National Grievance File

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the employer is in violation of article 35 and other applicable provisions of the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers (RSMC) collective agreement in that it is using the wrong calendar year as the "base financial year" and is therefore miscalculating the "base amount", beyond which the parties have agreed to allocate an additional twenty-nine million dollars ($29,000,000) in the first year of the RSMC collective agreement.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the employer has violated articles 47, 48, appendix "CC" and other provisions of the Urban Operations Collective Agreement in that it has inserted language into the Letter Carrier Route Measurement System (LCRMS) Manual that is contrary to the provisions of clause 48.04 of the collective agreement.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the employer is in violation of articles 3, 5, 33, 54 and other applicable provisions of the collective agreement in that it is, among other things, requiring employees to attend medical examinations in contravention of the collective agreement, requiring employees to return to work in violation of article 54, requiring employees to have their physicians complete the Acquisition of Medical Information (AMI) form or otherwise have the employees physicians provide medical information to which the employer is not entitled.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the employer has violated articles 14, 47, 48, 50, Appendix "V" and other provisions of the collective agreement in that it is failing to include over-assessed routes in restructuring exercises when minor or major restructures are occurring.

The Canadian Union of Postal Worker grieves that the closures of Station B Saint-John, Cap de la Madeleine, Québec, St-Hubert, Delorimier, Hamilton CSC LCD4 and Kamloops Station A are in violation of Appendices "I", "T" and other applicable provisions of the collective agreement

On July 14, 2005, the Corporation informed CUPW that it had decided to "review its national network" and that "the matter of the Quebec mechanized plant would be the first." This notice was allegedly submitted under clause 29.03 (a).

On August 3, 2005, the Corporation submitted a new notice allegedly under clause 29.03 (b) providing some information regarding the closure of the Quebec sortation centre, the transfer of the work to Montreal and the elimination of positions.

The information contained in the August 3, 2005 letter and other information obtained afterwards by CUPW show that the Corporation began reviewing this project long before July 14. Accordingly, the notice submitted on that date is late and is not consistent with the letter and spirit of clause 29.03 (a), particularly with regard to the other installations that might be involved in the review of the national network announced by the Corporation.

The Corporation's failure to meet its obligations under clause 29.03 (a) prevents CUPW from intervening in a timely manner and stating its position before the Corporation makes a final decision.

In addition, the August 3, 2005 notice is also not consistent with the letter and spirit of clause 29.03 (b) and clause 29.04 because it was submitted late and does not contain the information required under the collective agreement, particularly with regard to what will happen to the employees adversely affected by the changes that were announced.

The Corporation has implemented a procedure in various regions that violates clause 10.03 of the collective agreement in cases where an employee wants to obtain access to medical information contained in his or her personal file. The procedure put in place by the Corporation violates clause 10.03 in that it does not allow employees to access their personal file within 24 hours and in the presence of an authorized union representative, nor during working hours.

On or about August 17, 2005, the Service Expansion and Innovation and Change Committee, in accordance with Appendix "T" of the collective agreement, approved the implementation of a pilot project for the repair of monotainers in Montreal and Toronto. Since then, Canada Post has refused or failed to implement this pilot project and, in doing so, is violating the mandatory provisions of Appendix "T" of the collective agreement.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the employer's decision to discontinue the monotainer repair operations in Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto, as stipulated in a letter dated December 30, 2004 is in violation of Appendix "T" and other applicable provisions of the Urban Operations collective agreement.

Following the decision by several employees to exercise their right to refuse to perform work because of work methods they deemed dangerous to their health and safety, the Corporation unilaterally adopted measures, including hiring staff, without referring the matter to the appropriate health and safety committees and without negotiating an agreement or solution with the Union. The Union was informed that the cost of this unilateral decision by the Corporation would be taken out of the financial cap set out in the collective agreement. Consequently, the Corporation violated the collective agreement.

Following the decision by several employees to exercise their right to refuse to perform work because of work methods they deemed dangerous to their health and safety, the Corporation unilaterally adopted measures, including hiring staff, without referring the matter to the appropriate health and safety committees and without negotiating an agreement or solution with the Union. Consequently, the Corporation violated the collective agreement, and more specifically articles 1, 3, 12, 13, 24, 28, 34, and all other related provisions.

The Canada Post Corporation is refusing or failing to pay absent rural and suburban letter carriers for the designated paid holidays provided for in the collective agreement. In doing so, Canada Post is violating the provisions of the collective agreement, more specifically, but not limited to, Article 16. In addition, the Corporation is also violating legislation in situations where employees are absent for fewer than fifteen (15) days in the thirty (30)-day period prior to the designated paid holiday.