Email to PIPSC BoD. Subject: "Request for information: Related to December 10, 2021 BoD meeting & grievances (not) filed for remotely working members"
DRAFT - UNDER CONSTRUCTION: Continuing My Investigation into the Union’s Decision NOT to Challenge the Employer's Vaccination Mandate
Following up on my interview with a PIPSC member who had suicidal thoughts due to the Union's decision not to challenge the Vaccination Mandate from the outset, I decided to investigate why the Union chose not to challenge the mandate, even for remotely working employees. Below is my request to the Board of Directors for more information on this matter, based on the BoD minutes I was able to locate on the PIPSC website.
As I continue my investigation, I will update this article with any new details I uncover. One thing is clear though: the decision of the employer to coerce every member into undergoing a medical procedure under the threat of indefinitely losing all sources of income was not driven by economic or scientific reasons but by something else. Likewise, the union’s choice not to challenge it from the outset appears to have been influenced by factors beyond economic or scientific justification. This "something else" is undeniably tied to political interference and a severe violation of fundamental human rights—one of the worst in Canadian history. Such a violation cannot go unchallenged if we are to safeguard our members from experiencing similar injustices in the future. This is why I will continue my investigation until this fact is acknowledged in writing by our decision-makers within the Union.
“The union’s choice not to challenge it from the outset appears to have been influenced by factors beyond economic or scientific justification.
This "something else" is undeniably tied to political interference and a severe violation of fundamental human rights—one of the worst in Canadian history.
Such a violation cannot go unchallenged if we are to safeguard our members from experiencing similar injustices in the future.”
Dec 10, 2024: My first Email to BoD
From: Dmitry O. Gorodnichy <dmitry.gorodnichy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:03 PM
Subject: Request for information: Related to December 10, 2021 BoD meeting & grievances (not) filed for remotely working members
To: President Présidente <president@pipsc.ca>, current BoD members who were also serving during the December 2021 BoD meeting [Sean O'Reilly, Stéphanie Fréchette, Stéphane Aubry, Norma Domey, Eva Henshaw, Dave Sutherland, Waheed Khan, Jennie Esnard], newly elected BoD members [Katie Francis, Suzanne O'Brien, Tim MacKay]
Dear executive colleagues,
I have a question related to the following discussion that happened on BoD meeting on December 10, 2021 as documented in the Minutes attached (downloaded from https://members.pipsc.ca/bod-2021/):
5.3 COVID Update
...
The floor was opened to questions and comments.
...
PSAC filing a policy grievance on behalf of members working from home - even pre-pandemic and still needing to be vaccinated. What is PIPSC’s view on this?
...The following clarifications were provided:
...
PSAC is filing grievances for specific reasons which may not apply to PIPSC. This said, grievances could be entertained by the Board in the new year.
Taking into account that the above mentioned PSAC grievance was successful (May 2024: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-post-wrong-to-suspend-unvaccinated-remote-workers-during-covid-ruling - the judge decision is quoted below)
I would like to inquire if any of you remember (since you were at that meeting):
1) What were those "specific reasons which may not apply to PIPSC" that prevented PIPSC to file a similar grievance ?
and also (since you continued to be on BoD in the new year)
2) Were any such grievances entertained by the Board in the new year? And If not, why?
If the answers to these questions are negative, please advise me on what is the process to obtain the answers to these questions.
As some of you already know, the actions (or lack of thereof) of our Union on this matter had grave consequences for some members, including suicidal thoughts from some of them.
I'm counting for your help to investigate this issue.
Thank you
Dmitry
(acting in a role of regular member, Not in role of NCR executive)
Union of Postal Communications Employees (PSAC) v Canada Post Corporation, 2024 CanLII 38829 (CA LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cala/doc/2024/2024canlii38829/2024canlii38829.html
AWARD
1. The Union has filed this policy grievance regarding the Canada Post’s Mandatory Vaccination Practice (“Practice”). The grievance raises the following narrow issue: Was it unreasonable for Canada Post to apply the Practice to employees who worked remotely? …
DISPOSITION
131. The Practice is unreasonable to the extent that it applied to UPCE employees who worked exclusively remotely. While the Practice was in place, an employee worked exclusively remotely if: (a) they completed the full ambit of their assigned duties remotely; and (b) there was no reasonable prospect they would be required to attend work in person for operational reasons or to complete the full ambit of their assigned duties.
132. Applying the Practice to exclusively remote workers did not advance its main purpose, which was to limit the risk of COVID transmission in the workplace. There was no meaningful connection between the Practice’s objective and the measures imposed on exclusively remote workers. It is not clear that the Employer’s workplace health and safety interests extend to requiring vaccination because this could increase the likelihood that exclusively remote workers (who have no reasonable prospect of in-person work) would be available to do their jobs. To the extent that any such interest exists, however, it is significantly outweighed by the employees’ interests in their privacy and in ongoing paid employment. This aspect of the grievance is allowed.
--
Dmitry
Dec 18, 2024: The response from the Institute Executive Secretary
1) What were those "specific reasons which may not apply to PIPSC" that prevented PIPSC to file a similar grievance ?
The December 2021 Board minutes, available to all Institute members as of early 2022 on its portal, do not contain any more details or specific reasons. The minutes are exhaustive.
2) Were any such grievances entertained by the Board in the new year? And If not, why?The answer you seek would lie in Board minutes from 2022, also available to all members on the portal.
Here is a link to the portal.
https://pipsc.ca/about/governance/bod/minutes
On Institute efforts in this regard, I will direct you to the following link: https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/information-members-regarding-covid-19-coronavirus/vaccine-mandate-policy-grievance
Dec 19 2024: Thanking Executive Assistant for his response, indicating plan to continue the investigation.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dmitry O. Gorodnichy <dmitry.gorodnichy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Request for information: Related to December 10, 2021 BoD meeting & grievances (not) filed for remotely working members
To: [Institute Executive Secretary]
I appreciate your response. I will have a look into the minutes in 2022 as you recommended and may get back to you with more questions as I'm trying to understand how the decisions by the board of directors were made with respect to which grievances to file and which not to file. There's a lot of appreciation among all affected members for the grievance that is filed by Union in May 2022. However there is much of despair and disbelief that the union has not filed any other grievance before that , even for workers who worked 100% remotely as psac did...
If there are any details or information which I could share with affected members in this regard, please let me know. In parallel, I will try to figure out this myself by analyzing the minutes from each BoD meeting .
I'm however currently out of the country with limited access to Internet so most likely will get back to you in New Year.
Hence , everyone, have wonderful holidays , Merry Christmas if I don't talk to you before that.
Dmitry