GSB#2015-2179

UNION#2015-0164-0029

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McCormick)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Brodie MacRae Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Deborah Grove Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

August 8, 2016

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to effect the quick disposition of grievances and reduce the number of outstanding disputes. 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 facts in this matter are straightforward and essentially are not in dispute.

3On July 6, 2015, the grievor received a one-day suspension for an incident that took place on June 12, 2015.

4Bottles moving along a conveyor belt in the work area the grievor was responsible for, apparently and with some degree of frequency, fell off the conveyor belt. From the grievor’s perspective, the flying glass, broken glass shards, and the residual liquid laying on the ground represented a significant health and safety risk.

5The grievor had, on more than one occasion, apparently raised the issue of the falling bottles with his manager. He had also referred the issue to the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

6Frustrated by his perception of a continual lack of action with respect to the issue, the grievor, on June 12, 2015 in an outburst, which involved yelling and swearing in the presence of his manager and other workers, claimed he was sick and tired that nothing was being done with respect to the mess in his work area.

7The grievor did not, in any way, attempt to dispute the nature of his outburst. He was, however, of the view that the issued discipline was not warranted, given the level of frustration he had been experiencing due to the lack of action regarding a matter he viewed as a significant health and safety issue.

8The Employer clearly had cause to discipline the grievor with respect to his outburst on June 12, 2015. Irrespective of the grievor’s purported sense of frustration, such behaviour was not appropriate and cannot be condoned. That being said, in keeping with the principle of progressive discipline and in light of the grievor’s length of service, and the particular circumstances involved, it is appropriate, in my view, to reduce the issued discipline to a written reprimand.

9Accordingly, the grievance is upheld and the issued penalty is reduced to a written reprimand, and the Employer is ordered to pay to the grievor a sum equal to one day’s pay less applicable deductions.

10I remain seized with respect to any dispute regarding the implementation of this award.