National Grievance File

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 has violated the provisions of Article 35 and others of the collective agreement by advising the Union of its intention to apply $6M to the financial cap. The employer alleges that transactions made by the Transition Committee as a result of route restructurings and the fair and equitable redistribution of remuneration had not been factored into the costs to be charged to the financial cap since 2004.

In the verification of data related to one or more routes, the Canada Post Corporation has failed to implement appropriate and effective measures to ensure that employees receive the correct annual pay for their route. The employer is altering working conditions, i.e. Articles 11 and 35, Appendix “A” and other provisions of the collective agreement. Employees have been unjustly deprived of the payment they are entitled to under Article 33. This constitutes a violation 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.

The Canada Post Corporation informed the Union of its intention to unilaterally introduce right-hand drive vehicles (RHD) on RSMC routes. The Corporation also informed the Union of its intention to charge to the RSMC financial cap the costs associated with its decision. The employer is changing the working conditions provided under the collective agreement, including, but without restricting the foregoing, in regards to compensation. The employer is thus violating the collective agreement and applicable legislation.

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.

The Canada Post Corporation informed the Union that it intends to provide/create a DRS-RTS centralization located in the Vancouver Mail Processing Plant (VMPP) and reserves the right to exercise its option of expanding to centralize DRS-RTS work in other areas of BC operations. The DRS-RTS Centralization Project 2011 is a technological change within the meaning of Article 29 of the collective agreement. The employer refuses to abide by the provisions of Article 29 and, more specifically, to provide the information that the Union is entitled to receive under clauses 29.03 and 29.04, which triggers the process specified at Article 29, and to recognize the protection under this Article. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement.

When changes are made to a route under Articles 11, 12, 13, 34 and other provisions of the collective agreement, the employer is failing to provide the Transition Committee with all relevant information, in violation of the collective agreement imposed by interest arbitrator B. Keller.

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.

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.

 On or about September 18, 2017, the Corporation initiated the implementation of a project aimed at taking tasks away from letter carriers and assigning them to routers. 

More particularly, on that date, the Corporation removed from all letter carrier routes at the Laval-West facility the tasks of obtaining and preparing, sorting and preparing the mail. This work was assigned to employees performing routers duties newly created by the Corporation. 

These tasks were assigned in violation of the collective agreement. 

Article 50 and appendices “V” and “CC” of the collective agreement, as well as the LCRMS, provide that letter carrier routes must contain these tasks. The collective agreement also provides that the role of routers must be limited to situations where the inside portion of a given route is excessive or when a route’s daily workload forces the letter carrier to work overtime on a regular basis and she/he requires assistance. 

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.