The union representing 55,000 Canada Post workers believes that the layoff of striking employees is an “intimidation tactic.”
“It’s quite special!” The employees are already on strike, so I do not understand the intentions of Canada Post and what is behind it, one could conclude as the union suggests that it is an intimidation tactic,” observes Finn Makela, professor specializing in labor law at the University of Sherbrooke.
While Canada Post employees have been on strike for almost two weeks, the state-owned company confirmed “temporary” layoffs this week, without specifying the number of jobs affected.
“Our business has suffered significant repercussions before and since this strike began. We have taken steps to adapt our operations,” replied Phil Rogers, Canada Post media relations by email.
In a notice to members published earlier this week, the Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) called the layoffs an “intimidation tactic” and declared that it was closely monitoring the situation, reported La Presse Canadian.
Measures in place
“The Canada Labor Code already provides a framework that allows us to question this, but in addition, since 2015, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (Paragraph 2d) which protects freedom of association, also protects the constitutional right to go on strike,” adds the tenured professor.
Canada Post also informed its 55,000 employees that “expired collective agreements no longer apply and that the conditions of employment of staff members” and that the conditions of employment of staff had changed as permitted by the Canadian Code of work.
Remember, employees of the state-owned company have been on strike and locked out since November 15.
Still according to the Canadian Press, the Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) contests the layoffs and insists that “Canada Post will need solid evidence to persuade the labor relations board that the layoffs are absolutely not linked to the fact that the workers went on strike.
The Journal contacted the Postal Workers Union who confirmed that layoffs were in progress, but that no one was available to answer our questions at the time of publication.
