Canada Post worker should have taken transit to get to work in severe winter weather
A Canada Post worker in Brampton, Ont., who didn’t report to work because she didn’t want to drive in severe winter weather should have used public transit, an arbitrator has ruled.
Joanne Perucho filed a grievance because she was denied special paid leave as outlined in the collective agreement for two separate days of absence: Dec. 23, 2004, and Jan. 12, 2005. The collective agreement states that:
“Where conditions warrant it, special leave with pay may be granted when circumstances not directly attributable to the employee, including but not limited to the illness in the immediate family … prevent his reporting for duty. Such leave shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
Perucho didn’t report to work on Dec. 23 because of snow and on Jan. 12 because of freezing rain. She said the public was advised not to drive on those days unless it was necessary. On both days she left early and attempted to drive to work for the start of her 7 a.m. shift but turned back after a short distance because she didn’t think it was safe to continue.
Public transit was operating on both days. Perucho said it would have required three transfers to get to work and the closest stop to her house was about a 10-minute walk. Because of the weather, she chose not to attempt to walk to the bus stop.
On both days Perucho was the only worker in her approximate 20-person work unit who was scheduled to work but did not report. A few employees did show up late because of the weather but, pursuant to Canada Post’s practice, were paid for the full shift. Perucho took a vacation day on both of the dates.
The arbitrator said Canada Post did not breach the collective agreement when it denied her special paid leave for the two days.
“While I have no doubt that driving on both days was hazardous and that (she) felt that it would be unsafe to drive to work, I am unable to make the same finding with respect to the use of public transportation,” the arbitrator said.“The evidence is that public transportation was operating on both days, but (she) did not attempt to walk to the nearest bus stop on either day. While she may have been fearful of doing so, the fact is that all of the other workers in her unit who were scheduled to work on these days and who were faced with essentially the same weather conditions made it to work (albeit a few were late.)”
Therefore, Canada Post was justified in refusing to grant her special paid leave for those two dates.
For more information see:
• Canada Post Corp. v. C.U.P.W., 2005 CarswellNat 4794 (Can. Arb. Bd.)
Joanne Perucho filed a grievance because she was denied special paid leave as outlined in the collective agreement for two separate days of absence: Dec. 23, 2004, and Jan. 12, 2005. The collective agreement states that:
“Where conditions warrant it, special leave with pay may be granted when circumstances not directly attributable to the employee, including but not limited to the illness in the immediate family … prevent his reporting for duty. Such leave shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
Perucho didn’t report to work on Dec. 23 because of snow and on Jan. 12 because of freezing rain. She said the public was advised not to drive on those days unless it was necessary. On both days she left early and attempted to drive to work for the start of her 7 a.m. shift but turned back after a short distance because she didn’t think it was safe to continue.
Public transit was operating on both days. Perucho said it would have required three transfers to get to work and the closest stop to her house was about a 10-minute walk. Because of the weather, she chose not to attempt to walk to the bus stop.
On both days Perucho was the only worker in her approximate 20-person work unit who was scheduled to work but did not report. A few employees did show up late because of the weather but, pursuant to Canada Post’s practice, were paid for the full shift. Perucho took a vacation day on both of the dates.
The arbitrator said Canada Post did not breach the collective agreement when it denied her special paid leave for the two days.
“While I have no doubt that driving on both days was hazardous and that (she) felt that it would be unsafe to drive to work, I am unable to make the same finding with respect to the use of public transportation,” the arbitrator said.“The evidence is that public transportation was operating on both days, but (she) did not attempt to walk to the nearest bus stop on either day. While she may have been fearful of doing so, the fact is that all of the other workers in her unit who were scheduled to work on these days and who were faced with essentially the same weather conditions made it to work (albeit a few were late.)”
Therefore, Canada Post was justified in refusing to grant her special paid leave for those two dates.
For more information see:
• Canada Post Corp. v. C.U.P.W., 2005 CarswellNat 4794 (Can. Arb. Bd.)
