National Grievance File

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves the employer’s violation of Article 30, Appendix N and all other applicable articles and appendices of the collective agreement.

The employer’s long term disability management provider, Sun Life, advised the union that, as of September 1, 2015 there would be charges levied against the union and/or its members for “Access to Personal Information Requests.” This constitutes a change of practice that was not implemented uniformly and changes the access and appeal process agreed to by the parties in the collective agreement, which is a violation.

The Corporation is unilaterally amending the work method by adding a new function for RSMC use to scan the barcode on the Delivery Control Slip (DCS) with no amendment to 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 not recognizing or compensating the new activity component in the Appendix “A”.  The employer is making this change to working conditions in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement.

Canada Post has been organizing and holding meetings with some of CUPW’s members, in certain cities throughout the country, without the Union’s participation and consent, to discuss their working conditions.

This is being done in violation of Article 3 and other applicable provisions of the collective agreement and is viewed as attempting to destabilize the union at this critical period just in advance of negotiations.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers was advised a few days ago that the Canada Post Corporation has decided to implement the method of carrying the double bundle held back-to-back in the hand as the official work method for letter carriers.

In implementing this work method, the Corporation is violating the provisions of the collective agreement, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, namely clauses 33.01 and 33.02 of the collective agreement, sections 122.1, 122.2 and 124 of the Code and sections 19.1 and 19.5 of the Regulations.

Further, the Corporation is clearly acting in bad faith, given the arbitration awards rendered with respect to health and safety matters over the past few years, namely decisions rendered by Arbitrator Burkett in the matter of Grievance N00-07-00032, and the findings of the July 2015 Golder Report on letter carrier work methods. 

In so doing, the Corporation continues to deliberately compromise the health and safety of its employees, giving rise to a claim for damages for prejudice incurred and exemplary damages resulting from a deliberate violation of the legislation and the collective agreement.

Following several meetings between the parties, the employer informed the Union on or about February 9, 2015 of an erroneous definition/interpretation it intended to apply to the Short-Term Disability Insurance Plan (STDP) in relation to the definitions of accident and hospitalization when applying Article 17 of the collective agreement.

Furthermore, as part of the final appeal process, the employer is imposing a time limit on the union representatives for submitting their arguments at the final level on behalf of an employee, failing which the employer is instructing the independent medical physician to render his or her decision without the Union’s input or arguments.

Following several meetings between the parties, the employer informed the Union on or about February 9, 2015 of an erroneous definition/interpretation it intended to apply to the Short-Term Disability Insurance Plan (STDP) in relation to the definitions of accident and hospitalization when applying Article 17 of the collective agreement.

Furthermore, as part of the final appeal process, the employer is imposing a time limit on the union representatives for submitting their arguments at the final level on behalf of an employee, failing which the employer is instructing the independent medical physician to render his or her decision without the Union’s input or arguments.

Following several meetings between the parties, the employer informed the Union on or about February 9, 2015 of an erroneous definition/interpretation it intended to apply to the Short-Term Disability Insurance Plan (STDP) in relation to the definitions of accident and hospitalization when applying Article 20 of the collective agreement.

Furthermore, as part of the final appeal process outlined in Article 20 of the STDP, the employer is adding to the collective agreement. It is imposing a time limit on the union representatives for submitting their arguments at the final level on behalf of an employee, failing which the employer is instructing the independent medical physician to render his or her decision without the Union’s input or arguments.

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. 

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 employer is refusing to abide by many provisions of the collective agreement for the period of May 30, 2011 to June 27, 2011, in violation of the collective agreement extended as of February 1st, 2011 by the Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services (Bill C-6). More specifically, and without limiting the generality of the above, the Corporation failed to apply Articles 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, 30, 33, 39, 40, 46 and 48, based on information received by the Union. The employer is violating both the collective agreement and this legislation.

As of May 30, 2011, the Corporation has stopped applying the collective agreement, has denied employees in the bargaining unit rights they are entitled to, has denied the right to union representation and the right to present a grievance, and has unilaterally imposed several less favourable working conditions than those outlined in the collective agreement. These actions by the Corporation violate clause 43.02 and most other articles, clauses and appendix of the collective agreement.

The Union has been informed that the Canada Post Corporation (CPC) is violating the provisions of the collective agreement by charging to the financial cap costs that are not contemplated by the collective agreement or agreed to by the Union.