During the past two weeks, the Negotiations Sub-committee #3 has met three times, i.e. on November 12, 20 & 24, 2009. This sub-committee is dealing with Union demands 21‑26 inclusively (Union Protections and Members Rights) and demands 27-30 inclusively (Seniority), as well as the employer proposals dealing with “civility & respect,” a mandatory complaint stage and housekeeping and minor issues.

In terms of demand #21, the Union reiterated that members acting as union representatives/shop stewards should not be penalized by the loss of wages when they are performing duties attached to their union position. A number of examples of unfair treatment were provided by the Union’s Negotiating Committee, including situations where shop stewards had lost wages when they had taken time from their sortation/delivery duties to respond to an employer request for assistance to resolve a work floor problem.

In terms of the other demands being made under the heading of “Union Protections and Members Rights,” the Union reiterated that it was seeking to have the same rights and entitlements for RSMC members that are found, for the most part, in the other four collective agreements at Canada Post.

The employer’s general response to the Union demands is to indicate that if more rights and benefits are put into the RSMC collective agreement there will be more grievances submitted on behalf of RSMC members. In other words, the employer is saying that it is not prepared to provide RSMC members with the rights and benefits they are entitled to because the employer’s representatives on the work floor are either incapable of, or unwilling to, properly apply the provisions of the collective agreement.

At meetings held on November 19 & 25, 2009, the parties discussed the Union demands pertaining to Relief Employees. The Union presented the employer with lists containing a large number of installations (and groupings of installation) where relief employees could be added, based on the criteria agreed to by the Transition Committee. These criteria generally provide for one relief employee for any installation that contains six to nine routes and an additional relief employee for each additional ten routes in an installation.

At Sub-committee #2(a) meetings held on November 18 & 25, 2009, the parties discussed the employer’s proposal to raise some of the monetary values in Appendix “A” and to add others and its proposal to eliminate all references to the Transition Committee from the collective agreement. The Union provided information to the employer that showed that the employer’s proposal concerning Appendix “A” would not benefit individual RSMC members and would, in many cases, actually reduce the hourly rate of affected routes.

FINANCIAL CAP DISCUSSED

During meetings held on November 19 & 26, 2009, the employer responded to questions raised by the Union concerning certain aspects of the financial documentation the employer had previously provided. Among the questions raised by the Union were why the costs for ergonomic assistants had jumped from $140,000.00 in 2008 to a projected cost of $1,419,000.00 in 2009.

During the first meeting, the employer modified its proposal concerning the Corporate Team Incentive (CTI). In the employer’s initial proposal any payment to RSMC members arising from this benefit would not have become effective until 2011 as the productivity standards inherent to the CTI were not applied to RSMC members in 2009. The employer’s modified proposal would have a “recognition payment” being made in 2010. The amount of the recognition payment made to individual RSMC members would be similar to the benefits applicable to Urban Operation members pursuant to the CTI language. With its amended proposal, the employer is continuing to indicate that any monies paid out as part of its CTI would come from the financial cap. What this means, if the employer proposal was accepted, is that there would be unreasonable expenditures made to the financial cap in both 2010 and 2011.

LITTLE PROGRESS BEING MADE

Although the parties have had many meetings at the sub-committee level, little progress has been made in achieving a fair and equitable collective agreement. This is primarily due to the fact that the employer has neither brought reasonable proposals to the bargaining table to address the non-financial concerns of the membership nor responded in a reasonable manner to the demands being made by the Union on behalf of RSMC members. 

GLOBAL OFFER MADE BY UNION

Although the sixty (60)-day negotiation period mentioned in clause 36.03 has expired, the Union is still seeking to negotiate necessary changes to the RSMC collective agreement. To that end it, made a global offer of settlement to the employer on December 2, 2009.  This global offer encompassed most of the demands initially made by the Union as well as some of the proposals made by the employer. For example, the Union accepted the employer proposals concerning changes to the vision & hearing and dental plans, as well as proposing an amended version of the employer’s drug plan proposal. The demands dropped by the Union included demand #11 (long-term disability plan), demand #18 (additional compensation for isolated posts) and demand #26 (employee definitions).

MEMBERS SHOULD CONTINUE TO SHOW SUPPORT

As of this date, the employer has not treated the concerns of the membership in a serious or reasonable manner, despite the support shown by the membership for their demands and their Negotiating Committee.

In order for the Union to obtain a fair and equitable collective agreement, the membership must continue to participate in local activities and remain informed by reading the union bulletins and accessing the Union’s web site (www.cupw-sttp.org).