National Grievance File

CUPW grieves the employer's decision, announced in a letter dated August 13, 2010, to stop reimbursing the Union members of the Transition Committee for the cost of their accommodation in Ottawa and their meal allowances. The employer alleges that its decision is based on the fact that the Transition Committee meets only once or twice a week. The Corporation's decision is a violation of the collective agreement and an attempt to unilaterally change a well-established practice between the parties. Furthermore, the Corporation has no right to interfere in the work practices of the Union members of the Transition Committee. Indeed, the Corporation is seeking to prevent the Transition Committee from carrying out its work.

Moreover, it is obvious that the Corporation's decision is an crude strategy to bypass a decision rendered on June 25, 2010 by arbitrator Stewart, and, as such it constitutes a form of contempt of court and shows inadmissible contempt for the authority of the arbitration tribunal.

The employer's decision also constitutes unfair labour practice within the meaning of the sections 50(b), 94(1 )(a) and 94(3) of the Canada Labour Code. The Union reserves all its rights in this matter, including the right to file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

On April 14, 2010, the employer advised the Union of its intention to change the requirements for the types of vehicle to be used on Rural and Suburban Letter Carrier (RSMC) routes as of May 17,2010. Despite the union-management consultation meetings that have been held, the employer is maintaining its new requirements for RSMCs. The Corporation's requirements are a violation of the provisions of the collective agreement, including, but not limited to, clause 32.01.

The employer is no longer providing the Union with the useful and essential information the members of the Transition Committee need to identify and represent route holders and relief employees. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement, including, but not limited to Articles 11 and 34, and, consequently, is causing harm to the affected employees and the Union and acting in bad faith.