General MeetingWe welcome ALL members to come out to our General Meetings. Next Meeting:
Date: Sep 15, 2021 Time: 6:00 pm
** via MS TEAM Conference **
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
News and Communications older than 2018 have now been moved to an Archived category. To view archived postings click the Archived Communications link in the Category column.
The closing date for the application will be January 30, 2021. The eligibility is any post-secondary program that is a minimum of 2 years to a maximum of 4 years. This scholarship program is open to all dependent children, including adopted children, step children, and wards in legal guardianship of permanent active employees of APOC… click for application form
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.
Good day everyone.
Please read the messages below. This is an important issue and the Association is asking to be informed of anyone who receives a rating of 2 on their performance review and further to that, whether you feel that there is an adequate explanation for it.
A bit of brief background, the 5 point rating scale was brought in to provide more flexibility in rating performance. Under the previous scale, anything less than a 2 had quite severe ramifications including loss of bonus pay, the loss of an opportunity for pay progression and the inability to transfer. Continue reading …
This notice is to inform you that due to the Corporation not meeting its financial requirements for 2013, there will not be a Corporate Team Incentive (CTI) payment for 2013. . The At-risk Payment will be made for 2013 to recognize individual performance. This will be paid on April 10th, 2014. .. Read more
The Corporation is requesting changes to the Vacation leave scheduling in delivery. The Corporation wants to black out the period From Dec 7, 2014 to Jan 3, 2015. Apparently there is a new “hands on deck policy”. APOC is opposed to the idea. We can see no reason why the corporation would deny Christmas holidays to our members.
Our questions to the Corporation….
- what is the justification for blacking out 4 weeks?
- what analysis does the corporation have to justify these changes?
- what overtime did APOC incur due to staff shortages last year?
- was any leave cancelled due to staff shortages last year?
- last year some APOC members were granted leave at the discretion of their manager in the proposed black out periods. If the corporation has an issue regarding all hands on deck why was this allowed to occur?
- if it’s “all hands on deck” why have some of the terms been ended?
- if it’s “all hands on deck” why is a manager currently on leave?”
The local totally disagrees with the proposed change, we think it is misguided and unnecessary. Consequently this issue will be dealt with in accordance to article 29.2, between the GM and the APOC Divisional Vice President.
December 17, 2013
Elections were held on Thursday, October 24, 2013 as per the following Article 8.33 of the National Constitution ….Read more
Reference: June 2012 Bulletin
In 2010, APOC employees became entitled to Personal Day Benefits. A statistical review of the use of personal days by our members in 2010 and 2011 was very revealing. The results clearly indicated the following:
In 2010, 7% of APOC members did not take 2 personals days and 5% of APOC members did not take 1 personal day.
In 2011, 10% APOC of members did not take 2 personals days and 5% APOC of members did not take 1 personal day.
If you do not take the 2/7th personal day entitlement for the year, the funds remain in the Corporation’s bank account. They have budgeted for your use of them. A rough calculation at the OP1 /SL1 rates in 2010 & 2011 equates to over $350,000.00. If the trend continues, we could be giving back ½ a million!
You are entitled to them; as you are to vacation or any other benefit negotiated in the Collective Agreement. Ask yourself, would you give back some of your vacation days? Why would you give back personal days?
Are you requesting personal days without a “leave form”? It is extremely important you complete a leave form to obtain approval or denial. Should you be denied personal leave, the denial should be in writing, including the reason for denial.
If you are denied, please provide your APOC representative with the leave form.
Staffing Grievance Officer