GSB#2014-2820, 2014-3118, 2014-3241, 2014-3246, 2014-3355, 2014-3616, 2014-3822, 2014-3823, 2014-4094, 2014-4121, 2014-4460, 2014-4984, 2015-0684, 2015-1093

UNION#2014-0499-0070, 2014-0499-0078, 2014-0499-0082, 2014-0499-0088,

2014-0499-0093, 2014-0499-0106, 2014-0499-0121, 2014-0499-0122, 2014-0499-0132, 2014-0499-0128, 2014-0499-0143, 2015-0499-0015, 2015-0499-0025, 2015-0499-0058

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hendry)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Janice Johnston

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Brodie MacRae Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Erin Charbonneau Liquor Control Board of Ontario HR Manager

HEARING

June 8, 2017

Decision

1The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement found in Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The majority of the grievances are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, where a mediated agreement is not attainable and the grievance remains unresolved, the parties have agreed that the Vice-Chair will determine the matter without formal proceedings. The process provides that the Vice-Chair shall issue a decision which shall be applicable only to the case heard, shall be without prejudice, shall not be used as a precedent for future cases and is not appealable. Any decision rendered must be issued within two weeks of the date of the hearing and shall provide only brief reasons, if any.

2On June 8, 2017, the parties at Ottawa Retail Service Centre agreed to participate in the expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement found in Appendix 2 to the collective agreement. The grievances that are the subject of this decision were ones that the parties agreed to deal with.

3Ten of the grievances before me allege that the grievor was either not offered overtime or was refused overtime inappropriately. The grievances allege that this occurred because he was being accommodated in the workplace and is on modified work duties. There is no dispute that at the time the grievances arose that the grievor was suffering from a disability which the employer accommodated.

4During the mediation process the employer offered to provide the grievor with ten attendance credits as a compromise settlement. After carefully considering the documents provided, the other evidence before me and the submissions of the parties I have concluded that this is an appropriate remedy for the overtime grievances and I direct the employer to provide the grievor with ten attendance credits. Therefore, Grievance Numbers 2014-0499-0070; 2014-0499-0078; 2014-0499-0082;

2014-0499-0088; 2014-0499-0093; 2014-0499-0106; 2014-0499-0128;

2014-0499-0132; 2014-0499-0143; and 2015-0499-0025 are upheld in part.

5The issue of the accommodation of the grievor’s disability was central to the discussions which took place during the process. I am satisfied that any and all issues which could give rise to a complaint pursuant to the Human Rights Code have been thoroughly canvassed and dealt with.

6OPSEU grievance numbers 2014-0499-0121 and 2014-0499-0122 raise allegations of harassment. They are hereby dismissed.

7OPSEU grievance number 2015-0499-0015 deals with a three day suspension received by the grievor in January, 2015. After carefully considering the submissions of the parties I have determined that it is appropriate to reduce this to a one day suspension. The employer is directed to reimburse the grievor for two days pay at the appropriate rate of pay. Therefore, Grievance Number 2015-0499-0015 is upheld in part.