Labour Arbitration Case between Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Union of Post Workers
Canadian Union of Postal Workers had failed to intervene in an illegal and unauthorized work stoppage by Canada Post Corporation employees in Fort McMurray, Alberta on the 22nd of May 2013 resulting in losses for the Corporation. The Canada Industrial Relations Board, as a result, had been invited to investigate this matter and later on the 2nd of July 2013 the Board proclaimed that “pursuant to subsection 91(2) of the Code, an illegal strike did occur at the CPC facilities in Fort McMurray, Alberta on May 22, 2013”. Therefore, the Corporation sought “a declaration, compensation for its losses, including legal fees and punitive damages” in a hearing – which took place on the 14th January 2016 in Ottawa, Ontario – before Arbitrator Kevin M.Burkett.
Interestingly, there had also been two illegal strikes due to the Postal Transformation initiative of Canada Post. Initially, on the 22nd and 23rd of November 2010, there was a strike in Winnipeg and the second one took place on the 31st of January 2011 in Fort McMurray. The hearings were conducted by Arbitrator Picher, who “ordered compensation for actual losses and awarded punitive damage in the amount of $35,000” against the Union for each case.
Regarding the latest case, Arbitrator Kevin M.Burkett approved the grievance of the Corporation; also damages against the Union were awarded as follows: “1. Punitive damages ($50,000.00), 2. Legal expenses of CIRB proceeding relating to the illegal strike application ($2471.80), 3. Lost revenue at retail facility on Riedel St. ($3970.00).”
The decision on this case appears to be totally justified since Canadian Union of Postal Workers as a representative of the Corporation’s employees should have taken the situation in control and organized an authorized strike instead of the illegal one. Moreover, Arbitrator Kevin levied relatively more amount of money from the Union than his counterpart did in the two previous hearings. This must have happened due to either the Corporation’s losses on the strike on the 22nd of May 2013 were higher than the previous cases or the Union conducted recidivism. As for the first assumption, the strike on the 22nd of May lasted as long as the other two, though the work stoppage in 2010 lasted for two days; therefore, it can be that Arbitrator Kevin decided to punish the Union more severely in the form of higher fine.
Arbitrator Kevin could have imposed more drastic sanctions against the Union, particularly replacing the head of the Union or increasing a punitive damage amount, if he is empowered to issue such sanctions.
- The graph and table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries. 73
- Safety standards are important when building people's homes. Who should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes - the government or the people who build the houses. 67
- The diagrams show a structure that is used to generate electricity from wave power. 73
- Do you agree with the following statement? Parents are the best teachers. 61
- The two graphs show the main sources of energy in the USA in the 1980s and the 1990s. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 768, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Burkett
...wa, Ontario – before Arbitrator Kevin M.Burkett. Interestingly, there had also bee...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... – before Arbitrator Kevin M.Burkett. Interestingly, there had also been two i...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...apos; against the Union for each case. Regarding the latest case, Arbitrator Ke...
^^^
Line 3, column 49, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Burkett
...ing the latest case, Arbitrator Kevin M.Burkett approved the grievance of the Corporati...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l facility on Riedel St. 970.00.' The decision on this case appears to be ...
^^^
Line 4, column 835, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re severely in the form of higher fine. Arbitrator Kevin could have imposed more...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, therefore, as for, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2209.0 1615.20841683 137% => OK
No of words: 420.0 315.596192385 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25952380952 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.20363070211 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03929200939 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516666666667 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 679.5 506.74238477 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 20.2975951904 148% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.6634850331 49.4020404114 159% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.785714286 106.682146367 148% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 20.7667163134 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.01903807615 120% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.67935871743 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 3.9879759519 326% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223578827399 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0791718963672 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660363869334 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122902925026 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0378105002191 0.056905535591 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 13.0946893788 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 50.2224549098 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.82 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 9.78957915832 204% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.1190380762 138% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.