Canadian Employment Law Today

Increased overtime expectations discriminate against employee with small child Restructuring led to increased mail load for letter carrier, but she couldn't work overtime due to childcare obligations BY JEFFREY R. SMITH C anada Post discriminated against a letter carrier when it told her she had to change her childcare arrangements so she could work regular overtime on her route, an arbitrator has ruled. Jessica Weber was a letter carrier for Canada Post in Kitchener, Ont. Her union had a collective agreement with Canada Post that included an overtime provision stipulating that "insofar as practicable, overtime on an employee's route or assignment will be performed by the employee assigned to that particular route." It was expected that if an employ- ee couldn't finish her route in the allot- ted time, she would notify her supervisor and continue until all the mail had been delivered. However, this practice caused problems for Weber, who had a young daughter she dropped off at daycare at 7 a.m. and had to pick up by 4 p.m. each day. Her husband worked evening shifts and couldn't pick up their daughter and the daycare didn't allow for late pickups. ere were also no other daycare options available — most had wait - ing lists — and she couldn't get any childcare assistance from family or friends. Normally, Weber was able to complete her route, return to the depot and leave work in time to pick up her daughter. However, in the summer of 2011 Canada Post restruc - tured the Kitchener depot and changed the mail delivery routes. Canada Post employees went on strike around the same time, but returned to work on June 28 under back-to-work legislation. Initially, Canada Post said the collective agreement wasn't in force, so the overtime provision didn't apply and supervisors ar - ranged overtime coverage for incomplete routes with any carriers. By July 19, the col- lective agreement was reinstated. On July 11, Weber couldn't complete her route and returned to the depot with seven bags of mail. She explained this was because of a delay by the relay driver of her first relay of mail and also said her new route was over - assessed. No discipline was issued. Weber met with the depot superinten- dent, a supervisor, and a union official on July 21 to explain she couldn't do overtime on her route under the collective agreement clause because of her childcare issues. e superintendent told Weber she would be expected to deliver all of her mail, even if it involved overtime. A few days later, on July 25, Weber told her supervisor before leaving on her route that she would be in an overtime situation and asked that her undelivered mail be covered by someone else. Over the course of the day, delays in her relay mail made things worse and Weber was allowed to leave mail in relay boxes so she could leave in time to pick up her child. However, Weber was called into an interview to discuss matters. e superintendent told Weber her route was being assessed. He then told her she had one more week to "make other arrange - ments for your childcare issues" after which she would be required to perform any over- time needed for her route under the collec- tive agreement clause. Weber filed grievanc- es for the interview and the superintendent's instruction. Weber took stress leave and returned to work Sept. 9. Employer changed tune on overtime requirement While Weber was off work, Canada Post decided to investigate her situation and the area manager sent her a letter stating it would no longer request her to seek al- ternative child care. While the corpora- tion reviewed her route, she was to notify her supervisor when she was unable to work overtime on her route and alternate arrangements would be made. On Aug. 31, Weber filed a route verifica- tion request. When she returned to work, she felt the implementation of the area manager's letter was done grudgingly by the staffing officer, with whom she had a tense relationship. Weber claimed whenever she reported to this staffing officer that she would need overtime coverage, the staffing officer often refused and offered to cover a lesser amount of mail, expecting Weber to deliver the rest. Weber was often unable to deliver all the mail with which she was left. is arrangement caused Weber signifi - cant distress, so the superintendent advised her to make her overtime coverage requests to other supervisors and avoid the staffing officer. ings improved somewhat for We - ber, but she still often had mail she couldn't deliver without incurring overtime. In late September, Canada Post decided to have Weber carry her first relay bundle with her from the depot to avoid the regular delay she encountered at the first relay box. How - ever, neither Weber nor the union were con- sulted about his change and Weber claimed the weight of this extra mail often exceeded that permitted by the collective agreement. She filed another grievance alleging ongoing harassment and differential treatment. rough October and November, We - ber regularly had to have her last two relay bundles of mail delivered by someone else because her first relay was late, and she also occasionally worked the overtime herself. Not much had been done with her route verification request of Aug. 31, so she filed another application. e superintendent informed Weber and the union there was nothing wrong with the route, but the union determined the analysis didn't accurately re - flect the problems with the route. Canada Post reiterated that it wasn't re- questing Weber to change her childcare is- sues at the time, but it also asserted she had agreed to complete the full delivery of her route at least three times per week includ- EMPLOYEES are expected to make arrangements to balance their work and family obligations. However, if the employer changes the work obligations that makes it difficult for the employee to maintain that balance, it could mean family status discrimination. BACKGROUND 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CASE IN POINT: HUMAN RIGHTS

• Cover