
their records accordingly and pay the grievor for five days pay, minus
regular deductions, to be paid within 30 calendar days of this award.
[6] I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.
th
Dated at Toronto this 7 day of January 2010.
Gerry Lee, Vice-Chair