VMPP bomb scare results in scare tactics!
This bulletin contains a copy of a letter that was written to Marie Robinson, VMPP Director, following a meeting that took place on November 27, 2007. The Union had requested the meeting in order to review the circumstances surrounding the November 19, 2007 bomb scare incident at the VMPP. In good faith, the Union proposed that a joint investigation take place for the purpose of identifying what went wrong with the evacuation, and to make recommendations for the future. Canada Post agreed with that proposal during the meeting, but within hours of the meeting’s adjournment started dishing our interview notices to employees who stood on their rights.
Dear Ms Robinson,
Re: Bomb Scare - VMPP Evacuation, November 19, 2007
I am writing with respect to yesterday’s meeting of November 27, 2007. As you are aware, we requested the meeting in order to bring forward our concerns with the handling of the VMPP evacuation. As discussed, it is our view that certain aspects of Canada Post’s response to the bomb scare were improper and failed to live up to the Corporation’s obligations under both the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code.
During the meeting, it was disclosed that Vivienne Tseng (described by Canada Post as the “Commander”) was responsible for the handling of the affair. It was also disclosed that Canada Post believes that deaf employees are required to arrange for their own notification when evacuations are carried out. We also learned that Canada Post has an action plan that will apparently include the labeling of the exit stairwells with the appropriate identifiers so that employees will know what exit is being referred to when receiving the orders of their Commander.
One of our primary concerns focused on the fact that second floor employees had been evacuated from the VMPP out on to Georgia Street because of the bomb scare while other employees who were working on the fourth and fifth floors were given absolutely no information about the pending bomb investigation. Canada Post was aware of the parcel in question at approximately 2200 hours and second floor employees were removed from their work area by 2215 hours. At 2220 hours, security staff advised second floor employees to leave the building.
Following that evacuation, fourth floor employees were made aware from security staff and their co-workers that second-floor employees had been evacuated from the building. In response, supervisors were asked for information relating to the evacuation. Unfortunately, those supervisors refused to respond to those enquiries, possibly under Commander Tseng’s orders. I must observe that fourth floor supervisors carry walkie-talkies and I would have great difficulty accepting that they were unaware of the activities on the second floor. I note that those same supervisors stationed themselves at each of the fourth floor exits at approximately 2210 hours and literally attempted to physically prevent employees from leaving the fourth floor without providing them with any direction or any reasonable explanation as to why their egress was being blocked. More than one supervisor informed employees that they were to go back to work! It seems quite clear that a concerted effort was being made to keep fourth floor employees in the dark and at work without informing them that there was a bomb investigation in progress.
The collective agreement requires Canada Post to disclose any situation that may potentially represent a hazard to an employee:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Corporation shall inform its employees and their Union representative of any situation relating to their work which may endanger their health and safety, as soon as it learns of the said situation.
Obviously, Canada Post deliberately chose to keep its employees in the dark, despite their enquiries. This, in my view, represents nothing less than a betrayal of trust.
At approximately 2300 hours, fourth floor employees were finally evacuated from the building. I think it’s fair to say that at least forty-five minutes passed by before supervisors chose to disclose that there was a bomb investigation in process. I suspect that Canada Post’s decision to withhold that information had more to do with its preoccupation with productivity quotas than with its obligations under the collective agreement and the Code.
As we pointed out, the fact that it was later determined by the police that the parcel in question did not actually contain a bomb is irrelevant to our concerns with the manner of the evacuation.
What is relevant is that a conscious decision was made to withhold information relating to the bomb investigation from the employees who came forward with legitimate enquiries. Perhaps it was Commander Tseng who made that decision. Regardless, there can be little doubt that your supervisors caused a heightened sense of anxiety and caused employees to react by threatening them with suspensions and discipline instead of simply explaining why it was considered unacceptable for them to leave the work floor to join the other employees who had already been evacuated from the building.
In the absence of any proper communication on the part of supervisors, numerous members exercised their right of refusal. I understand now that you intend to go after those employees for standing on their rights. You are likely aware that both the collective agreement (and the Code) precludes disciplinary sanctions unless the right of refusal is made for frivolous reasons. Given the circumstances of the bomb scare and the clear absence of direction, I doubt very much that our members’ refusals would be seen as frivolous.
We attended yesterday’s meeting in good faith and did not expect that you would target our members with disciplinary interviews immediately following the meeting. Had you informed me prior to the meeting that your response to our concerns would be to target our members with discipline, we would have gone directly to the grievance procedure.
It is interesting that in discussing this incident on the following shift, one of your supervisors made reference to a “prank call”. Another supervisor, Norm O’Connell, made reference to a “sniper” and stated the person who planted the bomb “might have been outside with a detonator”.
The Canada Labour Code states that an employee cannot be prevented from leaving the work place in a bomb threat situation. By the admission of your supervisory staff, it would appear that perceptions were such that our members were entirely justified in leaving the building. However, I do not expect that such a mere technicality will in any way discourage the Corporation from targeting the employees who exercised their right of refusal and left the building.
Lastly, deaf and hard of hearing employees were once again abandoned by supervisory staff during the evacuation. This is not the first time that deaf and hard of hearing employees have been abandoned. If you will recall, VMPP supervisors ignored the corporate fire policy last year after a fire that broke out on the third floor. Instead of pulling the fire alarm, supervisors took it upon themselves to attempt to extinguish the fire without informing employees on the fourth floor that a fire was in progress. A CUPW member pulled the fire alarm after learning that supervisors had refused to do so. Deaf and hard of hearing employees were not informed that a fire alarm had been activated. To properly address that fiasco, a grievance was filed. While an arbitration ruling currently remains pending, we have been assured during our various settlement discussions that appropriate measures would be put in place to prevent against a future recurrence. Judging by this most recent incident, the Corporation’s assurances have proven to be disingenuous.
At this point, I believe that your response to our legitimate concerns may actually be more disturbing than the conduct of those supervisors who consciously withheld their knowledge that a bomb investigation was in progress. It seems clear now that you had no intention of following through with our proposal of a joint investigation as several disciplinary interview notices were issued shortly after the adjournment of our meeting. Therefore, you have left us with no alternative but to seek redress through the grievance procedure and any other avenue that we deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
Ken Mooney
President
CUPW Vancouver
cc Deborah Bourque
Cindi Foreman
Gayle Bossenberry
CUPW Regional Office
Vancouver Executive Committee
Moya Greene
Bob Howey
Bruce Sheppard
Harb Gill
Warren Smith