Appendix P Ratio – Group 1 Hours Down |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
February 18, 2009 - 14:30 Staffing / Bulletin 2008-2011/125 CUPW has received the 2008 data for the national Group 1 ratio. According to Canada Post (CPC), the 2008 adjusted ratio is 82.76%. Under Appendix P of the Urban Operations contract, at least 78% of the hours paid to postal clerks, mail handlers, and dispatchers (Group 1) must be paid to full time employees as regular straight time hours, when adjusted for absences.
Paid Hours Down in All CategoriesAll types of CUPW Group 1 members were paid for fewer hours in 2008 than in 2007. The Corporation’s data breaks down as follows:
This data means that there are fewer Group 1 jobs than in 2007, and fewer full time Group 1 jobs.
CPC Attacks, Mail Volume Declines Affect Hours PaidThese data may reflect Canada Post’s attacks on CUPW jobs at Retail wickets and in processing plants. Hours paid to CUPW Retail employees declined from 4,811,362 in 2007 to 4,668,593 in 2008. This reduction was suffered totally by full time regular Retail clerks, as both part time and temporary hours increased in retail. The reduction in hours paid may also be related to declines in mail volumes in the last few months of 2008, due to the economic recession. Mail volumes often follow trends in the economy. Despite recent alarmist talk by Canada Post, it is too early to say how long the current recession will last, how bad it will be, and what the longer term impact on mail volumes might be. The total hours paid to employees declined in all major processing plants except for Regina and Saskatoon. The decline was particularly noticeable in Victoria, where there were over 30,000 fewer hours paid to Group 1 employees. This decline was almost entirely in the full time regular category.
National Grievances Filed on RatioIt is important to note that CUPW has concerns with the accuracy of CPC’s data. In 2007, the Corporation changed the way in which it calculates the adjustment to the national ratio. CPC now includes more absences in its adjustment formula than was the case in the past. The change in the formula means that the adjusted ratio (the one that is used) appears to be much higher than was the case in the past, even if the actual ratio is lower. National grievances have been filed on this issue.
In solidarity,
This document is available in Portable Document Format (PDF).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|