Union rep who fanned flames of discontent deserved more severe discipline but shouldn’t have been fired: Arbitrator
Stirring up trouble
Union representatives have a duty to communicate the position of their union members to employers, particularly during disputes. However they don’t have blanket protection to act any way they want. If they cross the line and play a role in inciting discontent or encouraging an illegal work disruption, they could find themselves facing severe disciplinary action.
A British Columbia postal worker who played a prominent role in a dispute between management and employees should not have been fired for inciting a work disruption, the B.C. Arbitration Board has ruled.
Glynn Manson, 64, was a letter carrier for Canada Post, working out of a delivery centre in New Westminster, B.C. As part of his duties, he delivered unaddressed admail, or flyers, to households. Flyers were a significant portion of Canada Post’s revenue and were usually time-sensitive, as they often were associated with sales on specific dates.
Manson was also a long-time union activist, holding elected positions within the union including president of his local and executive chief shop steward. By 2009, he returned to his letter carrier position, but remained a shop steward at the New Westminster delivery centre.
Canada Post set out flyer delivery procedure as a four-day process. Flyers usually arrived at the delivery centre on Tuesday mornings and letter carriers prepared them for delivery when they returned from their routes. Flyers were to be delivered in equal proportions on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.
However, this procedure sometimes changed if the flyers arrived late. Sometimes the delivery process had to be compressed in order to get them out in time and carriers had fewer days to deliver them. This situation was covered in the collective agreement, which allowed Canada Post to consult with union representatives to deal with it. If the delivery time for flyers was reduced, letter carriers were to receive an additional 2.3 cents per piece of mail delivered during a compressed delivery schedule, though this premium was only paid for two of the three days.
Late shipment of flyers put pressure on letter carriers
Letter carriers didn’t like the compressed delivery schedule, because their time values on their routes weren’t structured to accommodate extra delivery, particularly on Fridays. In addition, many carriers tried to complete their routes early on Fridays so they could get their weekends started and a compressed delivery schedule made that nearly impossible as they had to visit all points on their route.
In February 2009, the New Westminster centre received a late delivery of IKEA flyers. IKEA had a large account with Canada Post, so the compressed schedule was implemented so the flyers would get out on time. The letter carriers complied, though they were unhappy with it. Though Manson wasn’t working on the floor at the time — he was representing an employee on another issue — several carriers sought him out to ask for his advice.
A month later, there was still frustration among the letter carriers because they had not yet been paid the premium for the compressed delivery of IKEA flyers. On March 11, another shipment of IKEA flyers was scheduled to arrive with the letter carriers delivering them from March 11 to 13. However, a shipping error caused the flyers to be late, arriving on March 13, the Friday. Canada Post advised the union of the situation and the need to have all the flyers delivered on March 13.
The superintendent of the New Westminster centre learned of the situation on the morning of March 13 and called a floor meeting of all staff at 7:30 a.m. He explained what was happening and the need to deliver all the flyers that day. The letter carriers were not happy and some heckling and catcalling of the superintendent occurred. Manson, who was back working, told staff they needed to discuss it during a coffee break and he, the other three shop stewards and several other employees proceeded to the lunchroom.
After the meeting, the four shop stewards informed the superintendent they had decided not to deliver the IKEA flyers that day because it violated the collective agreement and they had still not been paid for the previous compressed delivery. Manson served as their spokesperson because the other shop stewards felt he had the most experience in dealing with management from his other union positions.
The superintendent responded that if they refused to deliver the flyers, he wouldn’t release the corporate keys to allow the letter carriers to deliver the rest of the mail. The shop stewards relayed this to the letter carriers, who started yelling and catcalling before going to sort their mail.
A short time later, management told Manson if the letter carriers continued to refuse to deliver the flyers, they would be subject to five-day suspension up to termination for delay of mail. More union representatives arrived and another meeting was held with the shop stewards. They debated over the collective agreement rights and at about 9:30 a.m., the regional manager called another floor meeting.
At the floor meeting, the regional manager emphasized the importance of the IKEA account, explained why the flyers were late and said he would investigate as to why they were late for a second time. He also outlined the possibilities of the suspensions and dismissal for delaying the mail. There was some murmuring among the letter carriers and one of them asked Manson what the union had to say. Manson said the explanations weren’t believable and it was just a tactic to get a single-day delivery. Manson made some more comments that stirred up the other carriers and made them more angry.
A union executive then spoke and commented on the need to discuss more compensation for the letter carriers for one-day delivery. The superintendent agreed to release the corporate keys and the carriers dispersed to deliver their mail. Fifty-four of the 86 letter carriers, including Manson, did not deliver the flyers until the following Monday. All other postal facilities in the region delivered the flyers on March 13.
Employee fired for role in work disruption
The letter carriers who failed to deliver the flyers on March 13 were suspended for five days without pay for participating in “a concerted work effort when you and other employees failed to deliver product.” On March 19, Canada Post gave Manson a letter of termination for participating in as well as inciting and “directly contributing to an unlawful work disruption.”
The union argued Manson’s role in the disruption was no different than that of the other letter carriers and warranted the same discipline: a five-day unpaid suspension. However, Canada Post argued Manson took an active role in organizing the unlawful work stoppage and incited the other letter carriers to refuse to deliver the mail. He also expressed no remorse for his actions and irreparably breached the employer’s trust, said Canada Post.
The arbitrator found the refusal to deliver the IKEA flyers on a compressed schedule constituted a delay of mail, which was serious misconduct. However, it also noted that it was the onus of Canada Post to prove Manson deserved harsher discipline than the other letter carriers who received suspensions, which it failed to do.
There were three other shop stewards involved in the situation along with Manson, said the arbitrator, who participated in the meetings with management and the employees. The arbitrator found Manson was “thrust” into the role of primary spokesperson by management, perhaps due to his past experience on the union executive. It was also natural for the other shop stewards to let him speak for them because of that experience, said the arbitrator. In this role, he communicated the decision of the employees to refuse to deliver the flyers, but didn’t play a leadership role in organizing the refusal.
However, the arbitrator found that once the refusal was made, Manson inserted himself in a leadership role when he scoffed at management’s directive and stirred them up, despite the fact that other, higher-up union members were present by that time to whom he could have deferred. His “angry outburst” was also not conducted in his role as a shop steward and therefore not under protection that union representatives receive as part of their roles.
“It is the case that (Manson) did not expressly state the IKEA flyers should not be delivered, but in the context of his other angry remarks, which cast aspersions on management's truthfulness, I am persuaded (Manson’s) conduct can reasonably be assumed to have affected the actions of some of the employees, including some who were awaiting the Union's position before making their own decision,” said the arbitrator.
Since Manson was guilty of inciting some of the workers and possibly encouraging them to participate in the work refusal, the court found he was subject to more severe discipline than the others. However, dismissal was still too severe, given he was a 35-year employee who was nearing retirement and he had conducted himself as a “responsible shop steward” up to the final meeting that morning.
The arbitrator also found Canada Post did not conduct any interview with Manson before letting him go, which may have allowed him to explain his position and acknowledge he may have went too far, which he did at the hearing. It was also noted Canada Post’s policy contemplated termination after a second participation in a work disruption within 12 months, indicating a first instance would not necessarily sever the employment relationship.
