Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Smyth) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 2013 CanLII 4668

GSB#2009-0087

UNION#2009-0499-0003

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Smyth)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Jean Chaykowsky Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

January 11, 2013.

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding grievances. Appendix 2 incorporates the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement and confirms that where grievances are referred to the mediation/arbitration process, the parties will attempt to reach a mediated resolution, failing which, the Vice Chair will issue a written decision that is without prejudice or precedent. The parties specifically agreed that this matter was properly referred for expedited mediation-arbitration as contemplated under Appendix 2.

2The Grievor allege that the Employer failed to offer training opportunities to him and discriminated on the basis of sex when it selected a female co-worker for training opportunities in the position of Clerk 3.

3The Employer submitted that the Grievor has been a Warehouse Worker 4 since May 1, 2007 and therefore was not eligible to apply for a Clerk 3 position when the clerk training was offered. In any event, there is no evidence of discrimination and the Grievor was subsequently offered clerk opportunities in accordance with his requests.

4Although I appreciate that the Grievor would very much like the opportunity to transfer to an office setting, the current Collective Agreement restricts him to applying for a “promotion”. As a Warehouse Worker 4, he is thus not eligible for any Clerk position, all of which fall below his pay grade. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, I have concluded that there is no evidence of discrimination and no violation of the Collective Agreement. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.