Canada Post set straight by the HRSDC – again!

On Monday January 29, 2008, Canada Post, CUPW, and a Labour Affairs officer from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), met (at the Union’s request) to discuss the unresolved disputes arising from the November 19, 2007 evacuation of the Vancouver Mail Processing Plant (VMPP). The initial evacuation took place at approximately 11:15 p.m., after the discovery of a ticking parcel on the second floor prompted concerns that it may have contained an explosive device.

There were several disturbing aspects with the manner in which Canada Post handled the evacuation, starting with its characterization of the event. In her letter dated December 7, 2007, VMPP Director Marie Robinson claimed that there was, “no reason to believe, based on risk assessment, that the suspicious parcel contained a bomb”.  In contradiction of that claim, the second floor was evacuated upon discovery of the suspicious parcel, the police Emergency Response Team (ERT) was summoned to the site and a complete evacuation of the VMPP took place shortly thereafter. Even Canada Post’s intranet NCC brief referred to the incident as a “Bomb Threat”.

Canada Post’s treatment of VMPP employees during the time of the incident would not be out of place in a third world sweatshop. Although second floor employees were evacuated onto West Georgia Street, employees working on the fourth and fifth floors were kept in the dark and not evacuated until forty-five minutes later. During that time, those employees became aware that their co-workers had been evacuated from the building and asked their supervisors for disclosure. Despite their enquiries, supervisors refused to disclose that a bomb investigation was in progress. Employees were told to get back to work. Several employees who exercised their right of refusal were threatened with discipline. Fourth floor supervisors physically blocked exit ways. Deaf and hard of hearing employees were similarly not informed that a bomb investigation was in progress.  When the evacuation finally took place, employees were directed to exit the floor via stairwell “M”, which at the time was not visibly identified.

The Union took issue with this incident because of the flagrant violations of the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code. The Union asked for the intervention of the HRSDC because of its concern that Canada Post was entrenched in its view that employees are not to be informed when their health and safety is potentially put at risk. Reference was made to February 1, 2006, when Canada Post refused to inform its fourth floor employees that a fire was in progress on the third floor.

As a result of the intervention of the HRSDC, Canada Post resiled from its position that employees need not be informed when a bomb investigation is in progress (in her December 7, 2007 correspondence, Marie Robinson claimed that such information need only be disclosed on a “need to know” basis, as determined by post office management). Canada Post acknowledged that it failed to properly communicate with its employees and that the appropriate response would have been to inform its employees of the pending investigation.

Despite some initial resistance, Canada Post was also made to understand that employees had the right to exercise their right of refusal under these circumstances. Although Canada Post attempted to argue that a direct order could trump an employee’s right of refusal, the HRSDC confirmed that employees have the right to exercise their right of refusal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of danger.

As expected, not all matters were resolved. The team of Canada Post Occupational Health and Safety professionals in attendance at the meeting would not acknowledge the impropriety of directing supervisors to physically block exit ways. Nor would Canada Post agree to remove the letters that were placed on the personal files of employees who legitimately exercised their right of refusal. These matters will need to be dealt with at arbitration. The parties were also at odds with respect to the treatment of deaf and hard of hearing employees. Canada Post claimed that it met its requirements under the Code, yet there was no dispute that these employees were left uninformed and in the dark while the bomb investigation took place.

As in the past, this most recent dispute illustrates the tension between our understanding of our rights and Canada Post’s recognition of those rights. With the intervention of the HRSDC, it has been again shown that Canada Post failed to comply with its obligations under the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code.

In solidarity,  

Ken Mooney
President
CUPW Vancouver