Letter to the Board
(10 DEC 2024)

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Dmitry O. Gorodnichy <dmitry.gorodnichy@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:03 PM

Subject: Request for information: Related to December 10, 2021 BoD meeting & grievances (not) filed for remotely working members

To: President Présidente (Jenn Carr) <president@pipsc.ca>, current BoD members who were also serving during the December 2021 BoD meeting [Sean O'Reilly, Stéphanie Fréchette, Stéphane Aubry, Norma Domey, Eva Henshaw, Dave Sutherland, Waheed Khan, Jennie Esnard], newly elected BoD members [Katie Francis, Suzanne O'Brien, Tim MacKay] 

Dear executive colleagues, 

I have a question related to the following discussion that happened on BoD meeting on December 10, 2021 as documented in the Minutes attached (downloaded from https://members.pipsc.ca/bod-2021/):

5.3 COVID Update

...

The floor was opened to questions and comments.
...
PSAC filing a policy grievance on behalf of members working from home - even pre-pandemic and still needing to be vaccinated. What is PIPSC’s view on this?
...

The following clarifications were provided:
...
PSAC is filing grievances for specific reasons which may not apply to PIPSC. This said, grievances could be entertained by the Board in the new year.

Taking into account that the above mentioned PSAC grievance was successful (May 2024:  https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-post-wrong-to-suspend-unvaccinated-remote-workers-during-covid-ruling  - the judge decision is quoted below)

I would like to inquire if any of you remember (since you were at that meeting):

1) What were those "specific reasons which may not apply to PIPSC" that prevented PIPSC to file a similar grievance ?

and also (since you continued to be on BoD in the new year)

2)  Were any such grievances entertained by the Board in the new year? And If not, why?

If the answers to these questions are negative, please advise me on what is the process to obtain  the answers to these questions.

As some of you already know, the actions (or lack of thereof) of our Union on this matter had grave consequences for some members, including suicidal  thoughts from some of them.

I'm counting for your help to investigate this issue.

Thank you

Dmitry

(acting in a role of regular member, Not in  role of NCR executive)

Union of Postal Communications Employees (PSAC) v Canada Post Corporation, 2024 CanLII 38829 (CA LA)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cala/doc/2024/2024canlii38829/2024canlii38829.html

AWARD

1.        The Union has filed this policy grievance regarding the Canada Post’s Mandatory Vaccination Practice (“Practice”). The grievance raises the following narrow issue: Was it unreasonable for Canada Post to apply the Practice to employees who worked remotely? …

DISPOSITION

131.      The Practice is unreasonable to the extent that it applied to UPCE employees who worked exclusively remotely. While the Practice was in place, an employee worked exclusively remotely if: (a) they completed the full ambit of their assigned duties remotely; and (b) there was no reasonable prospect they would be required to attend work in person for operational reasons or to complete the full ambit of their assigned duties.

132.      Applying the Practice to exclusively remote workers did not advance its main purpose, which was to limit the risk of COVID transmission in the workplace. There was no meaningful connection between the Practice’s objective and the measures imposed on exclusively remote workers. It is not clear that the Employer’s workplace health and safety interests extend to requiring vaccination because this could increase the likelihood that exclusively remote workers (who have no reasonable prospect of in-person work) would be available to do their jobs. To the extent that any such interest exists, however, it is significantly outweighed by the employees’ interests in their privacy and in ongoing paid employment. This aspect of the grievance is allowed.