|
Postal Workers Continue to Fight for the Rights of All Serious Concerns About Health and SafetyAlain Robitaille is President of the Montreal Local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW). Workers' Forum: The Montreal Local of CUPW reports a specific concern at this time about the health and safety of postal workers. Can you tell us more? Alain Robitaille: The holiday season is just around the corner for postal workers. We will see how the health and safety measures that have been adopted at the post office will hold up during the holiday rush. Holiday season is complex at the best of times. Now imagine that the employer is concerned about a loss of productivity due to physical distancing and from people being absent from work. How will things unfold?
Now we see that the employer is looking at the statistics, at the columns of figures, and realizes that these safety measures are expensive. We seriously oppose what Canada Post is doing now. They have sent a form to workers who are on preventive leave which they are to submit to their doctor. The goal is to find out what their health status is, whether they can return to work or have to stay home because they are at risk. There are only two questions on the form. The first question is "Has your patient been diagnosed with an underlying medical condition that the Public Health Agency of Canada considers at risk for developing severe complications from COVID-19? Yes or no." In cases where workers are immunosuppressed and have very precarious health conditions, the question is quite simple. The answer is yes. The second question is: "Do you recommend that your patient self-isolate for medical reasons? Yes or no." This is more complex for the doctor. It is not a simple question with a yes or no answer. Public health authorities say it is important for people not to be totally isolated at home, that it's important to take walks, for example. And people also have to provide for their basic needs, such as groceries. Of course you can have those delivered but there are costs, it's not accessible for everyone, and there are people who don't trust the process of having groceries delivered by someone who has handled all the products. There is reluctance to do that. It is to be noted that the French form has the phrasing "at home" regarding self-isolation in the second question while the English form does not include that phrase. So, besides anything else, the two forms are not even exactly the same. Many doctors answered "no" to the second question, that they do not recommend that their patients isolate themselves at home. These are the only questions that are asked. No questions such as "Do you feel your patient is fit to return to work and, if so, what do you recommend in terms of how this should take place?" We are talking about people with precarious health. This can include people who are undergoing chemotherapy, people who are HIV-positive, people who have heart disease, and so on. We have 55,000 members across the country, including 6,000 in Montreal. Imagine very complex health situations that are decided by the employer via a form that includes only two questions, without putting into context, for example, what isolation at home means. Many of our workers have submitted this form to their doctor who filled it out. There are doctors who answered "yes" to the first question but "no" to the second, that they do not recommend complete isolation even though their patient is at risk. Some made comments. For example, that the worker could go back to work if there is a two-metre distance between people, if the worker wears a mask, if everyone wears a mask, etc. There are some doctors who elaborated on their answer which gave context to their opinion that the worker could return to work. The union had to confront the employer because the employer was returning all these workers back to work without even telling us. We have a duty to participate in the accommodation of our workers and we firmly believe that it is our duty to intervene in this matter. Health and safety is a union duty. We intervened forcefully, we sent workers home because we didn't have time to discuss how to bring them back to work. WF: How are workers contacted once Canada Post receives the doctor's form? AR: They are contacted directly by the employer. They are contacted by an immediate supervisor. The supervisor is in a position of authority and their mandate is to get the person back to work. According to the supervisor's interpretation, everything is fine and the worker can come back even if they are at risk. The work that we have done with the employer after the fact to determine what accommodation measures have been put in place to protect the worker tells us that they brought workers back very hastily, workers who needed specific accommodations and who cannot just be told that Canada Post has a policy of physical distancing. The problem is much broader than that. The situation becomes very complex when the doctor simply answers "yes" or "no" -- yes the person is at risk, and no, isolation at home is not recommended, without any comment. In Montreal, we have about 70 people in this situation. In the union's opinion, the employer has no business saying that the doctor has authorized the person's return to work since they did not ask that question and the doctor has not given his or her opinion on whether the worker should return and under what conditions. The employer argues that it cannot ask the physician whether the worker is fit to return because it was not the doctor who told the worker to be off work in the first place. Clearly, the form is insufficient and is being used to draw unwarranted conclusions. They have brought many workers back this way, over 70 in Montreal. We have asked for the list of these people and the employer refuses to give it to us. We are not giving up. We are taking this issue to the national level. It is a struggle that is dignified and necessary. Moreover, although the employer asked for doctors' answers to the two questions, workers were called back to work no matter what answers their doctor gave. Let's take a typical case where the doctor had said yes, return to work could lead to serious consequences in the case of a COVID-19 infection and yes, the worker should self isolate at home. Canada Post called the worker to tell them that they were welcome to return, that measures would be taken to ensure their safety. They are going against the doctor's recommendation by doing this. It's very serious and we're trying to stop it. Let's not forget that the employer is talking to the workers who are the most vulnerable, who have the most precarious health. These are the workers the employer is bringing back to work as if nothing is happening. WF: Do you want to add anything in conclusion? AR: This issue is a major concern for us. We're talking about the health and safety of workers. Workers have been fighting for decades for the health and safety of our members, and right now we're experiencing an immediate problem, in a very acute way. It's happening now. There are people who are on the work floor who shouldn't be and we don't know who they are. It is our union duty to defend them. (Translated from original French by Workers' Forum.)
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
As soon as the pandemic began, Canada Post put in place, fairly
quickly, the preventive withdrawal of all people who are at risk, paid
at 100 per cent of their wage, under a clause in the collective
agreement that covers a quarantine situation.