To : All CUPW Members of the Royal City Local

Where: Coquitlam Rec Center

Howe Room

630 Poirier St.

Time: 7:00PM

Agenda: Regular Business of the Local

Elections for New West & District Labour Council – 6 Delegates and 6 Alternates

Please see interactive map for directions

View Larger Map

Every year our Pacific Region puts on the Family Education Weekend. This event is open to all CUPW Members throughout our Region. This outing will take place in Naramata. Its a very nice secluded area in the Okanagan’s wine valley district. It will be held on Sept. 4 – 5, 2010

For further information and costs, please click on the Naramata Family link below.

Naramata Family Weekend 2010

If you and your family are interested  in attending, you must fill out the Registration form below by clicking on the link below.  Your completed registration form must be completed and forwarded to our Local by this Friday August 13 2010. You can fax it to us at 604-515-3994.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Local at 604-515-7600

Naramata Family Weekend Registration Form

C.U.P.W. Pacific Region
Re: Canada Post Service Charter – Letter Carrier Delivery
August 5, 2010

VIA FACSIMILE AND HARD COPY

Canada Post Corporation
349 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 4Z3

Attention: Mike Shearon – Divisional General Manager

Dear Mr. Shearon,

Re: Canada Post Service Charter – Letter Carrier Delivery

On June 17, 2010, CUPW brought forward its concerns regarding the Corporation’s new staffing policy as it applies to Letter Carrier absences. It is our understanding that the new policy provides for non-delivery when employees are absent from work, effectively depriving members of the public of the universal service to which they would normally be entitled. This change in direction flies in the face of both the Collective Agreement, which specifically provides for the coverage of unstaffed Letter Carrier routes, and the Canada Post Service Charter, introduced in 2009.

At the time of the June 17, 2010 meeting, Canada Post claimed that it was unaware of such a policy.

Nonetheless, it has become quite apparent that Canada Post has rolled out a policy of non-delivery in locations throughout British Columbia including Vancouver, Victoria, Fraser Valley, Royal City, Terrace, Cranbrook, Trail, Quesnel, Prince Rupert, Castlegar, Coquitlam, Mission, Nanaimo, Courtenay, and elsewhere. At each location, mail has not been delivered, grievances have been filed, and members of the public have not received the service to which they are entitled.

Unsurprisingly, supervisors have informed CUPW that they are “following orders”.

Naturally, we are concerned that Canada Post’s universal service will be further eroded if the new policy is rolled out throughout the rest of Canada. While grievances have been filed and will continue to be filed if necessary, the issue of whether Canada Post has the discretion to withhold mail service under these circumstances has long since been decided by arbitrators. In fact, Arbitrator Carl Goldenberg held that the requirement to cover absences is mandatory:

The instructions issued immediately following the signing of the new agreement states clearly that clause 19.03 “requires that” when the absences exceed the number of unassigned letter carriers, etc, the coverage of the resultant unmanned routes “shall be offered” to full-time letter carriers, etc (1).

In a 1996 National Policy Grievance ruling, Arbitrator Ken Swan reiterated Arbitrator Goldenberg’s ruling when he observed that the Collective Agreement provides a procedure by which to cover unstaffed routes:

Clause 17.04 provides in its preamble for the coverage of absences through the use of relief staff and unassigned personnel, and for dispensing with covering absences in certain circumstances. When the preamble has been exhausted, its language produces “resulting uncovered routes” which are to be covered by the “procedure set out thereafter”(2).

Moreover, Article 9.103 of our Collective Agreement was designed to provide for labour relations stability and binds Canada Post from implementing a policy of non-delivery:

The final decision rendered by an arbitrator binds the Corporation, the Union and the employees in all cases involving identical and/or substantially identical circumstances.

While the Corporation’s new direction is at odds with the well-established jurisprudence between these parties, the Corporation’s change in direction also raises larger issues.

As you are aware, the Canada Post Service Charter not only contemplates but prescribes a universal postal service:

Canada Post will deliver letters, parcels and publications five days a week (except for statutory holidays) to every Canadian address, except in remote areas where less frequent service may be necessary due to limited access to the community(3).

Clearly, a policy of non-delivery is in contravention of the Canada Post Service Charter.

It is also of interest that a policy of non-delivery is at odds with the Canada Post Corporation Act and would appear to qualify as an indictable offence!

Every person commits an offence who unlawfully and knowingly abandons, misdirects, obstructs, delays or detains the progress of any mail or mail conveyance(4).

While Canada Post has been less than transparent in its communications with CUPW, it is crystal clear that Canada Post is under a mandatory obligation to provide the Canadian public with a universal postal service. The Corporation’s current policy of non-delivery fails to meet that obligation and we request that it be rescinded immediately.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken Mooney
Regional Grievance Officer

cc. Denis Lemelin, National President, CUPW
Locals, Pacific Region
Jack Layton, Leader, NDP
Don Davies, M.P. Vancouver Kingsway
Libby Davies, M.P. Vancouver East
Fin Donnelly, M.P. New Westminster-Coquitlam
Alex Atamanenko, M.P. British Columbia-Southern Interior
Peter Julian, M.P. Burnaby-New Westminster
Jean Crowder, M.P. Nanaimo-Cowichan
Nathan Cullen, M.P. Skeena-Bulkley Valley
Denise Savoie, M.P. Victoria
Chris Charlton, Post Office Critic, NDP,
Bonnie Crombie, Post Office Critic, Liberal Party
Mario Laframboise, Post Office Critic, Bloc Quėbėcois
Rob Merrifield, Minister Responsible for Canada Post
Randy Kamp, M.P. Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission
Stewart Bacon, Interim CEO, Canada Post

1) Letter Carriers’ Union of Canada and Canada Post Corporation (LCUC Policy Grievance) April 12, 1983 (Goldenberg)

2) Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Union of Postal Workers (National Policy Grievance, CPC-95-0003) January 8, 1997 (Swan)

3) Canada Post Service Charter, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, 2009.

4) Canada Post Corporation Act, Section 49, 1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 43.

On July 27, 2010, former Royal City Local President Glynn Manson was reinstated to his employment as a result of an arbitration decision by Arbitrator Joan Gordon. Manson was discharged by Canada Post on April 16, 2009 on the grounds that he “incited a concerted work disruption”. Canada Post specifically alleged that his actions as a union representative “directly contributed” to an unlawful work disruption and “resulted in the delay of the IKEA mailing” by a “majority of Letter Carriers” in the New Westminster depot.

The incident in question took place on Friday, March 13, 2010, when Canada Post unilaterally compressed the delivery of an IKEA mailing from three days to a single day without agreement from the Union. The justification for the compression was attributed to Canada Post’s inability to put in place an internal distribution system that would ensure the timely apportionment of IKEA mailings to the affected depots throughout Canada. In fact, the single day compression was the second such incident within a three week period. The compression of householder mailings represents a significant increase in workload for Letter Carriers, as routes are assessed on the basis that an employee will only deliver to a percentage of his or her calls. While the Collective Agreement allows for compression in certain circumstances, compression should always be an exception to the norm rather than a repeating pattern.

On March 13, 2009, New Westminster employees were again informed that IKEA flyers would be compressed into a single day delivery. The situation quickly became inflamed, in part, because of management’s failure to properly compensate certain employees for the previously compressed IKEA mailing. Management also refused to release keys and threatened employees with discipline and/or discharge. In assessing whether Manson had actually incited a work disruption, Arbitrator Gordon considered the conflicting evidence in terms of what was said at a floor meeting that immediately preceded the departure of employees. One corporate witness (Mike Locke) went so far as to claim that Manson had announced, during the meeting, that the flyers would not be delivered. However, Arbitrator Gordon found Locke’s claim to be unfounded and accepted the Union’s evidence of what transpired:

I have preferred the evidence of the Union’s witnesses, finding their memories of material events to be somewhat clearer than, and to have more completely withstood cross-examination, than that of the Employer’s witnesses. I also found the former witnesses’ version of events to be more consistent with the preponderance of the surrounding probabilities.

While accepting that Manson did not actually tell employees not to deliver the IKEA flyers, Arbitrator Gordon nonetheless accepted that some of his remarks likely had the effect of inciting other employees. In assessing the appropriateness of discharge, Arbitrator Gordon noted the testimony of Rachel [Doug] Andrus, who made the decision to discharge:

…those were the only options within the collective agreement. I felt that the collective agreement prevented me from imposing a penalty in between the five day suspension and termination. I got counsel from the Labour Relations group and felt that the collective agreement tied my hands. They counselled me that I only had two options.

In considering the penalty of discharge, Arbitrator Gordon took into consideration several mitigating factors, including Manson’s years of service, the spontaneous nature of his comments at the floor meeting, the absence of progressive discipline, and the fact that Andrus did not bother to hold a disciplinary interview, thereby precluding the opportunity for proper consideration of the Grievor’s explanations. In the result, Arbitrator Gordon substituted a ten day suspension in place of discharge. Accordingly, Manson is now entitled to approximately fifteen (15) months of lost wages and benefits.

In solidarity,

Ken Mooney
Regional Grievance Officer

Here is a copy of Arbitrator Joan Gordon’s  30 page decision in its entirety. Please click on the link below to read the outcome.

File 990 – Canada Post Manson Dismissal Award – dated signed