Re: Canada Post Service Charter – Letter Carrier Delivery

August 5, 2010

VIA FACSIMILE AND HARD COPY

Canada Post Corporation
349 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 4Z3

Attention: Mike Shearon – Divisional General Manager

Dear Mr. Shearon,

Re: Canada Post Service Charter – Letter Carrier Delivery

On June 17, 2010, CUPW brought forward its concerns regarding the Corporation’s new staffing policy as it applies to Letter Carrier absences. It is our understanding that the new policy provides for non-delivery when employees are absent from work, effectively depriving members of the public of the universal service to which they would normally be entitled. This change in direction flies in the face of both the Collective Agreement, which specifically provides for the coverage of unstaffed Letter Carrier routes, and the Canada Post Service Charter, introduced in 2009.

At the time of the June 17, 2010 meeting, Canada Post claimed that it was unaware of such a policy.

Nonetheless, it has become quite apparent that Canada Post has rolled out a policy of non-delivery in locations throughout British Columbia including Vancouver, Victoria, Fraser Valley, Royal City, Terrace, Cranbrook, Trail, Quesnel, Prince Rupert, Castlegar, Coquitlam, Mission, Nanaimo, Courtenay, and elsewhere. At each location, mail has not been delivered, grievances have been filed, and members of the public have not received the service to which they are entitled.

Unsurprisingly, supervisors have informed CUPW that they are “following orders”.

Naturally, we are concerned that Canada Post’s universal service will be further eroded if the new policy is rolled out throughout the rest of Canada. While grievances have been filed and will continue to be filed if necessary, the issue of whether Canada Post has the discretion to withhold mail service under these circumstances has long since been decided by arbitrators. In fact, Arbitrator Carl Goldenberg held that the requirement to cover absences is mandatory:

The instructions issued immediately following the signing of the new agreement states clearly that clause 19.03 “requires that” when the absences exceed the number of unassigned letter carriers, etc, the coverage of the resultant unmanned routes “shall be offered” to full-time letter carriers, etc (1).

In a 1996 National Policy Grievance ruling, Arbitrator Ken Swan reiterated Arbitrator Goldenberg’s ruling when he observed that the Collective Agreement provides a procedure by which to cover unstaffed routes:

Clause 17.04 provides in its preamble for the coverage of absences through the use of relief staff and unassigned personnel, and for dispensing with covering absences in certain circumstances. When the preamble has been exhausted, its language produces “resulting uncovered routes” which are to be covered by the “procedure set out thereafter”(2).

Moreover, Article 9.103 of our Collective Agreement was designed to provide for labour relations stability and binds Canada Post from implementing a policy of non-delivery:

The final decision rendered by an arbitrator binds the Corporation, the Union and the employees in all cases involving identical and/or substantially identical circumstances.

While the Corporation’s new direction is at odds with the well-established jurisprudence between these parties, the Corporation’s change in direction also raises larger issues.

As you are aware, the Canada Post Service Charter not only contemplates but prescribes a universal postal service:

Canada Post will deliver letters, parcels and publications five days a week (except for statutory holidays) to every Canadian address, except in remote areas where less frequent service may be necessary due to limited access to the community(3).

Clearly, a policy of non-delivery is in contravention of the Canada Post Service Charter.

It is also of interest that a policy of non-delivery is at odds with the Canada Post Corporation Act and would appear to qualify as an indictable offence!

Every person commits an offence who unlawfully and knowingly abandons, misdirects, obstructs, delays or detains the progress of any mail or mail conveyance(4).

While Canada Post has been less than transparent in its communications with CUPW, it is crystal clear that Canada Post is under a mandatory obligation to provide the Canadian public with a universal postal service. The Corporation’s current policy of non-delivery fails to meet that obligation and we request that it be rescinded immediately.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken Mooney
Regional Grievance Officer

cc. Denis Lemelin, National President, CUPW
Locals, Pacific Region
Jack Layton, Leader, NDP
Don Davies, M.P. Vancouver Kingsway
Libby Davies, M.P. Vancouver East
Fin Donnelly, M.P. New Westminster-Coquitlam
Alex Atamanenko, M.P. British Columbia-Southern Interior
Peter Julian, M.P. Burnaby-New Westminster
Jean Crowder, M.P. Nanaimo-Cowichan
Nathan Cullen, M.P. Skeena-Bulkley Valley
Denise Savoie, M.P. Victoria
Chris Charlton, Post Office Critic, NDP,
Bonnie Crombie, Post Office Critic, Liberal Party
Mario Laframboise, Post Office Critic, Bloc Quėbėcois
Rob Merrifield, Minister Responsible for Canada Post
Randy Kamp, M.P. Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission
Stewart Bacon, Interim CEO, Canada Post