Canadian Labour Reporter

June 6, 2016

Canadian Labour Reporter is the trusted source of information for labour relations professionals. Published weekly, it features news, details on collective agreements and arbitration summaries to help you stay on top of the changing landscape.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/686172

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 6 of 7

notify her supervisor and con- tinue until all mail had been delivered. The collective agreement also stated "to help employees in these situations, the corporation shall determine if the extra work can be managed in a way that would avoid or limit unwanted overtime on an employee's own route." The appendix also indicated management would make "rea- sonable efforts" to have overtime performed by other letter carriers if family commitments or personal needs interfered with an employ- ee's ability to work overtime. Challenges for employee The overtime practice had poten- tial problems for Weber, who had a young daughter she had to pick up by 4 p.m. each day. Her husband worked evening shifts and couldn't pick up their daughter and the day- care didn't allow for late pickups. There were no other daycare op- tions available. Normally, Weber was able to complete her route and leave work in time to pick up her daughter. However, in the summer of 2011, Canada Post restructured the Kitchener depot and changed the delivery routes. So Weber met with the depot superintendent, a super- visor and a union official to explain she couldn't do overtime because of her childcare issues. The super- intendent told Weber she would be expected to deliver all the mail, even if it involved overtime. A few days later, Weber told her supervisor before leaving on her route that she would be in an over- time situation and asked that her undelivered mail be covered by someone else. Weber was allowed to leave mail in relay boxes, but she was called in to an interview to discuss matters. The superintendent was du- bious about Weber's claims her route wasn't structured properly but told her that route measure- ment officers were reviewing it. He then told Weber she had one more week to "make other ar- rangements for your childcare issues," after which she would be required to perform any overtime needed for her route under the collective agreement. Weber went on stress leave and Canada Post decided it would no longer request that she seek alter- native child care. Going forward, she was to notify her supervisor when she was unable to work over- time and alternate arrangements would be made. When Weber returned to work on Sept. 9, she felt the arrange- ment was done grudgingly by the staffing officer, with whom she had a tense relationship. Weber com- plained and the superintendent advised her to make requests to other supervisors. The situation improved somewhat, but she often had mail she couldn't deliver with- out incurring overtime. Through October and Novem- ber, Weber regularly had to have mail delivered by someone else because her first relay was late, and she also occasionally worked the overtime herself. The superintendent informed Weber and CUPW there was nothing wrong with the route, but CUPW felt the analysis didn't ac- curately reflect the problems with the route. Canada Post reiterated that it wasn't requesting Weber to change her childcare issues at the time, but it also said she had agreed to complete the full deliv- ery of her route at least three times per week. Weber said she had made no such commitment as it would be impossible to do so with- out incurring overtime. Weber complained of continu- ing harassment so the area man- ager allowed her to avoid overtime for one month so she could make the necessary childcare arrange- ments to perform her duties — including overtime. Weber filed a grievance implying discrimina- tion based on family status. Arbitrator weighs in Arbitrator Kenneth Swan found Weber's childcare needs fit clearly within the definition of "family status" as defined by the Federal Court of Appeal in earlier deci- sions. Weber had legal obligations to her child and the daycare centre that required her to pick up her daughter by 4 p.m. on a regular ba- sis. Though emergency arrange- ments could be made occasionally, "repeated failure to meet the pick- up time would undoubtedly mean that the child would be asked to leave the daycare," said Swan. Swan also found the route as- sessment was flawed and didn't address the issue causing frequent overtime. Even when it was obvi- ous "the process had gone off the rails," nothing was done to fix it, said Swan. Swan determined that Canada Post's initial demand for Weber to perform overtime under the col- lective agreement was discrimina- tion based on family status. When it rescinded the requirement, it began accommodating her. How- ever, its ultimatum that Weber find alternate childcare arrange- ments so she could work overtime again halted the accommodation and discriminated against her once again, said Swan. Swan ordered Canada Post to pay Weber $6,500 for pain and suffering from the discrimination, noting there was no medical diag- nosis for her stress. He declined Weber's claim for punitive damages, noting that Canada Post "proceeded based on its understanding of the law," with no willful or reckless conduct on its part. 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS < Overtime pg. 1 Childcare needs clearly fit family status definition: Arbitrator Photo: Mark Blinch (Reuters) Canada Post's route assessment was flawed and didn't address the issue causing frequent overtime for the employee, even when it was obvious "the process had gone off the rails," said the arbitrator.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Labour Reporter - June 6, 2016