|
On March 15, 2005, Arbitrator Ken Swan issued his decision on National Policy Grievance N00-03-00004. That grievance was filed by CUPW after Canada Post refused to authorize over-assessment payments to Letter Carriers covering absences on over-assessed routes by working extended hours and/or incentive overtime. Unlike internal employees, Letter Carriers are
assessed their workloads on the basis of a work measurement system known
as the Letter Carrier Route Measurement System (LCRMS). The LCRMS is a
time and motion study that was designed to assess routes in light of the
standard time required to carry out the various functions associated
with the task of delivering mail. Under that work measurement system,
each component of a Letter Carrier’s duties is assigned a specific
time value. If and when a route becomes assessed at 485 or more minutes
per day, Appendix V of the collective agreement requires Canada Post to
pay over-assessment payments. That payment is provided to the employee(s)
who is assigned to cover the over-assessed route. The dispute that gave rise to N00-03-00004 was
initiated when Canada Post refused to grant these payments to Letter
Carriers who covered over-assessed routes pursuant to Article 17.04 of
the collective agreement. The provisions of Article 17.04 require Canada
Post to cover Letter Carrier absences by offering extended hours and
overtime by equal opportunity. Under that language, an uncovered route
is broken down into portions, and then offered on a volunteer basis as
extended hours and or overtime to part-time and full-time Letter
Carriers. Prior to the filing of the grievance, Canada Post took the position that Appendix V only requires an over-assessment payment to be paid when an individual Letter Carrier covers a full over-assessed route. Canada Post rejected the proposition that such payments are applicable where more than one volunteer covers an absence on an over-assessed route. The Union took the position that such payments are
always required, regardless of the number of employees covering an
absence. In his decision, Arbitrator Swan rejected the
Corporation’s arguments. In responding to the Corporation’s claim of
an accounting nightmare, the Arbitrator found stated: …I am unable to accept, in the absence of some evidence,
that modern management information systems cannot be adjusted to keep
track for partial days of work when they must already have been conceded
to be able to keep track of individual full days. As remedy, Arbitrator Swan ruled that over-assessment
payments are applicable not only to employees who work full days, but
also to those who work fractional days on an over-assessed route.
Ken M. |
