National Grievance File

The Canada Post Corporation informed the Union of its intention to unilaterally introduce right-hand drive vehicles (RHD) on RSMC routes. The Corporation also informed the Union of its intention to charge to the RSMC financial cap the costs associated with its decision. The employer is changing the working conditions provided under the collective agreement, including, but without restricting the foregoing, in regards to compensation. The employer is thus violating the collective agreement and applicable legislation.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) is challenging the Canada Post Corporation (CPC) policy of prohibiting bargaining unit employees from wearing a button or other insignia to promote Canada’s public postal service. CUPW also challenges CPC’s policy of disciplining employees who refuse to obey the policy directive or an order to remove such buttons or insignia. CPC’s policy and actions: (a) constitute an illegal attack on the freedom of expression of employees and the Union; (b) constitute a constraint upon a legitimate union activity;; (c) constitute an abusive exercise of management rights;; (d) violate the provisions of the collective agreement, and more specifically Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5. CPC is abusing its rights by using the threat of discipline to stifle freedom of expression. Furthermore, over the years, various arbitrators have ruled that wearing buttons or other insignia is a legitimate union activity, which the Corporation does not have the right to prohibit, or even less to discipline employees who choose to express themselves in this way. More specifically, the Corporation is deliberately violating the order issued by arbitrator Rodrigue Blouin in his decision dated September 27, 2006.

In a letter dated December 31, 2008, the employer informed the Union that it doesn’t intend to reimburse CUPW for all expense claims submitted to Canada Post. The employer is refusing to reimburse the Union for all expenses incurred in relation to the work and activities of the union members of the Transition Committee, in accordance with Article 34 and others of the collective agreement, as well as all related agreements and/or policies. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement and related agreements.

The employer has failed to abide by the collective agreement by obstructing the right of its employees to apply on an informed basis for vacant positions in a postal installation within a 50-kilometre radius of their current postal installation. The information indicated on the posting of vacant routes is incomplete and does not enable employees to make an informed decision, and they may suffer adverse effects as a result. Furthermore, the employer is not posting vacant routes in all of its postal installations and is only posting these on the internet or Intr@post. The employer is therefore failing in its contractual obligations.

Annual RSMC compensation currently comprises the employees’ wages as such on the one hand and vehicle expenses on the other hand. The employer has advised the union that as part of its implementation of a bi-weekly pay system, wages will be paid with a two-week time lag. This is contrary to established practice and will result in changing the employees’ annual revenue. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code.

The employer is violating the provisions of the Collective Agreement when maintaining that the allowance for the pilot project on right-hand drive (RHD) vehicles and all related training costs will be charged to the financial cap.

Although the employer recognizes the need for a more effective way of understanding the hours worked by its employees, it refuses to consider the best means of collecting and using the available information. In so doing, the employer is violating the provisions of the Collective Agreement.

In a letter dated March 9, 2009, which was received by the Union on March 11, 2009, the employer advised the Union that it intended to amend the collective agreement and the current practice in relation to the boot allowance for employees of the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers’ (RSMC) unit, as set out in clause 24.03 of the RSMC collective agreement. The employer has decided to stop paying the boot allowance to employees who have been inactive for a year. This constitutes a violation of the collective agreement.

The employer informed the Union that it was implementing a “Frequently Injured Employee Process,” commencing in April 2009. This employer program is a violation of the collective agreement.

On Thursday, April 9, 2009, the Union learned through its members that the employer had given employees of the rural and suburban mail carriers (RSMC) unit a $50 gift card. The employer did this in such a way as to avoid consulting the Union. As a result, Canada Post has violated the RSMC collective agreement, and, specifically but not exclusively, Articles 3 and 7 of the RSMC collective agreement

The employer is structuring routes of more than forty (40) hours of work per week, which is a violation of the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers (RSMC) collective agreement, more specifically clause 11.04.

On or about August 18, 2009, Canada Post advised the Union that it was sending all rural and suburban mail carriers (RSMCs) an information package regarding the security screening of replacement contractors and others carrying out duties on RSMC routes. In this material, Canada Post requires RSMCs to carry out a series of steps to confirm the security status of contractors used as replacements. Among other measures, Canada Post requires RSMCs to give their replacements helpers or ergo assistants the documents and instructions needed to initiate the security clearance process and make sure the latter have read the instructions carefully, completed specified forms and provided finger prints. In doing so, Canada Post is violating the provisions of the collective agreement, and, specifically, Article 14, by assigning RSMCs duties not provided for in the collective agreement, thus unilaterally and illegally changing the provisions of the collective agreement.