DATE OF MEETING: October 27th, 2005

M. Shearon M. Duquette
H. Bigras L. Charles

Failure to pass MMHE training

The Corporation stated that the MMHE trainer advised that the employee in question could injure himself or others if permitted to operate MMHE. Although we realise he is the senior employee, the position he has bid into requires a licensed MMHE operator.

The Union indicated they spoke to the driver trainer as well. They agree with his recommendation. However, they reminded the Corporation that Article 40.06 of the C/A was not adhered to in that the employee was not provided at least two (2) hours per day of practice in the week preceding the examination. This is something to watch for a monitor in future instances.

The Parties agreed to post the assignment in question in the next bid. Since the employee currently holding the assignment is the most senior, he will be offered the shift of his choice until such time he owns a new assignment.

Since there is no monthly bid, the Union suggested the Corporation implement one.

The Corporation agreed to discuss this option with staffing.

Group 3

The Corporation advised the Union that, upon review with other facilities across the country, and effective next week, APOC staff at the YDC would be responsible for clearing jams.

The Union did not agree that this work could be done by APOC. They advised they would review and respond accordingly.

The Corporation raised a concern that the employees currently holding MAM assignments are not capable of fixing the belt when it is broken. When the belt breaks down, the experience has been that the Corporation has had to rely on the EL to make the repairs.

The Union responded that training was not provided to the employees when the system was put in place.

The Corporation will review and respond.

The parties discussed current schedules as outlined below:

EL: 0600 – 22:00

MAM: 14:00 – 22:00

22:00 - 0600

20:00 – 0400

The Corporation indicated that there is no requirement for two (2) Group 3 employees to have overlapping schedules.

The Union asked if the new proposed schedules were already posted. If so, they asked why they were posted when meaningful consultation had not yet taken place.

The Corporation responded that the frustration was with the fact that the standard the Union holds the Corporation with respect to deadlines is different than the one we hold the Union to. The Corporation gave the Region more than one (1) week to respond to the emailed request to consult, followed up with a fax and 3 phone calls to the Regional office, and no response was provided.

The Union responded that the Local could have followed up with the Region had they been advised that a delay was being incurred.

The Corporation responded that since the Local had advised to notify the Region, this is what they did. The Corporation further advised that they wanted to do the right thing for the employees and that they were here to consult.

The Parties discussed the employees’ seniority.

The Corporation indicated that the new schedule needed to address their two (2) main concerns: coverage at straight time on Saturdays and coverage on Sundays. They proposed the following 2 options:

Option 1: 00:00 – 0800 M - F

(Currently posted) 16:00 – 24:00 M - F

18:00 – 02:00 M – F (start on 18:00 on Sunday)

Option 2: 14:00 – 22:00 M – F (1 in 2 rotate in on Saturday)

(New proposal) 14:00 – 22:00 Sun – Thurs (1 in 2 rotate on Saturday)

22:00 – 0600 M – F (start at 22:00 on Sunday)

The Union advised they would meet with the employees to review the proposed schedule and respond.

The Corporation agreed to repost the schedule for the required fifteen (15) days if the newly agreed upon schedule is different than the schedule currently posted.

The Union stated that if the employees wish to implement the new schedule sooner, they would agree to waive the fifteen (15) days.

SLB tubs

The Union raised an issue with the recent article published in the recent edition of the Postal Pulse (October 5th, 2005) that referred to the new green tubs would not be available to all LCs. The Union stated they did not agree that LCs would use the green tubs at all.

The Corporation will review and respond.

Equal Opportunity lists

The Union raised their concern with employees needing modified duties being identified on the E.O. lists.

The Corporation responded that although the employees were identified, their medical information was not.

The Union is mostly concerned with employees being bypassed for OT opportunities because of this information.

The Corporation agreed to remove the notation on the lists.

The Union raised their concern with the notation “on-loan”.

The Corporation responded that this notation is being used to identify the employees who are backfilling on a different shift.

The Parties agreed that when an employee is backfilling on a shift that is not their own, they will be considered as having had an opportunity on their substantive shift when the OT is offered on that shift (Article 15.12 does not apply to employees returning to their substantive shift after completing their assignment).

The Union suggested that OT opportunities be posted in the Information Books as well as canvassed to avoid administrative errors.

The Corporation agreed.

Rotation schedules

The Union raised the concern that not all Group 1 employees rotate on weekends. Their position is that Article 14.24 means that all employees rotate on weekends on an equitable basis.

The Corporation agreed that not all Group1 employees rotate on Saturdays. In fact the 2 employees holding the financial positions do not work on Saturday. The Corporation disagrees with the Union’s interpretation of Article 14.24. The Corporation has not scheduled any classification or employee to work exclusively on weekends.

The Union does not agree and indicated that the redress would be to rebid all FT employees.


The Union asked if the barcharts were up-to-date.

The Corporation responded that they should be but they would review and respond. Proposed a meeting next week to review and finalise.

The Union advised that if they receive the file in advance, they could review and meet sooner. They suggested that if the Corporation was willing, they could create and staff the positions prior to January 1st. If the Parties could agree to a tentative number they could start staffing immediately and create the difference later.

The Corporation agreed to staff 8 in November. Will review and respond on the difference.


The Corporation advised the Union that it is very costly to give MSCs their vehicle of choice due to the time it takes to locate the vehicles in the parking lot and to shuttle the vehicles. They said they realised it would be a huge cause of dissatisfaction for employees but that under the current conditions of the parking lot, they had no alternative. They further indicated that if anyone had any suggestions or could provide an alternative, they would reconsider.

The Union maintain that employees should be allowed the vehicle of their choice for Health and Safety reasons as well as personal reasons. They do not agree that this will be more cost effective. They requested that should the Corporation determine that it is not cost effective, that they reconsider and allow the MSCs the vehicle of their choice.

The Corporation agreed.

The Union suggested assigning vehicles by Loop in order to minimise the number of employees having access to a vehicle.

The Corporation will consider this proposal.

Rotation of Duties

The Union said they received complaints from employees who are dissatisfied with the rotation of duties.

The Corporation advised the Union that as mentioned before, they implemented a tentative r.o.d. schedule and met with the Union stewards to discuss. They have made a few changes based on their feedback received from employees.

The Union reminded the Corporation that rotation of duties must be consulted Locally prior to implementation in order to avoid Health and Safety issues. They asked that the Corporation contact Kate Munday to consult a.s.a.p.

The Corporation agreed, will schedule meeting with Kate Munday next week.