GSB#2007-1796

UNION#2007-0499-0058

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hay et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Marilyn A. Nairn

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Val Patrick Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Pamela LeMaistre Liquor Control Board of Ontario Eastern Regional Office HR Manager

HEARING

October 4, 2011.

Decision

1This decision flows from a mediation-arbitration session held between the LCBO and OPSEU in Ottawa, Ontario on October 4, 2011. For purposes of these sessions, the parties have agreed to utilize an expedited process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties will attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they have agreed that the Vice-Chair will determine the matter without formal proceedings. The parties have further agreed that any decision issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. They have also agreed that any decision is to provide only brief reasons, if any. This process expedites the release of any decision. If it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved are of a complex nature, the parties have agreed that the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through ‘regular’ arbitration. Such was not the case here. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.

2This grievance alleges a violation of Articles 4 and 1.1(c) of the collective agreement. The remedy sought is for tasks to be assigned by seniority. The employer’s general practice is to assign job tasks by seniority where operationally feasible. There is no collective agreement requirement to do so. In the circumstances here, the employer assigned forklift work to a junior employee for the sole reason that it was providing modified duties to the junior employee because that employee suffered from a temporary disability. Article 2.1(b) of the collective agreement expressly recognizes and incorporates the provisions of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). Section 17 of the Code obligates the employer and the union to accommodate workers who are disabled by providing modified work to the point of undue hardship. There has been no violation of the collective agreement in the circumstances here.

3This grievance is hereby dismissed.