GSB# 2025-00778

UNION# 25-0378-007

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Keats)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anjana Kashyap

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Emma Smalley

Liquor Control Board of Ontario

HR Business Partner

HEARING

April 21, 2026

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.

2The Grievor is employed as a Warehouse Worker 3 at the Durham Retail Service Centre.

3On May 2, 2025, the Grievor received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to operate a forklift in accordance with her training and safety requirements. The incident underlying the Letter of Reprimand occurred on April 8, 2025, when the Grievor struck a pillar while operating a forklift in reverse.

4The Grievor does not dispute that she was not looking backwards when the forklift struck the pillar. However, she disputes that she did so for approximately 15 feet, as alleged by the Employer. The Grievor and the Union also assert that, contrary to Employer policy, the Grievor was not given refresher training on operating a forklift upon her recent return to work from maternity leave.

5While the arguments advanced by the Grievor and the Union have been considered; it has been determined that the issuance of the Letter of Reprimand was more than reasonable in the circumstances. On this point, there should have been no need for the Grievor to be reminded of the obvious and fundamental safety rule that a forklift operator should be fully aware of any obstacles within their path, arguably, even more so while operating a forklift in reverse. Accordingly, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.