National Grievance File

CUPW has learned that the Corporation is violating sub-paragraphs 7.1 (b) and 7.2 (d) (ii) of Appendix “D” of the collective agreement by refusing to pay 2.3 ¢ for each piece of householder mail on a compressed delivery schedule, and, more specifically, for all householders intended for same-day delivery.

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.

The Union grieves on behalf of all affected employees that the employer has violated Articles 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, the Canada Labour Code and all other provisions of the Collective Agreement. In a September letter to employees on Unaddressed Admail, Canada Post exceeded their rights and failed in their obligation to recognize the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all employees covered under the bargaining certificate issued to the Union by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

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:

1. constitute an illegal attack on the freedom of expression of employees and the Union;
2. constitute a constraint upon a legitimate union activity;
3. constitute an abusive exercise of management rights;
4. 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.

The Union grieves on behalf of all affected employees that the employer has violated articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, the Canada Labour Code and all other provisions of the collective agreement. Recently, the Divisional General Manager of Canada Post, Atlantic Division, Niki Forest, as well as the Director of Mail Operations, Nova Scotia / Prince Edward Island, Tony O’Keefe, exceeded their rights as managers and failed in their obligation to recognize the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all employees covered under the bargaining certificate issued to the union by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, while conducting ‘’tours’’ to various facilities throughout the Atlantic Region. These individuals, among other violations, consulted directly with members of the bargaining unit concerning various working conditions covered under the collective agreement, including but not limited to, health and safety issues, uniforms, start and finish times, accommodation issues and the LCRMS.

On June 3, 2008, the Union received a letter dated May 30, 2008 in which the employer informed the Union of its intent to introduce unilaterally an “Employee Referral Program.” This program consists in paying $500.00 to any employee who refers someone for a position in the RSMC bargaining unit. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement.

On June 3, 2008, the Union received a letter dated May 30, 2008 in which the employer informed the Union of its intent to introduce unilaterally an “Employee Referral Program.” This program consists in paying $500.00 to any employee who refers someone for a position in the RSMC bargaining unit. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement.

In implementing Appendix “MM” and the new rules for the calculation of seniority, Canada Post assigned a random number to employees who have the same continuous service date in order to determine their ranking on the seniority list. By doing so, the Corporation is changing the ranking based on the employee with the lowest random number. The implementation of this rule or policy, unilaterally introduced by Canada Post, has, amongst other things, caused some employees who had a higher ranking on the seniority list relative to others who became regular employees at a later date, to have a lower ranking than some other employees with the same continuous service date. In addition to being inequitable and unfair, this rule or policy violates the provisions of the collective agreement, related agreements and practice between the parties and causes prejudice to employees whose ranking on the seniority list went down one or more rungs following its implementation.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieves that the Corporation is in violation of Article 35 and other applicable provisions of the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers Collective Agreement in its determination of the amount to be applied against the financial cap with respect to the pension plan.

The employer has issued guidelines concerning the application of Article 54 of the collective agreement. These guidelines were sent to all CPC representatives for implementation. The guidelines concerning Article 54 and other provisions are contrary to the collective agreement. Therefore, the employer is in violation of the collective agreement.

On or about February 27, 2008, the Union was informed that the employer is implementing a policy/directive entitled “Managing Medical Certificates” by Manulife Financial. This policy/directive violates the provisions of the collective agreement, more specifically Article 10.

The employer’s Labour Relations branch has issued a policy/directive that violates the collective agreement. In its policy/directive, the employer states that employees who volunteer to work overtime can use their seniority to select a portion of the route prior to those who have been asked to work overtime in accordance with clause 15.14 of the collective agreement.