Montreal courier driver files grievances after being denied full bumping rights

Company added standard 30-day probation period

A driver with more than 30 years of experience was denied the opportunity to bump a more junior driver after the company said that route would be abolished.

Francis Scrivo had 33 years of service with Canpar Courier in Montreal as a parcel and delivery driver when he lost his route to a more senior driver in 2017.

Scrivo asked to be bumped into another route driven by a junior employee at the Montreal terminal, but Canpar said that route was ending.

On Sept. 27, Scrivo bumped another driver who worked out of the Boisbriand terminal, a suburb of Montreal. Before he began his service, a Canpar supervisor informed Scrivo that he must complete the standard of 9.8 stops per hour (SPH) and he was given a 30-day probation period to complete this requirement satisfactorily.

But on Oct. 27, Canpar advised Scrivo that he had not met the SPH standard and he must return to the Montreal terminal. 

After he returned to the Montreal terminal, Scrivo’s new hours were less than he had before as he did odd jobs only. 

And Scrivo discovered the Montreal route that he first inquired about was still being run — despite Canpar’s contention it would be cancelled — and it was driven by a junior employee.

The union, United Steelworkers (USW), Local 1976, filed four grievances on Scrivo’s behalf and alleged the employer didn’t allow a legitimate bumping request.

The union relied on article 5.3.4 of the collective agreement, part of which read: “Whenever there is a permanent abolishment of an employee’s route, the following procedure shall apply: The employee on the route shall be entitled to select any route of his choice provided that the route is being done by a junior employee.”

The agreement also gave a short timeline of two or five days for a bumping employee to exercise those rights. Because Scrivo believed the Montreal route would be abolished, he instead chose the Boisbriand route instead.

As well, argued the union, nowhere in the collective agreement under bumping rights did it specify a 30-day probation period.

Arbitrator Graham Clarke agreed and upheld the grievance. “Canpar violated the collective agreement and specifically Scrivo’s bumping rights. The appropriate remedy is to award Scrivo compensation and order a fresh bumping process.”

Proper information must be provided to Scrivo, said Clarke, before the new bumping exercise can begin.

“Scrivo is entitled to decide whether to bump the more junior employee at the Montreal terminal who continues to drive a numbered route. Canpar is ordered to disclose to the Steelworkers the number of hours that employee has worked on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, so that Scrivo can make an informed decision,” said Clarke.

“Alternatively, Scrivo can decide to bump into another route at a different terminal, provided he has the requisite seniority. Regardless of Scrivo’s choice, there will be no probationary period attached to the new route. Canpar never negotiated this condition for bumping situations.”

As well, Scrivo was ordered to receive “compensation for any difference between the sums he earned and what he would have earned had he been driving a regular route,” said Clarke. 

“This compensation includes reasonable overtime which will be calculated based on the overtime Scrivo earned during the last two full years when driving his own route. The period covered by this compensation starts from the date of his displacement to the Boisbriand terminal to the date he bumps into a new position,” said Clarke.

Reference: Canpar Courier and United Steelworkers (USW), Local 1976. Graham Clarke — arbitrator. C. S. Perron for the employer. N. Lapointe for the employee. Aug. 7, 2018. 2018 CarswellNat 4104

Latest stories