DATE OF MEETING: June 23rd, 2006

M. Shearon M. Duquette
D. Jones L. Charles
S. Samonte A. Bailey
H. Bigras G. Fillier

Group 1 Staffing :

The Corporation provided the current staffing profile as well as two (2) staffing proposals. They asked the Union to provide suggestions to improve the staffing profile proposals to accomplish a reduction in extension of P/T hours, a

reduction in O/T to both F/T and P/T EE's and a reduction in trapped hours when there is no work available and an increased flexibility to manage peaks and valleys in volumes.

The Union responded that they did not understand the proposals as they did not understand the number of hours outlined in the proposals.

The Corporation responded that there is a 20% staff reduction every day based on A/L, other leaves. The staffing profile and number of hours required is built upon this assumption.

The Union proceeded to say that they had trouble reviewing the profile, as the profiles were not clearly explained. They said they had assumed that the Corporation had removed the relief component in the staffing profile proposals.

The Corporation reiterated that the relief was built into the staffing profile.

The Union said that, in their opinion, the numbers still did not add up since they based their counter proposal on a 1 in 12 and 1 in 18 relief complement.

The Corporation reiterated that the profile was based on a 20% staff reduction; therefore the relief complement was 20%. They added that one of their concerns was that a FT shift from 1800 hrs – 0200 hrs was not necessary since there is no work for a period of time during this period. They also advised the Union that they wish to reduce ee dissatisfaction by eliminating the need for PT OT on Sundays.

The Union reviewed Proposal 1 and reiterated that they did not understand whether relief was built in or not.

The Corporation explained that the relief was built into the profile based on a 20% reduction of staff every day. They asked if they could add notes to the proposals to indicate that the relief was built in. They then asked if, outside the issue of relief staff, the Union had any other issues such as shift hours.

The Union said the staffing profiles did not include enough FT positions. They also raised an issue with the Proposal 1 where there are two (2) back-to-back PT shifts.

The Corporation responded that the PT ees would be doing two (2) completely different functions: from 1600 hrs to 21:00 the PT ees would be doing Dock duties as well as the SLB culling, while the ees working from 2100 hrs to 0200 hrs would be doing keying and racking functions.

The Union reiterated that it would be practicable to combine the two (2) PT shifts to make FT positions. They said that prior to the current staffing profile, there existed a 2300 hrs to 0700 hrs for FT ees and the PT ees came in after. They suggested that they could even implement a 2200 hrs – 0600 hrs shift where the FT ees would do keying and racking.

The Corporation responded that at some periods during the year they would need keying done prior to 2200 hrs and would require flexibility. They are not opposed to the idea of having “fresh” people in the a.m. to do the loading and will consider where possible. They added that they hoped the new staffing profile would allow them the ability to offer OT to the regular ees when the volumes are higher.

The Union said that the two (2) proposals provided by the Corporation were very different and expressed their concern that they did not seem to accomplish the desired goals advanced by the Corporation.

The Corporation replied that both proposals were built to address the same goals.

The Union asked for clarification re: the volumes between 1800 hrs and 2200 hrs.

The Corporation said that the volumes were very low during this time period with the exception of two (2) to three (3) months during the year. For ten (10) out of the twelve (12) months of the year the parcel volumes are below 10,000 pieces daily.

The Union reiterated that the proposals were dramatically different in the number of hours required in both. They asked the Corporation to provide them with the number of hours required for relief purposes. They also asked how the Corporation could build a profile based on leave.

The Corporation replied that the number of positions has not changed from the current profile to the proposals. They reiterated that on average, currently, 20% of the staff is off on a daily basis. They told the Union that if requested, they could show the hours differently in order to clarify the number of hours required.

The Union suggested the Corporation provide more accurate information with respect to the number of relief hours are being used. They also said that they had not received a rotation of duties schedule either.

The Corporation responded that the relief complement is 20% of the staff. They also replied that the ROD schedule was not provided since it was not yet built. They advised the Union that they are not trying to hide anything, and wish to work things out. They asked the Union what they needed in addition to the proposals in order to review and offer a counter proposal.

The Union said they didn’t like the scheduled hours in either proposal.

The Corporation said that if they didn’t like the hours, to make suggestions of better hours.

The Union asked why a Group 1 staffing profile was being built prior to the Group 2 restructure.

The Corporation responded that they have been receiving grievances daily with respect to alleged OT bypasses therefore they want to address the issues in order to avoid further ee dissatisfaction. They hope to implement the new profile prior to November and also hope to give the ees as much notice as possible in order to avoid too much disruption.

The Union said that it is their opinion that a 2100 hrs to 0200 hrs shift will be a revolving door for ees.

The Corporation reiterated that this is one if the issues they hope to address and resolve by discussing it with them. They asked the Union again for suggestions to improve the profile.

The Union said that although the current profile says the positions are PT, the ees are actually working FT hours.

The Corporation responded that in fact, PTs are being offered OT on Sundays to supplement the FT staff. They added that extensions and OT are needed for two (2) months out of the year when the volumes go up. They built the profile based on normal volumes and hope to have more flexibility to offer extensions and OT to regular ees. They suggested the Union take a few days to review the proposals in order to come back with a counter proposal.

The Union asked if the number of ees on modified duties was taken into consideration when building the staffing profile.

The Corporation replied that the profile was built upon the number of people required to perform the required duties.

The Parties discussed the Group 2 restructure. The Union asked that values be added for MSCs doing extra duties such as loading their own vehicles. The Corporation said they were looking at their Christmas plan already and said they hoped to be better prepared this year. They indicated that if any agreements needed to be made outside of Appendix S, they would go through the proper channels.

The Union said they may not agree to a second waive of drivers again this year as the Corporation extended the period agreed to last year.

The Corporation responded they didn’t’t want to argue this issue. They asked if the Parties could meet again next week to discuss and finalize the Group 1 staffing profile.

The Union said they would review and pointed out that in the proposals, PTs were working more weekends than the FTs.

The Corporation agreed that this should be reviewed and asked for further input from the Union to assist in making the changes.

The Union said that there used to be a Saturday shift to do keying and racking since Sunday deliveries were being effected and asked why there would be a Saturday shift now since there are no Sunday deliveries.

The Corporation replied that there is mail in at the YDC on Saturday since the plants process on Friday nights. They are open to scheduling a Sunday shift instead, if possible. They did say that a weekend shift is necessary to alleviate the workload prior to the Sunday night shift.


The Union said they wanted time to review the proposals and come up with a counter proposal. They asked that the relief complement be clarified in order for them to conduct their review.

The Corporation will provide the requested information by Monday.

The union stated they would send a counter proposal to management by Friday, June 30th, 2006.

The Parties agreed to proceed with the regular monthly bid in July.

END. (Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 11th, 2006 at 0900 hrs at 280 Progress).