Requested redress of $7,500 for 200 shifts
A postal worker who was normally slated to work shifts of no more than 360 minutes at a time found he was working more after a route was reassessed.
Darren Byrne worked in Newfoundland as a postal carrier from 2010 to 2013. When a new subdivision was built in the neighbourhood, 80 more homes became part of his route.
When Byrne was originally hired, the route was assessed at requiring 350 minutes to complete, meaning he did not pass the six-hour threshold that would have entitled him to a paid 30-minute lunch break.
In September, Byrne found the route timing began to pass the six-hour limit.
He complained to supervisors and maintained he should have been provided the lunch break each time he exceeded six hours worked.
Byrne hoped the route would be converted to a full-time shift.
He said he was concerned the employer would simply split the route between two part-time shifts.
The employer said that if he was concerned about the hours, he should have requested a review so a route measurement officer could assess it and provide a proper assignment and amount of hours.
The union, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, filed a grievance. It asked for redress of $7,500 for 200 shifts in which Byrne did not receive the paid 30-minute break.
It also asked that all other affected employees be given similar reparations.
Canada Post said the route in question was over-assessed at 6.22 hours and Byrne was being compensated on that basis.
It argued employees are only entitled to the break once they work the extra shifts, but nothing compels part-time carriers to work more than six hours, even though the worker is scheduled to work more than six hours.
“It is our understanding that if a part-time employee works six hours, he would then get paid a dinner break. If they do not physically work the full six hours, then a dinner break would not apply,” said a Feb. 9, 2011, dismissal of the grievance by Canada Post.
But arbitrator Wayne Thistle upheld the grievance and ordered Byrne to be compensated for all the shifts he worked that exceeded six hours.
“I find the agreement has been violated and Byrne is entitled to a half-hour paid meal period on those occasions when he was assessed over 360 minutes — over approximately a three-year period — and required to work for a continuous period of more than six hours,” said Thistle.
Canada Post’s contention that employees were not required to work more than the six-hour limit was dismissed by the arbitrator.
“Byrne is to be compensated for those occasions when he was scheduled and required to work for a continuous period of more than six hours,” said Thistle.
Various parts of the collective agreement were referred to by the arbitrator regarding paid breaks, which complicated the ruling, according to Thistle.
“There are four different descriptions of eligibility” for the breaks, said Thistle.
"Of the various descriptions for eligibility for part-time employees to certain pay and benefits, my understanding of what the parties had intended in these descriptions is that 14.06(a) specifies that the employee has to be 'working for a continuous period,' whereas in 14.06(c), 14.07(a) and 14.07(b), the parties have used 'required to work' and 'scheduled to work' interchangeably," he said.
“When Byrne’s route was assessed more than six hours, there were times when he completed the route in less than six hours. "
"On such occasions, while scheduled and possibly required to work for a continuous period of six hours, he was not physically at work for a continuous period of more than six consecutive hours” said Thistle.
"Thus, I conclude it was not ‘compulsory’ or ‘imperative’ that he work more than six continuous hours to create eligibility to the paid-meal period,” said
Thistle.
Reference: Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post. Wayne Thistle — arbitrator. Ellen Campbell for the employer. Robert Garnier for the employee. April 19, 2017.
