GSB# 2021-2711

UNION# 2021-0378-0057

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Williams)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anjana Kashyap Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Beverly Jordan Liquor Control Board of Ontario Human Resources Advisor

HEARING

November 28, 2022

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Durham Retail Service Centre, agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with Appendix 2 – Memorandum of Agreement of the collective agreement, and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2Everton Williams (the “grievor”) is employed as a full-time Warehouse Worker at the Durham Retail Service Centre.

3On October 25, 2021, the grievor was scheduled to work his usual 4 PM to 12 PM shift.

4According to the Employer, the grievor called his supervisor at approximately 3:30 PM advising that he would not be coming into work as his son was not feeling well, and that the grievor was going to take him to have a COVID-19 test.

5At that time, the grievor had no “E-Time” or sick credits remaining. Accordingly, the Employer did not pay him for his absence from work that day.

6The grievor’s version of the events was slightly different. According to the grievor, while his son did have a fever early on October 25, 2021, his wife had taken him to be tested for COVID, and the test result was negative. The grievor claims that notwithstanding his son testing negative, the Employer would not allow him to work on account of their COVID-19 Screening protocol.

7In terms of the two competing narratives, on a balance of probabilities test, based on the relevant information, including the contemporaneous emails of the relevant supervisor, the Employer’s version of the events is preferred. Accordingly, since the grievor was absent from work on October 25, 2021, and with no “E-time” or sick credits in his “bank", the decision by the Employer not to pay him for the day in question did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

8In light of the above, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.