National Grievance File

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.

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.

When an employee who is granted injury-on-duty leave with pay has top-up credits as defined in clause 20.08 of the collective agreement, the Corporation uses these top-up credits to make up the difference between 75% of the regular salary and the minimal amount the Corporation has to pay under the Government Employees Compensation Act and the applicable provincial legislation. In doing so, the Corporation is violating the provisions of the collective agreement and of the said acts.

The Corporation is amending or intends to amend the criteria used for determining “business directs” and the monetary or other values that are provided for in the activity component of Appendix ’’A’’ of the collective agreement. In so doing, the Corporation is assigning a value not consistent with the activity component for certain types of business direct deliveries. The employer is making this change to working conditions in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement.