Freedom of Expression : CPC acting in bad faith

The Corporation is showing an unmistakable lack of good faith. It’s flaunting the law and abusing its right to discipline employees by attacking and punishing our members and union representatives for wearing a button that says:

“Your PUBLIC postal service delivers … for now.”

Instead of writing another bulletin on your freedom of expression, the Union has decided to re-issue a bulletin that it sent out nationally on October 12, 2006. That bulletin is still valid today.  We’re asking you to file a grievance against any violation, directive, discipline, threat or other action that infringes on your freedom of expression, which is your right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Below, you’ll also find information to help you prepare one of the different types of grievances. Remember, it’s your duty to file a grievance, not only to protect yourself, but also to safeguard a right that is so important to all of us.

What follows is the bulletin that the Union issued
on October 12, 2006:

 

In November 2005, the Union implemented a national action plan to inform the public about the closure of the Quebec City mail processing plant and other potential post office closures, including offices in rural areas.

Shortly before the end of November 2005, the Union escalated its campaign by asking its members to wear a button with the following slogan:

“Your PUBLIC post office
delivers … for now.”

In response to this union campaign, the employer asked wicket clerks and letter carriers not to wear the button on their uniform, stating they would be disciplined if they did not comply.

 

Analysis

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, freedom of expression is an individual liberty that allows us to freely express a point of view without fear of reprisals.

Freedom of expression can be exercised in many ways, such as, handing out flyers, advertising, etc.  Strictly speaking, any verbal or written communication or any activity that conveys a message is protected by freedom of expression.  Wearing a button is without a doubt a way of exercising one’s freedom of expression.

 

Conditions to be met

For the wearing of a button to be considered as exercising one’s freedom of expression, a certain number of conditions must be met:

• The decision to wear a button must be made voluntarily.
• Physically, the button must be relatively inconspicuous and should not deface the uniform provided by the employer.
• The message on the button should reflect reality.
• The message should be expressed appropriately, and should not be hostile or derogatory in nature;
• The button should not be worn in conjunction with activities that force the public to take notice of the message;
• The wearing of the button should not disturb normal work activity;
• The wearing of the button cannot concretely compromise business relations with customers or suppliers, unless there is a fundamentally valid reason to do so.

However, the arbitrator asserted that freedom of expression is a basic liberty that is a quasi-constitutionally guaranteed right.  Freedom of expression must normally take precedence over the freedom to conduct business, which is not considered to be a fundamental liberty.

 

Conclusions

The grievances settled by the arbitration decision, which grants the corrective action sought by the Union, had been filed by the Outaouais-Québécois Local.

The arbitrator declared that the employer had violated the workers’ freedom of expression and unduly interfered in a union activity.  As a result, the arbitrator ordered the employer to lift its ban on the wearing of the buttons.

With respect to claims for damages, the arbitrator ordered the employer to pay $50.00 (the compensation requested) with interest in damages to each employee who had submitted a grievance or who was otherwise covered by a collective grievance.  Indeed, the arbitrator was of the opinion that obstructing freedom of expression and the freedom to carry out legitimate union activity can give rise to compensation.

As for damages claimed by the Union, the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the appropriate compensation to grant the Union.

The grievance procedure is an effective means of correcting injustices and violations of our basic rights.  Any employer action or measure that violates the collective agreement should be challenged through a grievance.

We have rights, and it’s up to us to ensure they are respected.

As we can see, the employer puts its freedom to conduct business before freedom of expression, which is a quasi-constitutionally guaranteed right.

No one is going to shut us up, Ms. Greene!