Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Scott) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 2023 CanLII 102948

GSB# 2023-00060

UNION# 2023-0379-0002

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Scott)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anjana Kashyap Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Laura Chartrand, HR Manager Mark Mason Kevin Charlebois Liquor Control Board of Ontario

HEARING

October 11, 2023

Decision

1This matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration, pursuant to s. 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor alleged that he was improperly disciplined when the Employer imposed a one-day suspension for intimidating and disrespectful conduct towards a co-worker.

2The Grievor recognised that some of his language may have been ill considered during the incident at issue and that he could do better in future interactions. Nonetheless, he did not feel that a suspension was warranted considering the ongoing interpersonal issues he was having at the store, the failure of management to assist with the resolution of those issues or provide coaching on how to better deal with his colleagues.

3The Grievor acknowledged that he had received previous discipline for interpersonal conflicts. He was issued a written reprimand with respect to an incident involving the same employee, but that letter was later reduced to a letter of counsel. Accordingly, he maintained that a letter of reprimand would have been a more appropriate response in this instance. He did not dispute that he had also been disciplined for similar conduct on two prior occasions that did not involve this employee, receiving another letter of reprimand and a one-day suspension.

4The Employer maintained that it investigated the incident and concluded that the Grievor raised his voice, was brusque, disrespectful, and aggressive when dealing with a co-worker in the store. It relied on his history of prior discipline to impose a one-day suspension in the hope that his behaviour would change. It recognised the ongoing dispute between these employees. That is why it did not impose a three-day suspension, which would otherwise be justified as progressive discipline.

5I have considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and determined that the imposition of a one-day suspension was reasonable in all the circumstances and that there is no basis to exercise my discretion to substitute a lesser penalty. The grievance is therefore dismissed.