Private Vehicle Dispute Resolved by Arbitrator!
On July 24, 2009, Arbitrator Tom Jolliffe sustained National Policy Grievance N00-03-00021. The grievance was filed by the Union in response to a bulletin written by Canada Post’s Labour Relations team. The bulletin, dated March 27, 2006 indicated that Letter Carriers could be offered the option of using their private vehicles as conveyance to and from their routes during monthly assignment bids.
The relevant extract of the Corporation’s bulletin is as follows:
Since employees have an option when bidding on PV routes, to use alternate transportation (usually cab), we often forget that the route maintains its PV designation. As a result, when a PV assignment, held by an employee that did not use PV, becomes vacant, we often post the route as special transportation only. This is incorrect. All PV designated routes are to be posted under clause 13.18 (c) as Private Vehicle/Special Transportation routes. The successful bidding employee will maintain the option to use PV or the alternate means of transportation.
The parties have had longstanding differences regarding the use of private vehicles dating back to the days of the Letter Carriers’ Union of Canada (LCUC). The Union has historically opposed the use of private vehicles because private vehicle conveyance brings Letter Carriers one step closer to becoming private contractors. Private vehicle conveyance has also been associated with reduced travel time and longer routes.
Naturally, Canada Post actively encourages its employees to agree to private vehicle conveyance prior to each restructure.
Notwithstanding the Corporation’s March 27, 2006 bulletin, the Collective Agreement remains clear. As a precondition to the use of a private vehicle on a restructured route, Letter Carriers must indicate their willingness to do so in the period following a pre-restructure assessment phase but prior to the commencement of a restructuring exercise. In the event that an employee has indicated his or her willingness to use private conveyance prior to a restructure, and if he or she is successful in bidding on a route that was restructured for the use of private vehicles, he or she may opt to use a private vehicle as conveyance to and from the route. In that event, he or she will be required to stay on that route until the next restructuring unless there is an agreement between local management and the Union local.
In his award, Arbitrator Jolliffe found the Corporation’s directive to be contrary to the Collective Agreement:
It [the Collective Agreement] does not contemplate subsequent vacancies of special transportation routes, on which Letter Carriers had been using their private vehicles since restructure implementation, being filled on the same basis, with direction given that this practice must cease.
In practical terms, this means that Canada Post may not offer the option of private vehicle conveyance or advertise vacant Letter Carrier routes as private vehicle routes during monthly assignment bids, nor does an employee who is successful in bidding on any vacant Letter Carrier route during a monthly assignment bid have an obligation to use his or her private vehicle. Employees who bid on vacant routes that were initially restructured for the use of private vehicles must be provided with alternate conveyance, such as taxi or corporate vehicle.
In solidarity,
Ken Mooney
Regional Grievance Officer