Can CUPW Prevent The Erosion Of Full-Time Work At Canada Post?

On Friday, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) imposed an overtime ban at Canada Post, the first of what could prove to be a series of escalating job actions if new collective agreements are not soon reached.

CUPW issued Canada Post a 72-hour strike notice on May 20, after which the employer tabled final offers that the union said “fall short.” Despite the shortcomings, the union requested a two-week “truce” to consider the proposals more fully, which Canada Post flatly rejected.

As a strike deadline approached on May 22, it looked as though a full nation-wide work stoppage would resume. However, after having its previous strike suspended by the federal government, the union has instead opted for a more measured approach, for now.

The current situation was entirely predictable. When the government interfered with CUPW’s strike in December, it effectively undermined the union’s strategic power without helping to resolve the underlying issues driving the strike — most notably, Canada Post’s desire to make work at the crown corporation more insecure through the expansion of part-time and temporary employment.

Rather, after five weeks on strike, the previous minister of labour, Steven MacKinnon, instructed the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to force CUPW members back to work. This government imposition undermined workers’ right to strike and the union’s strategic leverage, effectively ending the work stoppage at its most disruptive point ahead of the Christmas holidays.

The government’s intervention also extended the previous collective agreements until May 22, 2025, after which a strike or lockout could resume if the parties reached no agreements.

The minister’s s. 107 order, though ending postal workers’ legal strike, did not impose binding arbitration, unlike other recent orders directed at rail and port workers. Rather, the minister “paused” the strike and exercised a rarely used power available under s. 108 of the Canada Labour Code, forcing the parties into an “industrial inquiry commission” (IIC). The terms of reference and scope of the IIC were very broad, effectively allowing the appointed commissioner, William Kaplan, to consider issues preventing the parties from negotiating new collective agreements, to assess the financial viability of Canada Post, and to make recommendations, including amendments to the union’s contracts.

While the union complied with the government’s order, it maintained that, “All options remain under consideration to achieve negotiated collective agreements that prioritize fair wages, improved health and safety, the ability to retire with dignity, and the democratic right to free collective bargaining.”

From the union’s perspective, the employer treated the industrial inquiry commission as a venue to circumvent collective bargaining. As CUPW stated several times in its submissions before the commission, the employer raised issues that should be dealt with through collective bargaining, likely to have this third party recommend non-negotiated contract changes.

In a later submission to the commission, the union highlighted the double-edged sword of the inquiry process: on the one hand, the union was reluctant to participate in the process given that they believed workers’ right to strike had been violated; on the other hand, not participating would mean that the union position would be left out of the forum.

The union further vowed to fight the government’s interference through legal action. CUPW’s case alleging that MacKinnon’s back-to-work order was illegal was heard before the CIRB on March 3 and 4, though a decision is still pending.

Alongside the inquiry, what the union characterized as a parallel negotiation took place in mid-January and then again in early March, with Kaplan serving as mediator. The union considered this “a crucial opportunity to discuss our major issues and potentially reach collective agreements.”

However, the talks in January broke down when the employer insisted the union limit its constitutional challenge to the minister of labour’s interference in the strike and then again in March as the employer continued to insist on expanding part-time and temporary work. This management demand effectively scuttled what progress was made during these brief mediated discussions.

The industrial inquiry commission then held its hearings in January, February and March, receiving oral and written submissions from the union, the employer, and other concerned public stakeholders.

The union argued for the importance of keeping Canada Post public and safeguarding its future for all Canadians through service extensions based on its previous “delivering community power” model. In particular, the union pushed back on what it considered to be the employer’s stealth privatization plan.

As the union further argued in its rebuttal to Canada Post’s submission to the commission, the employer from the beginning viewed the commission as an opportunity to affirm its narrative concerning the financial distress of the crown corporation and the need to flexibilize its business model at the expense of workers. It wrote, “In the past decade and a half, Canada Post has sought to leverage financial challenges – whether projected or reported – to wrest concessions from the Union at the bargaining table and cut services to the public.”

The union also highlighted that, despite Canada Post’s claim that labour costs are part of what’s driving its descent into financial instability, labour costs have in fact declined as a percentage of the organization’s overall expenses, from 70 per cent in 2018 down to just under 63 per cent in 2023. At the same time, the crown corporation’s “non-capital investment expenses” have grown by more than 80 per cent. In 2023, the $359 million in this expense category accounted for almost half of Canada Post’s reported loss.

The union further challenged many other of Canada Post’s claims related to its financial position. For example, between 2018 and 2023, the crown corporation paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties for violations of pay equity legislation.

On the issue of expanding part-time work at Canada Post to cover weekend parcel delivery — the primary sticking point in negotiations — the union presented a detailed and costed plan for expanding weekend parcel delivery using full-time, permanent staff. The union showed that by completing this work with full-time staff, the employer would save on the cost of “head-count” benefits (i.e., benefits the employer has to pay no matter the full- or part-time status of the worker). In other words, by having to hire more part-time workers to complete the same amount of work, Canada Post would actually spend more on per-employee benefits.

In late April, as the union and employer awaited the final report from the industrial inquiry commission, mediated bargaining resumed. The parties agreed to continue discussions on a range of issues that were already partially resolved. Then, on May 13, Canada Post informed the union that it was leaving and pausing negotiations in order to compile a full set of final proposals. It’s plausible that the employer was waiting to see the contents of the commission report before presenting any further proposals.

When the report arrived, it largely confirmed the narrative of Canada Post management. As the union titled its press release, “No Surprise: Government Ordered Commission Report Recommends the Vast Majority of Canada Post’s Proposals.”

Indeed, the report was highly dismissive of CUPW’s submissions and proposals. For example, in response to the union’s proposals for expanding Canada Post services, Kaplan wrote: “The proposals CUPW made to grow Canada Post’s business are also unrealistic or duplicate services already provided by others – introducing postal banking, seniors check-ins, establishing artisanal markets at postal stations, and transforming postal stations into community social hubs. In my view, given the financial crisis, Canada Post must focus on saving its core business, not on providing new services.”

Further, with little attention to the costed plan CUPW provided for performing weekend parcel delivery with full-time workers, Kaplan stated: “CUPW insists that existing collective agreement provisions allow for necessary change such as the introduction of weekend parcel delivery and flex arrangements during the week. No objective analysis of current collective agreement provisions supports this submission. For example, the reason why employers rely on part-time and casual employees is to give them flexibility to adjust staffing to meet evolving needs – and that is currently impossible.”

The commission’s various recommendations were equally troubling. Despite opposition from groups representing seniors and persons with disabilities, Kaplan recommended further phasing out daily home delivery, establishing community mailboxes, and lifting the moratorium on rural post office closures. He also largely sided with the employer on the issue of expanding part-time work, despite CUPW’s evidence of the inefficiency of this approach to weekend delivery.

With this report providing additional backing to Canada Post’s narrative, the union faces a significant challenge. Union members were organized and mobilized to fight the company and protect good jobs in November. They endured five difficult weeks of strike action. Now, after having their right to strike trampled, many workers may be understandably fatigued and cautious about spending more time on the picket line.

The company may have the wind at its back, but CUPW is a fighting union and it has battled back against concessions before. For now, time will tell if limited job action compels the employer to moderate its demands for concessions — and if the union can prevent the erosion of full-time work at Canada Post.

Share on Twitter

Share on Bluesky