Grievance

National grievance N00-03-00021 was filed because CPC took the position that Letter Carriers could volunteer to use their private vehicles (PV) when a route, for which the previous route holder had volunteered to use his or her private vehicle, became vacant. In other words when a private vehicle route holder retired for example CPC would post the vacant route as a PV route and would allow the successful bidder to volunteer to use her or his PV.

Union’s Position

As far as CUPW was concerned the language supported by the past practice provided that the private vehicle option could only be offered at the period of time leading up to a route restructure exercise, and that at any other time CPC had to adhere to clause 32.01.

Arbitrator’s Conclusion

“In the result, my decision at this point is to issue the award as declaratory, namely that the grievance succeeds on the basis that the Corporation’s grieved March 27, 2006 Bulletin contravenes the article 32.06 process. It does not contemplate subsequent vacancies of special transportation structured routes, on which willing letter carriers had been using their own vehicles since restructure implementation, being filled on the same basis, with direction given that this practice must cease. In that regard, the Union’s understanding of the workings of article 32.06 presented in evidence is consistent with the language agreed upon and the longstanding practice between the parties until the Employer started implementing changes as observed and disputed from 2004 onwards, with only very few exceptions occurring prior to that time on special circumstances, or occasionally ‘slipping under the radar’.”

The Future

We must now ensure this decision is respected. This decision should be applied retroactively and any route for which a PV designation was achieved outside the route restructuring exercise should be converted to special transportation by corporate vehicle or taxi.

The Union has always held a strong position that the employer should be responsible for all transportation. We have been successful in convincing the great majority of our members not to sign up for PV use and it has paid off.

When CPC notified us that Modern Post was being implemented in October 2007 the letter mentioned that a great majority of the routes would be mail mobiles in the future. If the majority of us had signed up for PV use, there is no way CPC would be suggesting they plan on supplying corporate vehicles.

I suggest we look at our work places and think about this reality. We need to ask ourselves: If Modern Post is implemented in our office will CPC supply the vehicles or will they expect us to use our private vehicles because a good number have volunteered to use our PVs in the past?

PRIVATE VEHICLE USE ONLY SERVES THE INTERESTS OF CPC.