Learning portfolio

9

Canada Post Corporation

Student Name:

Institution Name:

Date:

Canada Post Corporation

Introduction

Under the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Canada Post Corporation (CPC) possesses a comprehensive decree to run postal services to transmit letters, information, and funds and render other associated services (Hart & Zandbergen, 2016). CPC was established in 1981 as a Crown Corporation. It offers universal letter services to all Canadians anywhere in Canada at affordable prices. According to Bao (2020), CPC and its affiliates deliver an average of more than 36 million pieces of mail on a typical working day, processed through 22 major plants and many other facilities. It also forwards mail virtually worldwide. Together with its affiliates, CPC is the 5th largest employer in Canada, and it ranks at position 32 among Canadian businesses in terms of revenue.

Canada Post Corporation Vs. Canadian Union of Postal Workers

One of the critical demands for renewing the contract between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was better health and safety measures. A spokesperson of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers registered a charge with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The representative claimed that CPC was not accomplishing its health and safety responsibilities. It did not value its employees' broader workplaces for safety risks, including letter carrier ways and delivery points. According to section 125(1) (z.12) of the employee code, an employer should in respect of every workplace where an employee operates or carry out work-related activity, the workplace should be inspected every month by the workplace committee or the health safety representative (Murphy, 2018). Most importantly, the code describes a workplace as any place where all employees work, whether or not they are under the employer's authority. A health and Safety Officer (HSO) reviewed the accusation and concluded that CPC had neglected to obey the code by only scrutinizing one depot, Burlington depot, and leaving other delivery routes and points (Nelsen & White, 2018).

CPC appealed this verdict to the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada (OHSTC). OHSTC's appeals magistrate reversed the HSO's decision. He stated that CPC had not violated the code because the workplaces should be inspected for health and safety hazards only applies to the parts where an employer has direct control. In CPC's case, it does not include letter carrier routes and delivery points. Following the OHSTC's statement, the union afterward appealed to the Federal Court for judicial evaluation, but the court declined this appeal after concluding that OHSTC'S judgment was sound. The union did not give up but filed another appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). The FCA reinstated HSO's findings by supporting the fact that CPC had violated the employee code. After FCA's ruling, CPC went ahead and filed an appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

The majority of SCC approved CPC's petition and thereby restoring OHSTC's conclusion. In attaining this judgment, the SCC utilized the amended framework for the judicial investigation of managerial assessments from its ruling in 2019, where it handled a case between a Vavilov and the minister of citizenship and immigration (Daly, 2020). In their appeal, the SCC found that the OHSTC's findings were correct because an employer who does not check a workplace cannot guarantee its safety. Neither can they resolve any safety perils that an external officer may recognize through an examination (Undy, 2015). They gave an example of CPC's delivery routes and delivery points, CPC does not have direct control over their safety, and therefore they cannot fix hazards such workplaces. The union argued this by claiming that CPC could not handle safety risks on transportation routes since the company was unwilling to adopt a policy for route audits. In response, the SCC said there was no evidence of disparity in CPC deliberately embracing an approach to inspect and remedy safety hazards for some routes (Stacey, 2021). Consequently, the SCC ruled that CPC did not infringe the code since it does not have the power of such more ubiquitous workplaces.

When the two parties could not file any more appeals, they had to negotiate on all the new contract demands. Besides, the legislation passed by the government of Canada directed the two parties to resolve a collective bargaining dispute by interest arbitration (Aivalis, 2020). The minister of labor assigned an arbitrator Elizabeth McPherson the authority to make this determination and decide the terms of the collective agreement (Barton et al., 2021). In mid-January 2019, the parties met the arbitrator and agreed on the issues that were still in dispute. The parties agreed to submit and call evidence in a traditional arbitration procedure, which was then scheduled on various dates in February and March 2019. The minister of labor had set the entire process to expire on December 31, 2019. But, after the arbitrator reported that the case between the two parties was too intense and it needed more time, the minister of labor agreed to extend the process by six months, which means it then had to be completed by June 30, 2020 (Stinson & Ballantyne, 2017).

As a step of improvement, the arbitrator and the two parties selected six critical areas that the negotiation process was to address. One area greed upon was employment terms. The union pursued the CPC to improve current employment terms to allow more employees to work on permanent terms. The union also pushed for more and better healthcare benefits, including dental, vision, and paramedical. Another issue that the negotiation was to address is bereavement leave. The union wanted the CPC to expand the definition of family and increase periods of bereavement leave with pay. Another issue was the increase of personal leave from 7 to 10 days. The negotiation also aimed to improve terms on short-term disability programs and, finally, to reconsider rates of pay (Chaisse et al., 2017). During the entire process, it was still challenging to get the two parties on level ground. The union kept complaining about CPC's refusal to cooperate. However, when COVID-19 hit the globe, the two parties had no other option but to agree. During the pandemic, parcel delivery demands increased, and CPC had no other choice but to appreciate its employee's efforts by agreeing with the union.

Newly Negotiated Contract

By August 2020, the two parties reached an agreement for a new contract which will expire January 31, 2022. The new contract terms were better and satisfactory to most employees. The purpose of the deal was to administer suitable methods for resolving complaints and predicaments during the time of the collective agreement, stabilize and secure standards of compensation and terms of employment. Below are some of the terms of the new contract;

1. Union Access of Place of Employment

According to the new contract terms, full-time officers of the union will be permitted to access the corporation’s private areas such as a postal induction, provided they notify the company's management level and state the purpose and place of visit. Before allowed on the premises, the officers will have to legally identify themselves to the manager on duty.

2. Compulsory Membership

With regard to the new contract, any employee hired after this new contract will acquire union membership from the moment of hiring as soon as possible. Moreover, the company will not be bound to fire any worker whose association benefits have been withdrawn by the union.

3. Check-Off for Life Insurance

CPC shall implement a monthly check-off of insurance bonuses obligatory on life insurance schemes offered by the union for its affiliates upon submission of relevant documents, and the costs deducted will not be included in the union dues. Hence, all employees at CPC will be subjected to two types of monthly deductions; one for union dues and the other for insurance incentives. The deductions from employees' salary for a union insurance cover are revocable on notice in writing.

4. Discrimination and Discipline

Any form of discrimination against the employees will not be tolerated. This includes and is not limited to stronger disciplinary action, intimidation, harassment, coercion, restriction, and interference. An employee should also not be discriminated against by genetic characteristics, family status, marital status, gender identity, sexual orientation, emotional handicap, nationality, skin color, cultural norms, nor age (Geldart et al., 2018). Any worker who has been on leave under any terms of the mutual arbitration shall not be penalized unless it has been confirmed that the worker rudely took advantage of the contract terms (Tucker, 2020). Additionally, the company and its delegates will not intimidate, or contrarily suggest influencing ideas to an employee during a polygraph testing.

5. New Employees

When a new employee is hired, the company will give the employee a copy of the joint contract (White & Janzen, 2016). The next step will be introducing the worker to his or her union alternate. Besides, during the first week of the new worker, the union representative shall be allowed fifteen minutes of work to confer with the employees.

6. Rights of Employees to Complain

Both the union and the company appreciate that a worker holds the privilege to report any issues or complaints related to employment terms and work environment. An authorized union officer may also report a complaint if he or she thinks that an employee has been unfairly treated (Crew & Kleindorfer, 2016). A complaint related to an employee must be reported by a sanctioned union agent no more than 25 working days after an employee's issue was identified. In response to the complaint, the company shall generate four copies. One copy to the employee to whom the issue applies, other copies to the local union officer, regional union officer, and national union officer.

References

Aivalis, C. (2020). Pierre Trudeau, the Assault on Collective Bargaining, and Lowering Working-Class Expectations. Labour, 86(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1353/llt.2020.0041

Bao C. (2020) Arbitral Procedure: Case Management and Selecting the Place of Arbitration. In: Chaisse J., Choukroune L., Jusoh S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_65-1

Barton, R., Béthoux, É., Dupuy, C., Ilsøe, A., Jalette, P., Laroche, M., Navrbjerg, S. E., & Larsen, T. P. (2021). Understanding the dynamics of inequity in collective bargaining: Evidence from Australia, Canada, Denmark, and France. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 27(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258920981827

Chaisse, J., Gao, H., & Lo, C. (2017). Paradigm shift in international economic law rule-making: TPP as a new model for trade agreements? Springer.

Daly, P. (2020). The Vavilov framework and the future of Canadian administrative law. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3519681

De Donder, P. (2016). Give Canada Post a Break: Allowing More Pricing Flexibility and Competition Could Help the Corporation Succeed. SPP Research Paper, (9-5). https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v9i0.42568

Geldart, S., Langlois, L., Shannon, H. S., Cortina, L. M., Griffith, L., & Haines, T. (2018). Workplace incivility, psychological distress, and the protective effect of Co-worker support. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-07-2017-0051

Hart, T. C., & Zandbergen, P. A. (2016). Reference data and geocoding quality. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36(2), 263-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511311329705

Murphy, G. J. (2018). Financial statement disclosure and corporate law: The Canadian experience.

Nelsen, R. W., & White, J. (2018). Male and female: Women and the Canadian union of postal workers. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 17(3), 362. https://doi.org/10.2307/3341337

Stacey, R. (2021). A unified model of public law: Charter values and reasonableness review in Canada. University of Toronto Law Journal, 71(3), 338-375. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2020-0056

Stinson, J., & Ballantyne, M. (2017). Chapter 7. Union renewal and CUPE. Paths to Union Renewal, 145-160. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442602236-011

Tucker, E. (2020). Freedom to strike? What freedom to strike? back-to-Work legislation and the freedom to strike in historical and legal perspective. Labour, 86(1), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1353/llt.2020.0042

Undy, R. (2015). Trade union organisation. Industrial Relations Journal, 46(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12091

White, J. P., & Janzen, R. (2016). The industrial relations implications of privatization: The case of Canada post. Articles, 55(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.7202/051290ar