|
|
|
|
Local Consultation Between Canada Post Corporation And Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Scarborough Local) November 23, 2007 West Beaver Creek
Re: Restructure Thornhill and Richmond 20
CPC CUPW
K. Burtt M. Duquette J. Paulin S. Chapman D. Wells L. Jewel J. Rudling T. Parkes M. Tong D. Osgood N. Cox E. Herrerra R. Saunders
Thornhill Restructure
The Union stated that they did not have many concerns regarding the Thornhill restructure.
The Union was questioning Managements’ % coverage calculation and asked why the pieces per day of mail were divided by 10 when a 5 day count was utilized.
Management confirmed it was a 5 day count.
Management will confirm with the Union.
The Union stated this had to be corrected as the daily pieces of mail are affected.
Management asked if the Union reviewed the 070’s.
The Union stated they never received copies of the 070’s.
Management agreed to provide copies of the 070 for both stations.
The Union also stated that two relay boxes and a mailroom were excluded.
Management agreed to look into that.
The Union stated that there was a problem with Walk 77 and had to be designated as a right hand drive vehicle due to truck height clearance issues.
Management stated that they just needed to be notified of the change.
The Union stated that if the successful bidder of this Walk did not have right hand drive training, it would need to be provided.
The Union brought up an objection concerning the “iron ring”. It concerned address ranges on Bathurst Street. The Union stated that four (4) calls went to suburban services which they argue belongs to the letter carriers.
The Union stated that the objection was made at the time but there was no resolution or remedy provided so a grievance has been filed on the issue.
Management stated that the grievance was heard and that the response provided by Route Measurement was given at that time.
Management stated that if their position changes on this issue, these points will be restructured.
Richmond Hill 20 Restructure
Management agreed to provide the 070
The Union stated that the structure was fine and there were no objections.
The Union however stated that there was a problem with the designation of the A-62 cases.
The Union stated that the Parties are familiar with the processes and the interim values agreed to nationally for the use of these cases. However, the observers ran into a problem that they had never encountered before.
The Union stated that the case planners were not able to put all of the points of call on some of the walks utilizing these cases.
The case planners tried to shrink some of the commercial calls to accommodate the sort, however, this would not work. They were unable to fit the last 35 calls on the case.
The Union stated that they have never seen it being done where there are pure commercial walks.
The Union states that the only remedy they can see at this time is that Management has to go back and reproduce a A-33 Case and set this up so you can sort into it.
The Union stated that if you have to add a wing to the A-62 case then it becomes an A-33 case and the values have to be added.
The Union stated that if you have to remedy it after the fact it will be chaos and you would have to go to a Plan “C” restructure. This has to be remedied before the fact or the Union will argue that the Corporation is deliberately restructuring over assessed walks.
The Union is raising this as an objection and they will not agree to allow this to be implemented as over assessed.
The Union raised the example of Walk 112 with a A-62 case. It has 396 slots/separations. The Walk has 376 Businesses, 58 Apartments and 109 Houses. This was trying to single slot Businesses which could not be accomplished.
The Union also stated that Walk 107 was another example.
The Union stated that Walks 105 and 106 were fine using the A-62 case.
Management asked the Union if seven (7) Walks needed to be looked at.
The Union stated that there may be up to seven and currently they have identified five.
The Union was told that Management stated that this has never been encountered before and would be raised with Route Measurement.
Management stated that they escalated this up to Ottawa who is responsible for providing a solution.
The Union stated that Management has already said that adding wings to the case was not a solution. Management stated that this was correct or it would then be deemed a A-33 case.
Management will provide a response on this issue to the Union as soon as possible. This issue has to be resolved.
The Union stated that the complaints are that the items are crammed up with double numbers in the A-62 case.
The Union stated that if there is going to be a change to the case then elemental time values are involved and this has to be addressed.
Management stated that there was two months before implementation to address the issue.
Management was concerned that the Union would invoke the 15 day review process once a solution was found.
The Union stated that they would not be requesting the 15 day review process if the issue is resolved.
Management stated that they would wait for a response from Ottawa and in the meantime look at the cases.
The Union suggested that Route Measurement be brought back in and remove the over assessment and place it onto another walk.
Management stated that the parties needed to meet again within two weeks to resolve the issue.
The Union stated the Walks 102, 112 and 107 needed more slots for sure.
Management recognized that five to seven walks had to be revisited.
The Union stated that they would look at it again and this would be a good learning experience as this is a new issue.
Management asked if the Union would object to the A-62 case and A-12 case combination with the associated values.
The Union stated that there would be no objection as long as the values were provided.
Management will set up another date for the parties to reconvene. Proposed November 30th, 2007, same time and location.
The Union agreed.
The Parties agreed that the bid could not take place until the walks were changed.
Richmond Hill 20 – Article 54
The Union understood that when Art Shaw retires Darlene Clark would get the position permanently. Is there an update?
Management was not aware of any update to this.
Management asked if we could move Art to an unassigned position and place Darlene into it.
The Union stated that for the time being they preferred to leave it status quo.
The Union stated that due to Henry Alton’s bilateral ankle problems, Walk 18, a motorized route, was the only route he could perform.
The Union stated that Alton should be allowed to bid to see if he can self accommodate. If this was not possible, then walk 18 is suitable.
The Union stated that they hold off on this until the walks were restructured and they wanted an opportunity to talk to Mr. Alton.
Management asked the Union if the bid was to be done as two stations.
The Union answered in the affirmative.
Thornhill – Article 54
The Union stated that Christine Leach is on modified duties, currently owns a foot route but will be getting an operation and can bid.
Scott Phillips is currently in an LCA position.
Management stated that there are currently two LCA positions: one with the hours of 6 am to 2 pm and the other from 7 am to 3 pm.
The Parties agreed to allow Mr. Phillips to bid, however, as soon a one position is filled and if he is not the successful candidate then he will be locked into the remaining LCA position.
The Union stated that the parties had to determine which LCA belonged to which unit.
Management stated that they would have to look at where both the relief letter carriers and the letter carrier assistants belonged. It was either Richmond Hill 20 or Thornhill.
The Union stated that this had to be accomplished prior to the first bid occurring.
James Dempsey is to remain in the DRS position. Art Shaw to also remain in DRS position.
Bidding
The Parties agreed that Richmond Hill 20 and Thornhill are two separate units and will be bid as such.
The Union stated that bidding is different because one unit is going up in positions and the other is losing positions.
Thornhill – employees who held positions prior to the volume count get to bid on the first round and the remaining become unassigned.
Richmond Hill 20 – everybody who is in the unit gets to bid and owns a position.
It is slightly different for part- time and full time.
Management asked the union who would be assigned to look after the bidding.
The Union suggested Laura Jewel.
Seniority Date
Management stated that officially the new seniority date of employees does not take effect until January 7, 2007.
The Union stated that they have completed their exercise and reviews and are confident in their reviews.
The Union was in agreement to utilize the new seniority dates for the bidding.
Management agreed and asked when bidding could start.
The union stated that thee is still a lot of outstanding information from the routes and until that is resolved bidding should not begin.
|
|
|
