GSB# 2015-2215

UNION# 2015-0378-0080

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hamilton)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Natalie De Haney-Stewart Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Senka Grahovac Liquor Control Board of Ontario Counsel

HEARING

October 28, 2019

DECISION

1A grievance dated July 20, 2015 filed by Mr. Lee Hamilton (“grievor”), a seasonal employee at the LCBO Warehouse in Whitby, Ontario, came up for hearing before me on October 28, 2019. He grieves the employer’s decision to screen him out from a competition for a full-time position, for which he had applied.

2When the Board convened at 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 2019 as scheduled, union counsel advised that the grievor had not shown up. The employer moved that the grievance be dismissed. I invited the union to present any information and evidence it may have relating to the grievor’s non-attendance. Union counsel filed print-outs of a number of e-mail communications she had with the grievor following receipt of the Board’s notice of hearing, and also detailed telephone conversations she had with the grievor in the days leading up to the hearing.

3The evidence indicates that the union counsel had discussions with the employer about the grievance. The employer’s position was that the grievor was screened out because he had a record of discipline. She then communicated the employer’s position to the grievor, and discussed with him the merits of his grievance and the chances of success.

4The evidence is that the grievor indicated to counsel that he was inclined not to pursue the grievance. In an e-mail, counsel directly requested the grievor to inform whether he was proceeding or withdrawing the grievance. The grievor did not respond. Counsel sent a number of subsequent follow up e-mails which were also not responded to. At 8.13 A.M. in the morning of the hearing she again sent an e-mail, advising that she was going to the hearing, and requested that the grievor meet her at the coffee shop in the building where the Board is located. He did not respond to that e-mail either. He had not shown up at the Board at 10:35 a.m. when the Board rose for the day, having heard submissions from the parties.

5Union counsel’s position was that she was not prepared to withdraw the grievance without confirmation from the grievor that he did not wish to proceed. Employer counsel submitted that based on the evidence, the Board should conclude that the grievor had abandoned the grievance.

6Having regard to the evidence, I agree with the employer’s position. I am satisfied that the grievor had proper notice of the hearing. His failure to communicate with his union representative and his non-attendance at the hearing, lead me to conclude that he has, in law, abandoned the grievance. Accordingly the grievance is hereby dismissed.