National Convention –Jan 29, 2019

Hi members,

Every three years, national APOC holds a convention. The purposes of this national convention are to vote on who will hold our national executive positions, as well as review and make changes where applicable, to our national constitution. Members of each local executive are sent as either delegates or alternates to represent their local membership. Over four days, every single article of the national constitution is reviewed and voted on whether it should stay as is, or if a change should be made, and if so what that change should be. This is a great experience for anyone interested in the procedures or possibly looking at getting involved with their local executive.

We have a second alternate position available for national convention. As an alternate you would participate in the same activities as the delegates, with the only difference being you wouldn’t have voting authority. In order to be eligible to be considered, you must have attendance in 5 local meetings in the last rolling calendar year. We will compile a list of the eligible members, and vote as an executive as to who would be elected to attend. This information will be made available at the next local meeting.

We’ve attached below, the national constitution and the form required for us to put forth any suggested changes to the constitution.

If you have a change you would like to make, please fill the form out in its entirety, and return to myself or Dalwinder Dhaliwal no later than March 7th, 2019.

Thank you,

Carla Kennedy
A/Vice President, APOC Pacific

APOC Scholarship Program “UPDATE” – Jan 18, 2019

We’ve come to realize that the mailing address for the scholarship applications was incorrect on our website. We have updated the site, and are extending the deadline to January 31st, 2019. In lieu of mailing, you may scan and email the completed application form and supporting documents. Michael Cheung, Trevor Ferris and Carla Kennedy are your scholarship committee this year and you may email to any of them.


New Collective Agreement – Nov 29, 2018

APOC members had ratified a tentative agreement earlier in November. The new agreement takes effect on April 1, 2018, immediately after the current agreement expires. It will be in effect until March 31, 2021.

The new collective agreement is now available on the website .To view click this link … Collective Agreement

Interest Arbitration Award – Jan 29, 2016

Arbitrator Lorne Slotnick issued his interest arbitration award on January 11, 2016. The issue put before him was whether Canada Post employees newly moved into the APOC bargaining unit should bring their corporation-wide seniority with them.

The Association argued that they should not. That all employees moving into APOC after the date of the interest arbitration award should have seniority based on the date they enter the bargaining unit. This would be the same as the other bargaining units at Canada Post.

The Association further argued that the current two-tier seniority system was unfair to those APOC members who were by-passed on the seniority B list by Canada Post employees moving into the bargaining unit with greater corporation-wide seniority. This seniority had a negatively impacted some members on the B list when bidding, scheduling vacation, order of recall and allocating overtime opportunities.

The Corporation argued that changing the current two-tier system would discourage upward mobility from within the Corporation. As well, the addition of a third tier would complicate an already complex system of staffing vacant positions and scheduling vacations, thereby increasing the likelihood of errors and grievances.

Arbitrator Slotnick was not convinced that the implementation of the two-tier seniority system in 2006 achieved the goal of encouraging upward mobility of employees within the Corporation. He was equally unconvinced that the addition of a third tier would significantly complicate the staffing system.

Nevertheless, the Arbitrator was not sufficiently convinced to change the current two-tier seniority system. He pointed to the fact the current system is a patchwork of seniority and that the Association’s proposal was just another patch. And that the Association was not prepared to apply this patch to all B list employees. Furthermore, that Canada Post employees were already used to maintaining their corporate-wide seniority.

In summary, the Arbitrator found that the Association had not demonstrated a need for the change to the system which, while imperfect, had been agreed to by the parties in 2006.


De : George Rontiris

Pour : L’Association des Officiers des postes du Canada

Re : Intérêt sentence arbitrale

L’arbitre Lorne Slotnick a rendu sa sentence d’arbitrage de différends le 11 janvier 2016. La question était de savoir si les employés de Postes Canada nouvellement intégrés dans l’unité de négociation de l’AOPC devraient conserver leur ancienneté à l’échelle de l’entreprise.

L’Association a fait valoir qu’ils ne devraient pas. Que l’ancienneté de tous les employés intégrant l’unité de négociation de l’AOPC après la date de la sentence arbitrale devrait être calculée à compter de la date à laquelle ils intègrent l’unité de négociation. Ce serait la même chose que les autres unités de négociation à Postes Canada.

L’Association a également fait valoir que le système actuel d’ancienneté à deux niveaux était injuste pour certains membres de l’AOPC lorsque des employés de Postes Canada intégrant l’unité de négociation étaient mieux placés sur la liste d’ancienneté B en raison de leur ancienneté à l’échelle de l’entreprise. Cette ancienneté avait un impact négatif sur certains membres de la liste B dans le cadre du choix et de la planification des vacances, de l’ordre de rappel et de la répartition des heures supplémentaires.

La Société a fait valoir que le changement du système actuel à deux niveaux découragerait la mobilité ascendante au sein de la Société. En outre, l’ajout d’un troisième niveau ne ferait que compliquer un système déjà complexe de dotation des postes vacants et la planification des vacances, augmentant ainsi la probabilité d’erreurs et de griefs.

L’Arbitre Slotnick n’a pas été convaincu que la mise en œuvre du système d’ancienneté à deux niveaux en 2006 ait réellement favorisé la mobilité ascendante des salariés au sein de la Société. Il n’était pas non plus convaincu que l’ajout d’un troisième niveau compliquerait considérablement le système de dotation.

Néanmoins, l’arbitre n’a pas été suffisamment convaincu de changer le système actuel d’ancienneté à deux niveaux. Il a souligné le fait que le système actuel est un « patchwork » d’ancienneté et que la proposition de l’Association était juste un autre « patch » pansement; que l’Association n’était pas disposée à appliquer ce patch à tous les employés de la liste B; et que les employés de Postes Canada avaient déjà l’habitude de conserver leur ancienneté à l’échelle de la société.

En résumé, l’arbitre a conclu que l’Association n’avait pas démontré le besoin de changer le système, qui, quoiqu’imparfait, avait été convenu par les parties en 2006.