MEMBERS SECTION

Username:    

Password:    

Forgot your password?

NEWS

February 6, 2009

Finally!

Finally!





Yes, finally we inaugurate our secure part of our website.





You will find documents and articles that will help you in your job.





If...

READ MORE


January 14, 2009

Update on Negotiations between Canada Post and the Association of Postal Officials of Canada (APOC)

Negotiations between Canada Post and APOC continued, with meetings


held from November 17 to 28, and from December 4 to 12, 2008.





The...

READ MORE


January 13, 2009

Sales-Serves Job Evaluation Plan

After the Operations questionnaire was again validated, in last November


and December, APOC and CPC have continued to work on the development...

READ MORE


November 4, 2008

UPCE possible strike

It is possible that the Union of Postal Communications Employees will be on


strike soon.





As you know, you must cross the picket line to...

READ MORE


November 3, 2008

APOC Job Evaluation Plan project focus groups

As you know, we will be conducting further testing of the revised Job


Information Questionnaire during the week of November 17 – 21.


Communication...

READ MORE


February 10, 2009

SENSITIVE MATERIAL DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.

SENSITIVE MATERIAL DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.


WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CORPORATION THAT WE WILL ONLY


PUBLISH JOINT COMMUNIQUE. THIS WILL HELP YOU TO ANSWER


QUESTIONS FROM YOUR MEMBERS.





Why don’t we get any information about negotiations?


What are our demands?


What is happening at the table?





The members of the executive and the members of the bargaining team are


often asked these questions, and it is not surprising. It is only natural for


us to want information, and to know what the effects will be on us


individually. We understand the frustration of not knowing.





The Interest Based Negotiation Process that we use does not lend itself to


providing answers to these questions. The process is based on frank and


open dialogue between the parties and calls for solutions to be suggested


by anyone in the room. It calls for the participants to throw in whatever


idea comes to mind regardless of what one supposes the ramifications


could be. Without confidentiality people would be reluctant to share some


of those innovative ideas.





At the start of the process, each side has issues that need to be resolved.


In the traditional type of bargaining each team would develop ‘DEMANDS’,


which would be a list of solutions to the problems/needs that they had


determined their issues to be. These lists were exchanged with very little


dialogue, and then the parties would break off to ponder their response to


the other side’s demands. When they met again, the two sides would


exchange new lists of demands based on their responses and the process


would commence again. Traditionally only the Chief Spokesman for each


team spoke during these sessions.





In the interest based model, the parties do not exchange pre determined


solutions (demands), but rather share their issues with the other party.


(What needs to be fixed and why, or what they need). At various stages in


the process, any and every one in the room suggests possible solutions,


and finally the group as a whole evaluates those solutions as to whether


or not they solve the problem and whether or not they can be


implemented. This last step would include each team assessing whether or


not they could get a buy on from their constituents.





The process is not followed in a linear fashion, for example all of the issues


are shared first. These are usually framed in a manner which tells


everyone the direction but lacks specifics. The next step is to categorize


these issues and determine the order in which to proceed. Usually a


generic grouping would be housekeeping – which would include minor


language corrections, revision of dates etc., the next group is often the


non-monetary items, a lot of these actually do have cost implications, and


finally the monetary issues which include compensation and benefits.





After the grouping and order is determined the participants begin to


discuss the interests under each issue which provides the road maps, and


then they generate the options (proposed solutions). The final step in the


process is to evaluate the options and attempt to come to agreements on


the solutions. The generating and evaluating of options is usually, but not


always done within the groupings, before moving to the next group.











Invariably at some point during the negotiations, the parties have to revert


to the traditional type global offer to resolve the outstanding issues.





Since the entire process needs everyone’s participation and the issues stay


open for some time without closure, confidentiality on the discussions is a


must. As I said earlier, without that assurance of confidentiality the


parties would be reluctant to share some of the ideas at all and wouldn’t


share others at an early enough stage in the discussions for both teams to


see/understand the whole picture.





Although the parties may agree in principal on some items as we move


through the process, nothing is officially agreed to until the end, and


therefore there can be no sharing of the specifics at the table until the end


of the process.





At the end of the process any issues that the parties can not agree on will


be taken to an Arbitrator for Final Offer Selection- Binding Arbitration. In


this type of arbitration, the arbitrator chooses either one side’s solutions or


the other’s. There is no jurisdiction to take pieces of each of the Final


Offer’s, only to take one in its entirety. This practice forces each side to be


very realistic in formulating their final offer, to ensure they can be


successful.

Previous  Next


Serving you at the York branch

2750 14th Avenue Unit G14, Unionville, On, L3R 0B6

google apocyork

Phone 905-479-5950

Fax 905-479-4290