GSB# 2002-2689, 2002-2702, 2002-2772

UNION# OLB026/02, OLB023/02, OLB024/02

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Liquor Control Boards Employees’ Union (Sojak et al.)

Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)

Employer

BEFORE

Janice Johnston

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Craig Flood Koskie Minsky LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jason Shore Heenan Blaikie LLP Barristers and Solicitors

HEARING

January 20, 2004.

Decision

This case deals with three grievances which have been filed by the union alleging that the employer’s practice of scheduling employees to work alone from six p.m. to nine p.m. on Friday evenings is a violation of Article 32.1 of the collective agreement, which provides that “the Employer shall continue to make every reasonable provision for the health and safety of its employees…”. At the arbitration hearing held on January 20, 2004, the parties raised several preliminary motions. As this case continues on January 27 & 28, 2004, the turnaround time for this decision is extremely brief. Accordingly, this decision will be brief.

Counsel for the union has requested that we take a view in this case. This motion is opposed by the employer. After considering the submissions of the parties, and in applying the factors articulated in the arbitral jurisprudence to the somewhat unique circumstances of this case, I feel that it is appropriate to take a view. Health and safety issues have been raised in this matter. In particular, issues have been raised with regard to the physical setting in which employees work. It may of assistance to me in assessing these concerns both on an objective and subjective basis to actually see the work environment and the area surrounding this workplace. The parties are agreed that if a view is to be taken that it should be done in the evening, as that coincides with the relevant time. It is not going to be possible to take a view in the evening when this matter continues next week. However, it should be possible to do so in the future, as it is highly unlikely that this matter will finish in the two days we have scheduled next week. The timing of the view can be discussed and determined when we reconvene next week.

Union counsel has requested production of documents from the employer. To a large extent counsel for the employer has agreed to provide the union with the documents requested. However, the union has requested and the employer has resisted the production of documents that do not relate to the specific work location at issue in this case. The documents at issue are set out under points number 4, 5 and 7 in the union’s letter dated January 6, 2002. Due to time constraints, I am not going to set them out, as the parties know what they are. Having considered the submissions of counsel in this matter, it is my view that it is not appropriate to order the employer to produce the documents sought by the union for stores other than the one at issue in this case, subject to this one qualifier. The store in this case is a “D” store. If documents pertaining to an incident at another “D” store exist, they may be relevant to the case before me, and the employer is directed to provide them. Assuming such documents exist, the employer may not be able to find them and produce them before the hearing continues next week. If it is at all possible, counsel for the employer is to do so, as they may be relevant to the issues before me.

If the kind of general survey or study referred to in point # 5 exists, counsel for the employer is directed to provide them to union counsel. The request for documents for retail stores other than Store 567 in point #7 is too broad and beyond the scope of the case before me. This request for production is denied.

Counsel for the employer has requested certain particulars from counsel for the union. If counsel for the union intends to call evidence with regard to any specific incidents which have occurred in the workplace or in close proximity to the store other than incidents that the employer is already aware of that have caused employees to fear for their health and safety, then details of these incidents must be provided to counsel for the employer so that he is aware of the case he must meet and can prepare accordingly. Union counsel is not required to name his witnesses nor must he provide the evidence by which he intends to prove his case.

Dated at Toronto this 23^rd day of January, 2004.