Arbitrator Awards Letter Carrier $60,725.00

On February 22, 2010, an arbitrator awarded a New Westminster Letter Carrier $60,725.00 following a dispute involving her claim for lost wages. On June 23, 2008, the Grievor was discharged by Canada Post on the grounds of delay of mail, but that discharge was subsequently overturned by an arbitration award dated June 19, 2009. In that award, Arbitrator Joan Gordon substituted a five day suspension in place of discharge. As a result of that award, the Grievor was entitled to approximately one year of lost wages and benefits.

Following her reinstatement, the Union attempted to engage Canada Post in wage loss discussions. During the period of her discharge, the Grievor, a single mother, actively searched for work and submitted nearly 100 applications and resumes to potential employers. Despite her efforts at mitigating her loss of income, Canada Post refused to make any offer of a settlement. In light of Canada Post’s refusal to settle the Grievor’s claim for lost wages, the Union took the matter back to arbitration.

Immediately into the December 1, 2009 hearing, Canada Post demanded the production of the Grievor’s banking records. Canada Post claimed that the Grievor’s banking records were necessary for a “fair hearing”. Canada Post also claimed that there were issues of credibility. The Union refused to accede to the Corporation’s request and maintained that the Corporation was attempting to go on a fishing expedition to search for something that it could not establish with evidence or theory. On January 15, 2010, Arbitrator Gordon issued an interlocutory award, wherein she dismissed the Corporation’s application and noted that it had not exposed any issues of credibility.

In challenging the Grievor’s claim for lost wages, Canada Post employed two lawyers. One lawyer was employed for the purpose of presenting the Corporation’s case while the other was appointed to conduct an investigation of the Grievor’s job search.

The theme of the Corporation’s case, as in most arbitration hearings, was that the Grievor was dishonest and unreliable. However, that claim was completely rejected by the arbitrator:

…nothing in her evidence supports a finding that she was dishonest about her job search.

To the contrary, the arbitrator found Canada Post’s “evidence” (which was based on hearsay evidence) to be unreliable and of no merit:

The purpose for which this evidence was adduced was to show that the Grievor’s evidence about her job search was dishonest or incredible. Hearsay evidence (not double hearsay) is admissible in arbitration hearings, but uncorroborated hearsay cannot support a finding on a material issue in dispute. Mr. Copeland candidly admitted that his evidence was hearsay, and I find certain aspects of his evidence were double hearsay. Mr. Copeland was strenuously cross-examined on his findings, and in the end, I am satisfied that the basis on which his findings were made is unreliable.

…Additionally, the reliability of the finding that four contacts denied receiving/having any record of the Grievor’s application was thoroughly undermined in cross-examination. Due to the unreliable nature of this hearsay evidence, I attribute no weight to it.

In her ruling, Arbitrator Gordon awarded the Grievor the amount of $60,725.00 to cover her lost wages, missed householder payments, missed overtime opportunities, missed CTI, missed boot and glove Allowance, and missed over-assessment payments. The Grievor was also credited with the vacation leave and sick leave credits she would have earned had she not been unjustly discharged.

This case offers a good expose of Canada Post hypocrisy. On one level, Canada Post CEO Moya Greene has been preaching a message of fiscal restraint. In reality, there are apparently no financial constraints on the amount of money that Canada Post is willing and prepared to spend in attacking our members’ rights.

In solidarity,

Ken Mooney

Regional Grievance Officer