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.

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 employer is no longer providing the Union with the useful and essential information

On February 18, 2010, John Thomas, CPC Manager, Labour Relations, in Ottawa, informed the Union that the Corporation did not intend to return to the financial cap the amounts deducted for a hand sanitizer provided to Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers in 2009 to help prevent the H1N1 virus, as well as the seasonal flu. The employer has violated the collective agreement.

As of December 31, 2009, the Canada Post Corporation (the employer) has decided to stop accepting and/or processing new requests regarding the contractor start date of rural and suburban mail carriers (RSMC) hired as employees on January 1st, 2004 (contract holders, sub-contractors, replacements or helpers) for the purpose of establishing the seniority ranking of RSMCs. The employer is violating the provisions of the collective agreement and the established practice.

On or about August 18, 2009, Canada Post advised the Union that it was sending all rural and suburban mail carriers (RSMCs) an information package regarding the security screening of replacement contractors and others carrying out duties on RSMC routes.

On Thursday, April 9, 2009, the Union learned through its members that the employer had given employees of the rural and suburban mail carriers (RSMC) unit a $50 gift card. The employer did this in such a way as to avoid consulting the Union. As a result, Canada Post has violated the RSMC collective agreement, and, specifically but not exclusively, Articles 3 and 7 of the RSMC collective agreement

In a letter dated March 9, 2009, which was received by the Union on March 11, 2009, the employer advised the Union that it intended to amend the collective agreement and the current practice in relation to the boot allowance for employees of the Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers’ (RSMC) unit, as set out in clause 24.03 of the RSMC collective agreement. The employer has decided to stop paying the boot allowance to employees who have been inactive for a year. This constitutes a violation of the collective agreement.

Although the employer recognizes the need for a more effective way of understanding the hours worked by its employees, it refuses to consider the best means of collecting and using the available information. In so doing, the employer is violating the provisions of the Collective Agreement.

The employer has failed to abide by the collective agreement by obstructing the right of its employees to apply on an informed basis for vacant positions in a postal installation within a 50-kilometre radius of their current postal installation. The information indicated on the posting of vacant routes is incomplete and does not enable employees to make an informed decision, and they may suffer adverse effects as a result. Furthermore, the employer is not posting vacant routes in all of its postal installations and is only posting these on the internet or Intr@post. The employer is therefore failing in its contractual obligations.

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.