CUPW 2011

Links to CPC Householder Values and Walks by FSA
Click Here

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

HEARINGS HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO,

ON JULY 7 AND 13, 1993

BETWEEN:

CANADA POST CORPORATION

                                                                                                                                    Corporation

- and -

CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

                                                                                                                                    Union

AND IN THE MATTER OF A SERIES OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE

REGULAR ARBITRATION PROCEDURE

ARBITRATOR

P. JOHN BRUNNER

APPEARANCES

FOR THE CORPORATION                                                 PAUL MULVIHILL,

                                                                                                ROBERT GORDICA

FOR THE UNION                                                                  JOE LESPERANCE

                                                                                                LEON BOUVIER

AWARD

            Pursuant to Article 9.32(5) of the collective agreement, I conducted hearings at the City of Toronto, Ontario, on July 7 and 13, 1993, in order to hear and determine a series of grievances under the regular arbitration procedure.

            At the conclusion of the argument on each grievance, I delivered oral reasons, giving a brief resume as required by Article 9.32(5)(r) of the collective agreement.  I now hereby confirm my conclusions.

- 6 -

5.         In the Matter of the Grievance of the Scarborough Local - #602-92-01111

            The issue in this matter turns upon an interpretation of the opening paragraph of Article 17.04 of the Collective Agreement and in particular whether or not when one measures whether the absences exceed the number of unassigned letter carriers and the available relief letter carriers or other categories which do not apply in this case, one looks at a particular component or installation on the one hand as contended by the Union or at the "post office" as contended by the Corporation.

            In my view, while the matter is far from clear, the more reasonable interpretation given the context in which the paragraph appears and when examined in light of the subparagraphs of Article 17.04 as well as the Collective Agreement as a whole, is to conclude that Article 17.04 has application to the installation.  As in the particular circumstances of this case, it is clear that as Mr. Vardia was a term employee hired to backfill a relief letter carrier at the Ajax component between November 6, 1992 and February 5, 1993 and was moved to the Malvern station on two occasions, namely December 21 and 24, 1992, to cover certain walks which were uncovered, that the Corporation was required to exhaust the provisions of clause (a) of Article 17.04 in the order it appeared before using any other means as provided in paragraph (V) thereof. It is conceded that the Corporation did not do so on the premise that they were not bound to follow the process in Article 17.04(a) because they believed that its application was not restricted to a particular installation but could be viewed as having application to the "post office".  In fairness to Mr. Mulvihill, it must be said that he did not suggest that it could be anywhere in Canada but he submitted that it could have application to the entire "east collection delivery".  As

- 7 -

I have said, I do not agree with this contention and in the result, I hold that the Corporation breached Article 17.04 and I so declare.  In my view, the Corporation should pay to the letter carriers at the Malvern station who would have been called upon to perform this work if the Corporation had applied Article 17.04 properly that amount of money that was in fact paid to Vardja on December 21 and 24, 1992.

            DATED AT TORONTO this 13, day of July, 1993.

                                                P. JOHN BRUNNER, ARBITRATOR

[HOME] [National CUPW-STTP Site]