|
|
|
CUPW 2011
Links to CPC Householder Values and Walks by
FSA
|
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
HEARINGS HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, ON JUNE 16 AND 17,1994
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Corporation
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Union
AND IN THE MATTER OF A SERIES OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE REGULAR ARBITRATTON PROCEDURE
ARBITRATOR
P. JOHN BRUNNER
APPEARANCES
FOR THE CORPORATION DIANE BIGGS, KATHERINE IVAN AND KATHERINE LEE
FOR THE UNION MARY DONNELLY, KIRK MIDDLETON AND BOB IRWIN AWARD
Pursuant to Article 9.32(5)of the collective agreement, I conducted hearings at the City of Toronto, Ontario, on June 16 and 17, 1994, 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.
In the Matter of the Grievance of J. McLauughlin - No. 602-92-02524
This is a grievance by James McLaughlin dated January 17, 1994, alleging that the Corporation breached Article 13.26(b) of the collective agreement by rescinding his appointment to a full-time position which he was awarded on December 17, 1993, effective January 4, 1994, at the Scarborough Delivery Centre. By letter dated December 17, 1993, the Corporation advised McLaughlin that he was to report to the Delivery Centre on January 4, 1994 to be assigned to walk 22 at Scarborough Depot D. McLaughlin accepted that offer on December 22, 1993, and so informed the Corporation. On the same day however, he filed an Occupational Health and Fitness Assessment Form which articulates that he had suffered an injury to his left knee and was fit only to work on modified duties with the additional comment by his family physician that the disability was permanent-partial. Subsequently, there was an exchange of letters between the Corporation and McLaughlin which resulted on
3
December 30, 1993, in a unilateral rescission of his promotion to the full-time position, based on the theory that he had certain restrictions which precluded him from carrying out the full range of duties required on walk 22.
In the event, on January 4, 1994, McLaughlin advised the Corporation that this was a temporary situation and on February 4, 1994, he filed a further Fitness Assessment Form signed by the same medical practitioner saying that he was now fit for regular duties.
In my view, the Corporation had no right under this collective agreement to rescind a promotion made under Article 13.26(b) of the collective agreement by reason of these events. The employee having been made a full-time employee was entitled to all of the rights of the collective agreement as a full-time employee, including selection of assignments under Article 13.25. By rescinding the appointment McLaughlin was deprived of his rights under the collective agreement. For these reasons the grievance is allowed and it is declared that McLaughlin has since January 4, 1994, and continues to occupy the status of a full-time employee with all the rights of that status. He is entitled to be compensated for any and all losses he may have sustained by reason of the rescission of his appointment.
DATED AT TORONTO this 21, day of June, 1994.
P. JOHN BRUNNER, ARBITRATOR
|
