Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Black) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), 2025 CanLII 6696

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Black)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Heather Ann McConnell

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anjana Kashyap Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

John O’Reilly Liquor Control Board of Ontario Senior Counsel

HEARING

January 22, 2025

Decision

1The matter before the Board is a termination grievance. The Grievor, Trent Black, was a probationary employee and was terminated for violating the Employer’s Aeroplan Reward Miles Policy. It is alleged that while operating the cash register, the Grievor credited Aeroplan points to an Aeroplan collector card number not belonging to purchasing customers.

2The grievance was scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2025. The hearing convened and the Grievor did not attend.

3Further to the Board’s inquiry, the Union advised that it sent the Grievor the Notice of Proceeding on April 12, 2024. The Notice of Proceeding was sent to the Grievor by email and contains the following note: “If you do not attend at the hearing the Board may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any future notice in the proceedings.”

4The Union Grievance Officer also confirmed that she sent the Grievor an introductory email on November 28, 2024, which included the details of the hearing. The communications back and forth between the Grievor and Grievance Officer that day, included questions from the Grievor about the nature of the proceeding, an explanation from the Union, and confirmation from the Grievor that he wanted to pursue his grievance.

5The Grievance Officer confirmed she contacted the Grievor again on January 10, 2025, by email and the Grievor again confirmed that he wanted to pursue his grievance. She followed up with a call to the number she had on file for the Grievor on January 15, 2025, and she left him a voicemail message about scheduling a meeting to review the merits of the grievance and to prepare for the hearing.

6According to the Grievance Officer, the Grievor contacted her on January 16, 2025. He had not received the telephone message she left for him and confirmed that his telephone number had changed. The Grievance Officer updated her file with the Grievor’s new telephone number, and they planned a telephone call for the following day.

7The Grievance Officer confirmed that she spoke to the Grievor on January 17, 2025. On that call, she reminded the Grievor of the hearing details, including the date and time of the hearing and that it would take place on the Zoom platform. According to the Grievance Officer, they reviewed the hearing process, discussed the merits of the grievance, and the Grievance Officer presented a settlement offer from the Employer. At the conclusion of the call, the Grievance Officer said she expected the Grievor to attend the hearing and to provide her with a counteroffer to provide to the Employer.

8The Grievance Officer followed up on the Employer’s offer by email to the Grievor on January 20, 2025, but she did not receive a response. Expecting they would discuss the Employer’s offer on the morning of the hearing, she resent the Zoom hearing link to the Grievor on January 21, 2025, to ensure that it was easily accessible to him.

9At the Board’s request, during the hearing, the Union attempted to contact the Grievor. The Grievance Officer telephoned the Grievor twice and left a voicemail message. She confirmed that the number was the same number she previously used to speak to the Grievor and that it was his voice on the message. She also sent him two emails.

10When it was clear that the Grievor was not attending the scheduled hearing, the Employer asked that the grievance be dismissed without a future hearing. It was the Employer’s position that the Grievor knew about the hearing and chose not to attend. The Employer noted that the Grievor failed to attend the Step Three Grievance Meeting, and the Employer took from that absence, that the Grievor was uninterested in pursuing his grievance.

11The Union disagreed that the Grievor was uninterested in pursuing his grievance and reviewed the number of times he confirmed his interest in pursuing it. The Union argued that it was possible something outside of the Grievor’s control prevented him from attending the hearing. The Union was also concerned that the Grievor might not fully understand the possible consequences of his non-attendance as that issue was not previously discussed with him because of his participation in advancing the grievance. The Union requested that the Grievor be provided with an opportunity to provide an explanation, which it argued is generally how the Board addresses non-attendance.

12The Parties reviewed a previous decision I wrote on this issue, Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sproule) v Ontario (Children, Community and Social Services), 2024 CanLII 106440 (ON GSB), and they agreed that in the circumstances, the same direction should be made.

13Having regard to the above, I hereby direct as follows:

The Grievor is to contact his Union Grievance Officer forthwith to explain his reason(s) for not attending the hearing on January 22, 2025, and for not providing notice of his non-attendance.

The Union is to provide that explanation and any supporting documents to the Board and to Employer counsel by no later than February 7, 2025.

Should the Grievor not respond as directed above, within the time allowed, his grievance will be dismissed.

Should the Union provide the Grievor’s explanation, the Employer will have until February 21, 2025, to advise the Board as to whether it accepts the Grievor’s explanation and agrees to re-schedule the hearing of this grievance.

Should the Employer take the position that the Grievor’s explanation is insufficient and maintain its position that the grievance should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits, a case conference will be held to determine next steps.

14I remain seized.