GSB# 2024-00821

UNION# 2024-5108-0055

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Nahirny)

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

Louise Gorman, HR Business Partner Neil Lenihan, Senior Manager, Labour Relations Lori Ann Romano, Regional Director, Operations Liquor Control Board of Ontario

HEARING

June 12, 2025

Decision

1On agreement of the parties, this matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration. In accordance with the parties’ accepted practice, if mediation efforts fail, the Arbitrator will rely on the information presented at the hearing to issue a bottom-line decision, with brief reasons, that shall not be used as a precedent for future cases.

2The Grievor alleged that the Employer violated the terms of the collective agreement when it scheduled disciplinary meetings on short notice and failed to provide him with the contact information for the employees who were the subject of the meetings. The meetings were scheduled with one day notice for 4 employees who the Employer alleged had been drinking on the job. The Grievor believed that the meetings were not urgent, and that as the Union Representative, he should have been given more notice. The Grievor also took issue with the Employer’s refusal to give him the contact information for the affected employees.

3The Grievor submitted that the Employer’s conduct was unjust, in violation of the preamble to the collective agreement, and that it further violates Article 1.6, 2.2, and 27.3 by sidelining the role of recognised Union representatives. In addition, he alleged that the short notice amounted to undue pressure, intimidation and harassment, in contravention of Article 2.1.

4The Employer maintains that it respects the right of employees to have Union representation. In every case, the Employer advises employees of their rights when they are notified of meetings, it copies the Local President, so that the Union is aware of the upcoming meeting, and it attempts to work collaboratively with the Union to ensure the meeting is set when a Union Representative is available.

5However, in the Employer’s submission, the collective agreement does not guarantee how much notice must be given to a Union Representative. Moreover, while the collective agreement recognises the Local President and Local Unit Steward as Union representatives, it does not guarantee which Union representative will attend. The Employer further denied that their conduct constituted harassment or discrimination.

6With respect to providing employee contact information, the Employer maintains that it would not be appropriate for them to hand out personal employee information in this context. The Union is notified of all meetings and the Grievor had other, more appropriate, means of obtaining the information requested.

7In any event, the employer notes that this is an individual grievance brought by the Grievor in his capacity as a Union representative. It is not a policy grievance, and no individual employee has been identified who was deprived of Union representation or otherwise prejudiced.

8I have considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and determined that there has been no violation of the collective agreement. Neither Article 1.6 nor the preamble support the position advanced by the Grievor. Nor does the conduct of the Employer amount to harassment or discrimination.

9The grievance is dismissed.