GSB# 2024-01237

UNION# 2024-5108-0072

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 multiple investigation meetings on the same day, making it impossible for him to attend all the meetings as the Union Representative. He further alleged that he was provided with inadequate notice of the meetings and that the information was not properly communicated. He submitted that the Employer violated the preamble to the collective agreement, in that the conduct was unjust, and Article 1.6 which recognises that the Local President and Union Steward can represent employees.

3The 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.

4However, 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 that employees can be represented by either the Local President or Local Unit Steward, it does not guarantee which Union Representative will attend.

5In any event, the employer further 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.

6I 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.

7The grievance is dismissed.