Canada Post letter carrier refused supervisor’s request to get up to speed on new technology
A Canada Post employee’s dismissal for refusing instruction on a new piece of equipment has been upheld by an arbitrator.
Canada Post began phasing in hand-held scanning devices called portable data terminals (PDTs) in 2007. PDTs were used for several purposes both inside postal depots and on mail routes. If employees missed formal PDT training, they would be given peer training by another employee who was an expert on how to use PDTs. Peer training on all PDT functions generally took about 14 minutes to complete.
In late July 2010, Canada Post told employees at its Victoria, B.C., depot that mobile routes must use PDTs on the route and all letter carriers with mobile routes should obtain peer training on the use of PDTs. In addition, a 1.5 hour PDT training session was offered to staff on an overtime or extended hours basis.
Elaine Torpy, 47, was a temporary letter carrier at the Victoria depot, hired in 2004 to perform fill-in duty for various routes. In March 2010, she was suspended for five days without pay for insubordination after refusing to deliver mail as requested. In July 2010, she refused an offer of peer training for PDTs and also declined to participate in the training session because her supervisor wouldn’t remove part of her route so she would avoid overtime. She had missed PDT training in her letter carrier training program. In 2009, she had received instruction from another employee on how to use PDTs to scan letter boxes and parcels, but that was the extent of her knowledge.
In August 2010, letter carriers were told to upload all items on their PDTs before they left the depot and to scan street letter boxes to record when they were cleared of mail. Some carriers forgot, but none were disciplined at the time.
Employee refused quick refresher
On Sept. 14, 2010, Torpy was scheduled to work a mobile route that she had been assigned the day before and required PDT scanning of parcels. There was a heavy volume of mail and Torpy felt overwhelmed since she was unfamiliar with the route. Her supervisor had reports that Torpy hadn’t completed PDT training and had made scanning errors with the PDT. She approached Torpy as she was preparing for her route. There were problems with her letter box scanning and she needed to take a few minutes to train with her on scanning parcels for delivery. The supervisor told Torpy to come and get her when she was ready so they could review the scanning procedures and scan a couple of parcels.
The supervisor only intended to spend a few minutes going over parcel and letter box scanning, but Torpy had the impression the supervisor wanted to do full PDT training and scan all the parcels. Torpy said she didn’t have time just then and about three hours later, the supervisor saw her getting ready to leave the depot and go out on her route. The supervisor asked why she hadn’t come to get the PDT training and claimed Torpy began yelling.
Torpy said she didn’t have time for the training that morning and shouted that she wouldn’t scan parcels and letter boxes with PDTs until she received proper training. The supervisor indicated that formal training was set up for the next week, but she needed to start the process that day. She also said Torpy wouldn’t get into trouble if she made a mistake with the PDTs, but Torpy responded by calling the supervisor a “f---ing liar.” Torpy was immediately placed on emergency suspension.
Employee’s attitude led to dismissal
Two days later, Torpy was interviewed with her union representative present. Torpy explained she had been frustrated from stress and harassment from her supervisor about the training, and admitted she “may have dropped the F bomb” but didn’t apologize. Following the interview, Canada Post decided to terminate Torpy’s employment for her acts of “defiance” and refusing to follow her supervisor’s reasonable instructions to receive incremental PDT training. Taken in context with her previous misconduct and her lack of remorse, Canada Post found the bond of trust had been broken and couldn’t be repaired.
The arbitrator found the supervisor asked Torpy to do brief training to correct her errors and get started on parcel scanning, not the entire PDT training as Torpy claimed. The arbitrator also found Torpy’s perception that the supervisor was harassing her with the training request wasn’t true and it was Canada Post’s right to give Torpy a quick refresher to ensure she wouldn’t repeat the mistakes she had made. Just because Torpy disagreed with the timing and need for the lesson at the time, didn’t justify a challenge to the supervisor’s authority, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found there was no reason to call the supervisor a liar when she was told she wouldn’t get into trouble if she made a mistake, since other carriers had made mistakes and weren’t disciplined.
“(Torpy’s) mental state was initially defiance — i.e., she flatly refused (the supervisor’s) initial approach and training directive — and that mental state was later augmented by anger and hostility when her disobedience was discovered and management’s disapproval of her disobedience was expressed,” said the arbitrator.
Torpy was aware of the expectations of PDT training but continued to refuse to get up to speed and her unwillingness to correct her errors and improve her PDT knowledge warranted discipline, said the arbitrator. The arbitrator found her “combination of insubordination and profane insolence,” as well as her failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing or accept responsibility for herself, irreparably breached the employment relationship. Given her previous misconduct involving insubordination, the arbitrator found dismissal was appropriate.
For more information see:
