On June 14, a national arbitrator rendered an important arbitration award. The principles set out in this decision affect all members of the urban operations bargaining unit even though the grievance dealt more specifically with mail service couriers (MSC) and motorized letter carriers.

This grievance was filed as a result of the Security of Mail and Corporate Vehicles policy issued by the employer in the summer of 2004. This policy stated that the penalty for a first offence would be a maximum 5-day suspension from duty and suspension, for 6 months, of the driver’s Vehicle Operator Permit (VOP) issued by the employer (double sanction for a single offence). In the event of a second offence within twelve months of the first, the employee would immediately be discharged. Offences covered by the employer’s policy were as follows: “…keys left in the ignition; doors unlocked; theft of mail that had not been secured; windows down when mail has not been secured; theft of an unsecured vehicle, and finally, unlocked vehicle left unsupervised overnight…” 

ORDER

Without going into the technical details of the award, it is important to highlight some of the principles set out by the arbitrator. After reviewing the case law, the arbitrator concluded that the employer’s policy restricted the powers of the grievance arbitrator. As a result, he declared the employer policy invalid, since it would otherwise bind a court and the arbitrator would not be able to amend the one to five-day suspension imposed at the employer’s discretion.

The arbitrator then considered an important question, i.e. the suspension of the operator’s permit issued by the Corporation. Is this an administrative measure, as suggested by the employer, or a disciplinary measure, as maintained by the Union? According to the arbitrator, the employer’s policy clearly states that suspension of the operator’s permit must be described as a disciplinary measure since this suspension is in fact motivated by a behaviour defined by the employer as offending.

In brief, the arbitrator found that the contested policy contains a double sanction related to a single offence. However, in collective labour relations law, the prohibition on a double disciplinary sanction for a single offence is no longer contested (except by CPC) and where the Corporation has violated this principle, the measures taken must be quashed. Finally, the arbitrator ruled that the disciplinary part of the employer’s policy is invalid and ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO AMEND ITS POLICY ACCORDINGLY.  HE ALSO RESERVED JURISDICTION OVER THE ORDERING OF DAMAGES. As a result, members who were subjected to the employer’s excessive disciplinary measures will be compensated. The employer must remove from the concerned employees’ personal file any reference to the disciplinary measures and reimburse them, whether they were imposed a suspension, a forced transfer or any other disciplinary measure arising from the Corporation’s policy.