GSB#2013-2803

UNION#2013-0999-0103

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Joseph D. Carrier

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Val Patrick Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Justin Diggle Liquor Control Board of Ontario Counsel

HEARING

December 12, 2013

Decision

1This is a policy grievance filed by the Union. In dispute is a new deportment policy introduced by the LCBO on October 31, 2013 (“the “Policy”). The parties are currently bound to a collective agreement the term of which is April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2017 (the “Collective Agreement”).

2In response to this new Policy, the Union filed a Union Policy Grievance dated November 9, 2013 under OPSEU File #2013-0999-0103 and GSB File #2013-2803 (the “Grievance”). The parties agreed (on a without prejudice basis) to an expedited process by which the Grievance was referred to arbitration and was scheduled for a hearing on December 12, 2013 before me.

3On December 12, 2013, representatives of the LCBO and the Union and their legal representatives met with me. Amendments to the Policy were agreed to, and accordingly, in this unique situation, it was agreed that I would issue this Award.

4As part of the proceedings, the parties made representations with respect to the reasonableness of the Policy. Having heard these representations, and having reviewed the Policy as amended by the Employer, December 20th, 2013, I find and declare that the Policy is reasonable and non-discriminatory, it is supported by considerations of health and safety and the employer’s business interests and is properly balanced with the interests of the employees, it is an acceptable exercise of the LCBO’s rights under the Collective Agreement, and is compliant with the applicable legal principles set out in Re. KVP Co. Ltd. and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2537 (1965), Source decision, 16 L.A.C. 73 (Robinson), as outlined below:

A rule unilaterally introduced by the company, and not subsequently agreed to by the union, must satisfy the following requisites:

1. It must not be inconsistent with the collective agreement.

2. It must not be unreasonable.

3. It must be clear and unequivocal.

4. It must be brought to the attention of the employee affected before the company can act on it.

5. The employee concerned must have been notified that a breach of such rule could result in his discharge if the rule is used as a foundation for discharge.

6. Such rule should have been consistently enforced by the company from the time it was introduced.

5Based on the positions of the parties, it is also declared that this Award shall survive the expiry of the Collective Agreement.

6This Award fully disposes of the issues raised by the Grievance or matters that could have been raised in same.