1. law, govt and politics

MANAGEMENT CREATING UNDERTIME BY CURTAILING MAIL
Can management curtail mail on an assignment to create undertime and then
give a pivot required to be done on undertime within 8 hours?
The Branch 38 position is no and a grievance must be filed when this occurs.
* * * * *
Undertime for an assignment realistically can only be determined at the end of a tour after a
carrier has completed all of his/her duties as outlined in the M-41 Handbook. In other words,
if a carrier completes their entire assignment, as bid, and returns to the office 45 minutes
before their scheduled end of tour, then there is 45 minutes of undertime that management
may utilize as defined in the M-39 Handbook. It is that measurable undertime which
management may utilize by assigning a pivot for the carrier to perform.
Management may utilize it’s estimate tool known as DOIS to assess the availability of any
downtime but that program is not the final arbiter of whether or not downtime exists. Carriers
are under no contractual obligation to meet the estimates or expectations of the DOIS
program, nor can management require Carriers to meet DOIS estimates or expectations.
Management relies on Postal Operations Manual Section 645 for justification of its pivoting
plan. That section reads thusly (emphasis added);
646
Management
646.1 Pivoting Definition
Pivoting is a method of utilizing the undertime of one or several carriers to
perform duties on a temporary vacant route or to cover absences.
Non-preferential mail may be curtailed within delivery time standards on the
vacant route and/or on the route of the carriers being pivoted.
646.2 Pivoting Usage
Pivoting is not limited to periods when mail volume is light and when
absences are high, but also can be utilized throughout the year for
maintaining balanced carrier workloads.
While the above language allows for pivoting it does not, and should not be read or
interpreted to justify circumvention of Article 41, Section 1.C.4 of the National Agreement
which reads as follows (emphasis added);
4.
The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted.
Unanticipated circumstances may require a temporary change in
assignment. This same rule shall apply to Carrier Technician
assignments, unless the local agreement provides otherwise.
In pre-arbitration settlement M-01292 the parties agreed that application of Section 646.1
(formerly Section 617.2) does not change the provisions of Article 41, Section 1.C.4 of the
National Agreement.
Management will also argue “unanticipated circumstances” justify curtailment of mail to
artificially create undertime. The following arbitration decisions address that argument and
support the Union contention of the primacy of Article 41 Section 1.C.4.
C-16483
George R. Shea Jr.
•
C-03633
A90N-4A-C 96006017
Staten Island, NY
“An unanticipated condition, by definition, cannot be one which is known,
deliberately created or planned by the Service prior to its occurrence” (pg. 7)
J. Fred Holly
S1N-3U-C 10496
Houston, Texas
•
“under the National Agreement, unanticipated circumstances do not
automatically sanction a temporary change in assignment. The clear wording
of the clause is that such circumstances may require a temporary change in
assignment. This is permissive language, and it contemplates that
Management will order such a temporary change only if other alternative
means are unavailable or unworkable, the temporary assignment being a
matter of last resort.” (pg. 6)
•
“The only unanticipated circumstance revealed by the record is an
unanticipated absence which was made known on the morning in question.
Unanticipated absences of this nature occur in the Postal Service with
considerable frequency and Management is fully experienced in covering such
vacancies. In other words, such a vacancy in and of itself hardly constitutes a
circumstance of such proportions to justify the invocation of emergency
procedures which would suspend basic contractual provisions.” (pg.6)
C-23458
Jerome H. Ross
C98N-4C-C 02138830
Toledo, Ohio
•
“Arbitral guidance establishes the test for unanticipated circumstances as
whether the occasion constitutes “an anticipatory event, and therefore one
which supervisors should be able to plan around”. (S4N-3W-C 23922 Britton
1988). (pg.8)
•
“The purpose of this test is to maintain “the integrity of a Carrier’s bid
assignment…so that an employee can plan on performing his bid assignment
each day…The Supervisor in charge…should not be allowed to work pivoting
of regularly assigned Carriers into his or her Management plan for avoiding
overtime pay or equalizing Carriers on a permanent, long term basis”. (G90N4G-C 94067055 Dennis 1996). (pg.8)
•
“The evidence clearly indicates that management regularly used pivoting to
plan around anticipated circumstances. Moreover, management forced
carriers to pivot when there was no indication that the work on their own routes
was light. Such use of pivoting violated Article 41.1.C.4 requirement that
carriers work their bid assignment unless circumstances arise and present a
need for their temporary change in assignment”. (pg.8-9)
C-25392
Colman R. Lalka
C01N-4C-C 02249902
Toledo, Ohio
•
“While Article 3 does grant Management the right to direct the work force, in
doing so Management is subject to all other provisions of the Parties’ Labor
Agreement”. (pg.4)
•
“Article 41.1C.4 is clear, and provides Carriers shall work their Duty
Assignments as posted unless unanticipated circumstances exist that require
a temporary change”. (pg.6)
This arbitration decision cites a number of additional cases involving pivoting which should
be reviewed.
DID THE SERVICE VIOLATE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ARTICLES 5, 8, 19 AND 41 OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY ARTIFICAILLY CREATING UNDERTIME
AND REQUIRING CARRIERS TO PIVOT?
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE NALC POSITION
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE USPS POSITION
M-1292
._~__
LAEOR RELATIONS
,
SI
..
UNITEDSTATES
POSTAL SERVICE
RECEIVED
Mr. William H. Young
Vice President
National Association of
Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
I 0 0 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
Re: F94N-4F-C 97005324
CLASS ACTION
LIVERMORE, CA 94550-9998
Dear Mr. Young:
Recently, you met with Nora Becker in a pre-arbitration discussion of the above-referenced
case, currently pending national arbitration.
The issue in this grievance is whether management violated the National Agreement when it
utilized routers in undertime basis to perform delivery duties.
After reviewing this matter, we mutually agreed that no national interpretive issue is fairly
presented in this case.
The parties agreed that application of section 617.2, Pivoting, of the Postal Operations Manual
(POM) does not change the provisions of Article 41, Section 1.C.4. of the National Agreement.
Routers must be kept on their bid assignment and not moved off the duties in the bid
description unless there is an undertime situation, or in "unanticipated circumstances."
Accordingly, we agreed to remand this case to the parties at Step 3 for further processing and
application of the above understanding.
Please sign and return the enclosed copy of this decision as your acknowledgment of
agreement to remand this case, removing it from the national arbitration listing.
Sincerely,
Pete Bazylewicd
Manager
Grievance and Ar
Labor Relations
/
William H. Young- //
/-)
v
Vice President
National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL-CIO
Date:
475 L'ENFurT PULI sw
W~wi~orarr
DC 20260-4100
7/2&7
Cam" o X30 9
In the Matter of Arbitration Between
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS , AFL-CIO
N ALC
1,-x.!1?
Arbitration File No . S4N-3W-C-23922
NALC GTS-3A-86-435
Class Action
Tampa, Florida
MAY 161988
tJU Lb
Before the Arbitrator Raymond L . Britton
WAYNE E . WHITE . NSA
ATLANTA REGION
APPEARANCES
Julia Michler, Supervisor , Station & Branches for the Employer
Judson K . Vaughn, Regional Administrative Assistant for the Union
ISSUE
Whether the Employer violated the contract , specifically Article 41, Section 1 .C.4 .
by requiring that a successful bidder on a router position deliver street duties prior to
the casing of the available BBM mail on January 3, . 1986?
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The parties failed to reach agreement on this matter, and it was submitted to
arbitration for resolution . Pursuant to the contractual procedures of the parties, the
undersigned was appointed as Arbitrator to hear and decide the matter in dispute .
The date for the Hearing of this matter was set for January 21, 1988, and the Hearing
was held on that date in Room No. 208, U.S. Post Office, 5201 W . Spruce St., Tampa
Florida. At the commencement of the Hearing , it was stipulated by the parties that this
matter was properly before the Arbitrator for decision and that all steps of the
arbitration procedure had been followed and that the Arbitrator had the authority to
render the decision in this matter . After the Hearing, it was agreed that the United
States Postal Service, (hereinafter referred to as "Employer") and the National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, ( hereinafter referred to as "Union") would
present oral closing arguments in lieu of the submission of Post-Hearing briefs .
Raymond L . Britton , P .C ., Arbitrator
Arbitration Ill . No . 34N - DW-C4 3 922 - Page 2
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Employee R .M. Green was the successful bidderon a router-position which i ncluded
routes 710 , 711, 713, 715, 719, 720, 723 and 724, and was regularly assigned to case all
eight ( 8) routes. On January 3, 1986, he was directed to deliver the street duties on
two routes . A class action grievance was thereafter filed and ! a Step I meeting held on
January 10 , 1986. Pursuant to Article XV of the National Agreement , the grievance wass
appealed to Step 2 of the grievance procedure on January 21, 1986, alleging a violation
of, but not limited to, Articles 3, 5, 15, and 41 lc4 and stating in relevant part as
follows:
Router R . Green was used for auxiliary assistance on routes 07010 and 07018, when
BBM was available for casing .
The Union contention and the reason given for the grievance was that "Management has
violated Article 41, Section 1-C-4 of the 1984 National Agreement by refusing to honor
the router bid . The corrective action requested was that management 'Cease violating
Article 41 Section 1-C-4 . That a carrier on the overtime desired list be paid 8 .06 hours
at the overtime rate . The Senior carrier on the overtime desired list that was off on
Jan . 3, 1986.
A Step 2 meeting was held on January 21, 1986, and a decision rendered on February 7,
1986, which states in relevant part as follows :
Mgt will make & does make every effort to use the router in his bid . However.
there may be on occasion in order to keep from delaying mail due to carrier going
home sick . mgt . may find it necessary to use router for auxiliary assistance . This
was the case in this grievance. Regular carrier went home sick - no PTF carriers
available .
On February 27, 1986, the Step 2 decision was appealed to Step 3 of the grievance
procedure. The reason for the appeal was that 'Router was removed from his bid position
and brought in at 7 :10 A .M . There were two carriers on the O .D .L. that were available
at this time to work .' The corrective action requested was 'That carrier on the O .D.L .
with least opportunitys that was off 1-3-86 be paid 8 .06 hrs at the O .T. Rate.
After a Step 3 Grievance Decision on April 11, 1986, the grievance was appealed to
arbitration on April 28, 1986 .
Provisions of the National Agreement entered into by and between the Employer and the
Union effective December 24, 1984 and to remain in full force and effect to and including
12 midnight July 20, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'National Agreement") (Joint
Exhibit No . 1) considered pertinent to this dispute are as follows :
ARTICLE 3
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The Employer shall have the exclusive right , subject to the provisions of this
Agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations :
Raymond L . Britton , P .C ., Arbitrator
Arbitration Pile No . 94N-3W - C-77922 - Page 3
A . To direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties :
B. To hire , promote , transfer, assign , and retain employees in positions
within the Postal Service and to suspend , demote , discharge .. or take other
disciplinary actions against such employees ;
C. To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it„
D . To determine the methods , means , and personnel by which such operations are
to be conducted ;
E. To prescribe a uniform dress to be worn by letter carriers and other
designated employees, and
F . To take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out its mission in
emergency situations , i .e ., an unforeseen circumstance or a combination of
circumstances which calls for immediate action in a situation which is not expected
to be of a recurring nature .
ARTICLE 41
LETTER CARRIER CRAFT
Section 1 .
Posting
C . Successful Bidder
a e e
4 . The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted.
Unanticipated circumstances may require a temporary change in assignment .
This same rule shall apply to T/6 and utility assignments . unless the local
agreement provides otherwise .
a e e
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Position of the Union
It is the position of the Union that the Employer violated Article 41 of the National
Agreement by working a router out of bid . The Union contends that Article 41, Section
1 .C.4 . requires that a successful bidder work on his duty assignment as posted, and that
no emergency existed as claimed by the Employer to work the router out of bid .
The Position of the Employer
The Employer takes the position that under the circumstances and the situation
presented there was no violation of Article 41 by working a router out of bid . The
Raymond L . Britton , P .C ., Arbitrator
Arbitration file No . 54N - 3W-C-23922 -
P6464
Employer contends that its action was correct and in accordance with Article 3 of the
National Agreement and that it was done to avoid the delay of the mails and to aid in its
movement .
OPINION
Determinative of this matter, in the considered judgment of the Arbitrator, is the
language of the National Agreement, specifically Article 41, Section I .C.4. and that
found in the Implementation Guidelines - Router Program . (Union Exhibit No . 5).
While acknowledging that Article 41, Section 1 .C .4. of the National Agreement states
that "The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted ; the Employer urges
that the following sentence , i.e., 'Unanticipated circumstances may require a temporary
change in assignment ' must also be considered . When so viewed, the Employer urges that
its action was proper as the situation here was unanticipated and an emergency and that
it therefore had to act immediately . Under such circumstances, the Employer maintains
the National Agreement gives it the right to work a router out of bid . The Employer
further argues that its action was taken to avoid inconvenience to its customers and' to
fulfill its primary mission, i .e., timely mail service to the public and therefore was
correct as being within its management rights under Article 3 of the National Agreement .
The difficulty with accepting the foregoing contentions of the Employer as
persuasive, however, is that such arguments are found to be based primarily on the
premise that ' unanticipated circumstances; as required by Article 41, Section I .C .4 of
the National Agreement, exist in the case at hand . It does not seem to the Arbitrator
that in adopting such language it was the intent of the parties that a carrier going home
sick or taking sick leave would constitute 'unanticipated circumstances " within the
meaning of such provision and thereby allow management to require a temporary change in
assignment . The possibility that sickness will occur is an anticipatory event, and
therefore one which supervision should be able to plan around.
While under Article 3 .F . of the National Agreement, management, in 'emergency
situations,' has the right to do whatever is necessary to carry out its mission, it is
noted by the Arbitrator that 'emergency situations' are defined, " . . . as an unforeseen
circumstance or a combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action in a
situation which is not expected to be of a recurring nature .' Sickness, as hereinabove
found by the Arbitrator, is not deemed to possess the characteristics described, and
therefore, in his judgment, does not fall within the definition of 'emergency situations"
found in Article 3 .F . to allow management to take the action here in question . . Further
supportive of this finding, is the language of Part V-E of the Implementation Guidelines
- Router Program (Union Exhibit No . 5) which states in relevant part that 'The router
should remain at his assignment when work is available ; only in extreme emergencies
should he be taken off his bid assignment.'
It is urged by the Employer that management had to act immediately and that as a
result of its action , the public received its mail as soon as possible . Had the router
not gone on the route when the sick carrier came in , the Employer maintains that the mail
would have been delayed two to three hours. The Employer further points out that
customers have the right to expect their mail , and contends that if management waited for
i
Raymond L. Britton, P .C ., Arbitrator
Arbitration F ile No . 34N .3 W-C-23922 - Page i
the PTF's, another situation might have developed that wouldl have further compounded an
already existing problem . In short, the Employer urges the action taken was for the
purpose of furthering its mission , and that under the circumstances here described, the
router was the only individual available at the time . With this, the Arbitrator cannot
agree .
In addition to the option of working PTF's, two other options are shown to have been
available to management . It could have pivoted street time with carriers in the station
or it could have obtained someone from the overtime desired list . Instead , it chose, in
effect, to use the router as if he were a PTF, and to assign him the duties it wished .
This, it cannot properly do under the circumstances here described . There is no
indication from the record submitted that any PTF worked twelve (12) hours or that anyone
on the ODT list worked up to twelve (12) hours .
Based on the above findings , it is the conclusion of the Arbitrator that the action
taken by the Employer was in violation of Article 41, Section 1 .C.4 . of the National
Agreement (Joint Exhibit No . 1) and Part V .E of the Implementation Guidelines - Router
Program (Union Exhibit No . 5).
AWARD
For the reasons given, the grievance is sustained and the Employer directed to
implement the action requested .
April 25, 1988
C -a 1 '~7 91
REGIONAL ARBITRATION PANEL
In the Matter of the Arbitration
Between
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
) GRIEVANT:
Michael Stanton
) POST OFFICE :
Haddonfield, NJ
) LISPS CASE NO : C94N-4C-C 99216894
) NALC CASE NO : 99-03
21941
NALC GTS NO :
BEFORE : Raymond L . Britton, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES :
For the US Postal Service :
George A. Peters
For the Union:
Matthew J . Carroll
Place ofHearing :
U .S . Post Office
Date of Hearing:
February 16, 2001
Record Closed:
March 16, 2001
AWARD :
For the reasons given, the grievance is sustained and it is directed that Michael Stanton be paid two hours
and thirty-five minutes overtime in addition to the two hours and thirty-five minutes he has been paid .
Date ofAward: March 13, 2001
MAR 22 2001
32230H .ddoc
N.A.L.C. HDDRTHS „ M6HWGTDN OFFICE
Raymond L. Britton, P.C ., Arbitrator
Case No . C94N-4C-C 99216894 - Page 2
ISSUE
Should the Grievant, Michael Stanton, be paid two hours and thirty-five minutes overtime in addition to the
two hours and thirty-five minutes he has been paid?
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The parties failed to reach agreement on this matter , and it was submitted to arbitration for resolution . Pursuant to the contractual procedures of the parties, the undersigned was appointed as Arbitrator to hear and decide the
matter in dispute .
At the commencement of the hearing , it was stipulated by the parties that this matter was properly before
the Arbitrator for decision and that all steps of the arbitration procedure had been followed and that the Arbitrator
had the authority to render the decision in this matter . After the hearing, it was agreed that the United States Postal
Service (hereinafter referred to as "Employer ') and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as "Union") would present oral closing arguments in support of their respective positions .
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Stanton (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Grievant ") was a T-6 and a router. On April 15,
1999, the Grievant performed his normal muter duties until his supervisor took him off his assigned route and ordered him to carry 4 hours on route 05 . A grievance was filed and a Step 1 meeting was held on April 29, 1999, and
a Step 1 decision rendered on May 3, 1999 by supervisor Joan Florich.
Pursuant to Article 15 of the National Agreement, the grievance was appealed to Step 2 of the grievance
procedure alleging a violation of , but not limited to, Article 41 .1 .C . 4 and Article 8 .5 C.2 . a of the National Agreement and stating in relevant part as follows (Joint Exhibit No . 2):
FACTS: WHAT HAPPENED- Grievant was forced to perform duties off his bid assignment even
though there was work available for him to do on his assignment and sufficient overtime and PTF
carriers available to complete the duties .
UNION CONTENTIONS : REASONS FOR GRIEVANCE-Violationof Article 41-1-C .4 which stipulates carrier shall work the duty assignment as posted and no unanticipated circumstances were
evident . Violation ofArticle 8-5 .C2 -A in that carrier on the overtime desire list were not afforded
the opportunity to perform the duties.
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTED : 2.35 hours of pay at overtime rate to Grievant. 2.35
hours of pay at overtime rate to carriers on overtime list to be dispersed by Local Union Representative.
sow
On May 27, 1999, Patricia Whelan, Postmaster, in a letter to James Feldbauer , Local NALC Union Representative, Re : Grievance #99-09, Step 2 , stated in relevant part as follows ( Joint Exhibit No. 2) :
sss
Raymond L. Britton , P.C ., Arbitrator
Cue No . C94N-4C-C 99216894 - Page 3
Section 1 . C.4 and Article 8 section
The Union alleges that management violated Article 41the
Grievant was assigned duties off of
5.C.2A of the National Agreement on April 15, 1999 when
his bid assignment.
My response is to deny this grievance.
to work his bid assignment as stated
It is management 's position that the grievant was permitted
.00
feet
of flats available for the grievant to
in Article 41 Section 1 .C.4. On this day there were 5
This
equates
to about one hour and fifteen
.
the
street
case after the other carriers had left for
16
and began casing this mail.
:
his
lunch
break
at
10
returned
from
minutes of work. The grievant
him
nearly
two
hours to complete his asHe did not leave for the street until 12:15. This gave
management's
right to assign
.
It
is
signment. He spent time casing on each ofhis assigned routes
. Mans
available
workload
is
less
than
an
eight
hour
assignment
other duties when an individual '
.
agement did this by assigning street auxiliary assistance to the Grievant
]find no violation of the National Agreement. This grievance is denied .
∎r .
. O'Malley,
On August 16, 1999, Kelly Lewis Barlow, Labor Relations Specialist , in a letter to Timothy C
.
2)
:
National Business Agent, stated in relevant part as follows (joint Exhibit No
contractual grievance
Recently, the above referenced grievance was discussed at Step 3 of ouras well as the applicable
,
union
concerning
this
grievance
procedure . The matter presented by the
contractual provisions , have been reviewed and given careful consideration .
his bid assignThe grievance alleges that management forced the grievant to perform duties off
ment.
fully addresses all
It is Management 's position that the Step 2 response proffered by management
of
a contractual viounion
's
claim
relevant contentions in this matter and sufficiently refutes the
.
lation. No contractual violation has been established
. Accordingly, the grievThe remedy requested is inappropriate considering the facts of the case
ance is denied.
s) pertaining to the National Agreement
In the opinion of the Postal Service, no interpretive issue (
application
is involved in this case . Thereor some supplement thereto which may be of general
area
level
arbitration
in accordance with the provifore, this case may be appealed directly to
sions ofArticle 15 of the National Agreement.
On August 19, 1999, the grievance was appealed to arbitration .
Raymond L. Britton, P .C., Arbitrator
Case No. C94N-4C-C 99216894 - Page 4
Provisions of the 1998 National Agreement (Joint Exhibit No . 1) considered pertinent to this dispute by the
parties are as follows:
ARTICLE J
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The Employer shall have the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Agreement and consistent with
applicable laws and regulations :
A. To direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties ;
B. To hire, promote, tran sfer, assign, and retain employees in positions within the Postal Service and
to suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary actions against such employees;
C. To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it,
D. To determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted;
ARTICLE 8
HOURS OF WORK
. . .
Section I OvertimeAssignments
aa .
C.1.a. When during the quarter the need for overtime arises, employees with the necessary skills
having listed their names will be selectedfrom the "Overtime Desired" list
ARTICLE 41
LETTER CARRIER CRAFT
Section L posting
. . .
C. SuccessfulBidder
. . .
4. The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted. Unanticipated circumstances
may require a temporary change in assignment. This same rule shall apply to T/6 and utility assignments,
unless the local agreement provides otherwise.
a..
Raymond L. Britton , P.C ., Arbitrator
Case No. C94N-4C-C 99216894- Page 5
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Position of the Union
It is the position of the Union that the Grievant did not work his bid assignment as assigned and was arbitrarily pulled off his route job to fill an open route, due to shortages in manpower . The Union contends that management was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable in its decision to move the Grievant from his assigned duties to
a letter carrier route. The Union further contends that the action of management violated Articles 8 .5 C.2 . and 41 .1 .
C . 4 of the National Agreement and by way of remedy requests that the Grievant be awarded 2 .35 additional hours
of overtime .
The Position of the Employer
The Employer takes the position dig sufficient and unexpected circumstances existed for management to
invoke its rights under Article 3 of the National Agreement to assign the Grievant to another assignment The Employer contends that the unexpected circumstance here was that the Grievant did not have sufficient mail to continue
to work in his capacity as a router so for the sake of efficiency management decided it would be better if he did carrier work . The Employer contends that the requested remedy is inappropriate as the Grievant did not suffer any
monetary loss and the circumstances were neither arbitrary , capricious nor reoccurring. The Employer contends that
this grievance is submitted for the express purpose of usurping management 's rights and to provide unwarranted enrichment to the Grievant.
OPINION
Ultimately controlling the disposition of this matter is the language contained in Article 41 .1 .C. 4 . of the
National Agreement As provided therein , carriers shall work the duty assignment as posted unless unanticipated
circumstances require a temporary change in assignment
It is stipulated by management that it is required to pay the two hours and thirty-five minutes that the
Grievant worked overtime and that this is to be shared with the employees on the Overtime Desired List. For determination by the Arbitrator is whether the Grievant should be paid an additional 2 .35 hours for the work done on
April 15, 1999, for which he has already been compensated.
The Employer contends that "sufficient circumstances" existed for management to invoke its rights under
Article 3 to assign employee Stanton to another assignment . In this regard , it is urged by the Employer that under
circumstances in which there is insufficient mail available for the router to case, it is allowable to have the router
perform street duties. The Employer contends that the Grievant was allowed to sufficiently work his normal assignment until such time as it was determined that the employee's workload did not constitute eight (8) hours of labor .
Notwithstanding the contention of the Employer to the contrary, the record submitted, in the judgment of
the Arbitrator, does not convincingly establish that unanticipated circumstances existed within the meaning of Article 41 .1 .C.4 . as to require a temporary change in assignment
Postmaster Patricia Whalen is shown to have testified that the decision to have the Grievant go on the street
was made at 9 :30 o'clock a.m . At that time there was five feet of mail to case and, according to Postmaster Whalen,
the Grievant was given sufficient time to complete the casing of the mail and was then to go on the street . Postmaster Whalen further testified that there was nothing extraordinary about the composition of the mail that day .
. on April 15
Supervisor Joan Florich testified that she told the Grievant between 9 and 9 :30 o'clock a .m
volume
.
She
stated
that
there
must be enough
because
of
the
mail
that he would be taken off his router assignment
Raymond L. Briton, P .C., Arbitrator
Case No. C94N-4C-C 99216894 - Page 6
. . As the Grievant
mail volume for him to complete his eight (8) hour tour and the volume must be there to perform
and he would be on
had five feet of mail at 9 :30, she calculated an hour and a quarter to complete this assignment
. Supervisor Florich testi:
15
did
not
go
on
the
street
until
12
,
.
The
Grievant,
however
00
or
11
:15
the street by 11 :
fied that the Grievant was casing mail from 11 :15 to 12 : 15, and although he is above standard in casing mail and is
. Even with marriage mail cards , according
an excellent caser , it took him two (2) hours, and he missed his standard
.
As
described by Supervisor Florich , the router
15
:
to Supervisor Florich , the Grievant should have been done by 12
If
there
is
not
enough
mail
for
him
as
a
muter,
he
carries the mail .
position is not automatic .
While the muter position may not be automatic , it nevertheless differs from that of a PTF or casual . A
router cannot be removed from his job and placed on the street unless " unanticipated circumstances " are found to
of placing the router on the street beexist. Absent the existence of such circumstances , the action of management
Only
when at the end of his tour as router,
.
fore he has completed his router duties may justly be viewed as arbitrary
.
may
he
be
placed
on
the
street
and there is no more mail for him to route ,
Here, prior to the end of the Grievant's tour as router, management pulled him off his bid assignment and
forced him to go on the street after it was determined that the employee's workload did not constitute eight (8) hours
that there was not sufficient work at that
of labor . However, as testified by Supervisor Florich, the determination
There
was
no
physical
count
of the mail nor was any other recogtime was based on speculation and guesswork .
nized method used to assure accuracy as to the quantity of mail .
The Grievant testified that there was mail for him to case at the time he was put on the street and that he
had enough mail to keep him employed on the router bid assignment for at least eight ( 8) hours. Mr. Stanton also
Union Exhibit No. 4, which is a
testified that at 12 :15 on April 15, he had marriage mail cards and flats to route .
volume breakdown for that day, appears to confirm there was mail for the Grievant to route and to complete his tour
at the time he was put on the street. Clearly, if mail was still there , the Grievant had not completed his router responsibility .
The Employer argues that management endeavored to assist the Grievant and allowed him more than ample
time to complete his duties but according to the formula applied by Supervisor Flores, the Grievant did not work up
to his normal standards . Not only is it difficult to reconcile this testimony with the testimony of Supervisor Florich
that the Grievant is excellent at casing and is above standard in casing mail but no reason is shown why on this particular day the Grievant would choose not to work up to his normal standard.
In his testimony the Grievant acknowledges that management had to make some determination as to
whether there was 8 hours of mail and that such determination is not an exact science . Testimony and exhibits,
. The Grievant testihowever, indicate there was adequate volume for the Grievant to complete his bid assignment
fied that he probably had his full supply of mail for the day, which is approximately 8 and one half feet . For management to guess what mail the Grievant had and the time he could finish it seriously undermines the validity of its
action .
It is indicated by the evidence that there was enough mail for the router to work and when he finished his
assignment he would have been able to carry the route . Instead , he was arbitrarily pulled off his job assignment
when there appears to have been sufficient carriers on the "Overtime Time Desired " list who were not maximized,
and who could have helped complete route 05 .
Based on the foregoing findings, the Arbitrator is constrained to conclude that management violated Article
41 .1 .C .4 as "unanticipated circumstances " did not exist to warrant the invocation by management of its rights under
Article 3 to assign employee Stanton to another assignment . While under Article 3, management has the right to direct employees and to maintain efficiency ", such right, as expressed in the first paragraph, is subject to the provisions of the National Agreement .
Raymond L. Briton, P . C., Arbitrator
Case No . C94N-4C-C 99216894-Page 7
As the action taken by management is found to have been in violation of Article 41 .1 .C. 4, it is appropriate
that some form of remedial relief be granted . Although the Employer argues that an award of 2 .35 additional hours
of overtime is inappropriate, as the Grievant did not suffer any monetary loss, the Arbitrator finds that a monetary
damage award is justified as the action of the Employer invaded the contractual rights of the Grievant and is shown
to be reoccurring . So viewed, the Arbitrator cannot agree with the contention of the Employer that the Union is endeavoring to usurp management ' s rights and provide unwarranted or unjust enrichment to the Grievant.
C
REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL
(
In the Matter of the Arbitration )
(
)
(
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE )
between
and
(
)
-zo
- ~s6
Grievant : CLASS ACTION
Post Office : Westwego, LA
Case No . :
(
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
LETTER CARRIERS,
AFL-CIO
)
(
BEFORE :
RODNEY
J_'
G90N-4G -C-94067055
GTS-007692
E . DENNIS, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES :
For US Postal Service : LARRY LEEHANS - Labor Relations Specialist
For the Union :
Place of Hearing :
Date of Hearing :
AWARD :
GEORGE COOPER - Local
Business Agent, NALC
Westwego, LA
May 21, 1996
The Postal Service has
The grievance is denied .
a right to curtail third class mail in order to
pivot a Letter Carrier to save overtime and
deliver preferential mail on time .
Date of Award : July 11, 1996
JUL 2
919 6
ME :Vt r ; ; r : _ sort
N AA . (' .
i
2
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
At the beginning of the work day on June 30, 1994, Letter
Carrier Larry Robinett was instructed to curtail one half hour of
third class bulk business mail on his Route (9410) so that he
could pivot one half hour on Route 9414 . The Carrier assigned to
Route 9414 had completed a Form 3966 requesting one half hour of
overtime in order to complete his route . Quite simply, the
Supervisor was making a decision to curtail third class mail on
one route to make sure that first class mail was delivered on
time on an overloaded route, without paying overtime .
The affected Carrier, L .W . Robinett who is also a union
official, filed a grievance protesting the practice of pivoting
under the circumstances present in this case, i .e ., curtailing
mail on one route so that the Carrier can pivot on another . The
grievance was denied at each level and has resulted in this
arbitration .
THE ISSUE
Did the Postal Service violate the
Collective Bargaining Agreement when
it directed Letter Carrier Robinett
to curtail third class mail on his
route and pivot on another Carrier's
route? if so, what is the appropriate
remedy?
3
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
At issue here is not whether the Postal Service has the
right to pivot Letter carriers in an attempt to utilize Carriers
with undertime or to balance the Carrier's workload .
Rather, the
question is can the Postal Service curtail mail on one Carrier's
route so that it can pivot that Carrier in order to avoid paying
overtime to another Carrier?
In the instant case, Letter Carrier Robinett was casing a
complete door - to-door delivery of K&B circulars .
need of auxiliary assistance ,
route
( 9410 )
He was not in
but planned to case and deliver his
in the eight hours assigned . He was instructed by
Supervisor Key, however ,
to curtail one half hour of the K&B
circulars and six catalogs .
Supervisor Key instructed Robinett to pivot on Route 9414
for one half hour in order to avoid paying the Carrier on that
route one half hour of overtime .
this tactic ,
Carrier Robinett questioned
but proceeded to comply ,
as directed .
He then filed
a grievance that is the topic of this arbitration .
While Carrier Robinett may have a legitimate complaint that
he should not be taken off his route to work on another route, he
does not have a legitimate Contract grievance . It is well
settled by a number of Postal Arbitrators that Management has a
4
right to direct the workforce and specify how the mail will be
delivered .
In regard to the facts of the instant case, I see no basis
on which to conclude that the Postal Service did not have a right
to do what it did . There is no rule, regulation, or Contract
clause that prohibits the Postal Service from curtailing third
class mail in order to avoid the need to pay overtime to a
Carrier . Neither is there a rule, regulation, or Contract clause
that prohibits the Postal Service from curtailing nonpreferential
mail on the route of the Carrier being pivoted . In short, there
is no question that the Postal Service has the right to pivot in
order to balance Carriers '
workloads and, on many occasions, the
outcome will be to avoid paying overtime .
While the specific grievance involved in this case is
denied, the issue of pivoting to save money bears further comment . The Postmaster at Westwego stated that he instituted a
pivoting policy to save money and to get the mail delivered in
the most economical and efficient manner . One cannot fault the
Postmaster for his desire to run an efficient operation, but he
should also keep in mind his obligations in other areas as well .
The Supervisor of Mails has an obligation to respect the
integrity of a Carrier's bid assignment and to schedule the work
in such a way so that an employee can plan on performing his bid
assignment each day in the manner that it is established . On
5
occasion ,
it is understood that all employees may have to deviate
in one way or another from established routines in order to get
the mail delivered on time . The Supervisor in charge ,
however,
should not be allowed to work pivoting of regularly assigned
Carriers into his or her Management plan for avoiding overtime
pay or equalizing Carriers on a permanent ,
long -term basis .
Carrier ' s have a right to expect that they will be allowed to
work their bid assignments ,
as designated .
Regulations require that Carriers '
close to eight hours as possible .
over or under eight hours ,
routes be established as
If a route is consistently
those routes should be adjusted . They
should not be maintained out of adjustment on a permanent basis
and adjusted on a planned basis through pivoting .
Such a prac-
tice is not within the spirit of Postal regulations or the
Collective Bargaining Agreement .
Pivoting is a procedure that is
used to balance Carriers ' workloads on a temporary basis . It
should not be used as a permanent ,
preplanned approach for
running the Post Office .
The Postmaster in Westwego said that he introduced pivoting
to save money .
He has a right to schedule work as he thinks
6
appropriate .
He does not have a right, however, to ignore the
spirit and intent of Postal regulations to achieve his ends .
AWARD
The instant grievance
is denied .
Rodney' S . Denn
Arbitrator
July 11, 1996
V
d ;56 to g /0 a3
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN : )
United States Postal Service )
and
)
National Association of Letter Carriers )
AFL-CIO,
Branch
283
)
Opinion and Award
in
S1N-3U-C 4096
A . Guillory (Class)
Houston, Texas
ARBITRATOR :
J . Fred Holly
HEARING DETAILS :
Date : July 12, 1983
Place : Houston, Texas
POST HEARING BRIEFS :
Date of Submission : August 1, 1983
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer :
Charles Gonzales, Labor Relations Representative
For the Union :
Prissy Grace, Local Business Agent
ISSUE :
The stipulated issue follows :
Did the Postal Service violate the National
Agreement by assigning a T-6 Carrier outside
his bid assignment? If so, what is the
proper remedy?
2
BACKGROUND :
On September 18, 1982, T-6 Carrier, T . Quinters , was moved by super-
vision from his brace ( routes 2207, 2217 , 2235, 2215 and 2202 ) to serve
route 2214 . On the morning of the 18th Management received a sick call
from a T-6 Carrier who was assigned to carry route 2217 on that date .
Thereupon , the Superintendent of Station Operations approached Mr . Quinters
and asked him if he would mind carrying the absentee ' s route . Mr . Quinters
agreed to do so . At that point in time Mr . Quinters had completed casing
his own route ( 2217 ) .
He then cased and carried the absentee ' s route
(2214 ) . Route 2217 was carried by PTF Carrier Cisneros .
The subject grievance was filed in protest of the assignment of
Mr . Quinters to a route outside his brace . The grievance requested a
cessation of the "practice " and the granting of administrative leave to
PTF Carrier Cisneros .
At the hearing the latter claim was withdrawn by
the Union advocate .
PERTINENT CONTRACT PROVISIONS :
Article 41 , Section 1 , C 4 of the National Agreement provides :
4 . The successful bidder shall work their duty
Unanticipated circumassignment as posted .
stances may require a temporary change in
This same rule shall apply to
assignment .
T-6 and utility assignments , unless the
local agreement provides otherwise .
The Local Memorandum of Agreement at Supplemental Agreements A, 10
provides :
3
10 . T-6 and utility carriers shall work their
duty assignments as posted and awarded
during installation -wide bidding .
UNION CONTENTIONS :
The major contention of the Union is that Item A 10 of the Local
Agreement uses the strongest possible language in providing that T-6
Carriers shall work their duty assignments as posted and bid . This provision contains no exceptions , and it was deliberately worded by the
negotiators to omit the " unanticipated circumstances " language contained
in Article 41, Section 1, C 4 of the National Agreement .
Further, says
the Union , if the Arbitrator agrees that unanticipated circumstances
may give supervision the right to move a T - 6 from his / her bid assignment
such would be inapplicable here since true unanticipated circumstances
did not exist .
The supervisor who made the move was unable to "explain
anything that was sudden , unusual and not of a recurring nature ." The
fact is that this was a " normal" response of Management since this was
the third time during the month of September 1982 that this same T-6 had
been moved from his brace .
Next, the Union contends that it was unnecessary to move the T-6
to fill the vacancy since other "legal " options were available .
A part-
time employee could have been assigned to the vacant route . PTF Carrier
Cisneros could have cased and carried the vacant route and returned to
the Station in time to make his assigned collection run . Also, assistance, if necessary , could have been obtained from employees on the overtime desired list .
4
Moreover, says the Union, no significance can be attached to the
Employer contention that the T-6 volunteered for the disputed assignment .
There is nothing in the Local or National Agreement that sanctions such
a voluntary change .
Finally, the Union challenges the Employer position that the
issue is moot since the practice has been changed . The Union must police
the Agreement, and it has no assurance that the Employer has changed the
practice . A favorable arbitration award is necessary to guarantee its
demise .
EMPLOYER CONTENTIONS :
The Employer contends that Management's action in this case was
permissible under the provisions of Article 41, Section 1, C 4 of the
National Agreement which allows temporary changes in assignment . It
further provides that such changes may be required by unanticipated circumstances, and the same rule applies to T-6s "unless the Local Agreement provides otherwise ." The Employer then asserts that "underlying
circumstances" necessitated the change in the disputed assignment . When
the sick call was received, all other Carriers had assignments with the
exception of PTF Cisneros, who was not scheduled to report until 4 :30 p .m .
to make a collection run . Moreover, Mr . Cisneros was unable to report
earlier than 10 :00 a .m . Hence, he did not have time to case and carry
the vacant route and meet his 4 :30 p .m . assignment . Moreover, the vacancy
5
was unanticipated and the "practice " was not a usual one . In fact, the
practice has been abandoned and this renders the issue herein moot .
Moreover , says the Employer , the Union ' s requested remedy is
inappropriate .
To hold that T-6 Carriers and all other full-time Carriers
will carry their bid assignments , would be violative of Article 41, Section
1, C 4 of the National Agreement which states that unanticipated circumstances may require temporary changes in assignment .
Finally, the Employer contends that the Union improperly raised
the applicability of the Local Memorandum for the first time at the
hearing . Since this consideration was not addressed or presented during
the grievance process, it is now estopped from presenting it in arbitration . Moreover , if the Union had expressed this concern at Steps 2 or
3 Management would have considered it to be an interpretative issue and
would have referred it to Step 4 of the grievance procedure under the
provisions of Article 15, Section 4, B 5 of the National Agreement .
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
This grievance must be sustained for either one of two reasons .
First, Article 41, Section 1, C 4 provides that a successful bidder
shall work his/her duty assignment unless unanticipated circumstances
may require a temporary change in assignment .
The Employer , as pre-
viously noted relies heavily on this language and contends that the
disputed temporary assignment was required by unanticipated circumstances .
6
The only unanticipated circumstance revealed by the record is an unanticipated absence which was made known on the morning in question .
Unanticipated absences of this nature occur in the Postal Service with
considerable frequency and Management is fully experienced in covering
such vacancies . In other words, such a vacancy in and of itself hardly
constitutes a circumstance of such proportions to justify the invocation of emergency procedures which would suspend basic contractual provisions . More to the point, however, is the fact that under the National
Agreement, unanticipated circumstances do not automatically sanction a
temporary change in assignment . The clear wording of the clause is that
such circumstances may require a temporary change in assignment . This
is permissive language, and it contemplates that Management will order
such a temporary change only if other alternative means are unavailable
or unworkable, the temporary assignment being a matter of last resort .
It is clear from the evidence that supervision did not seek to
fill the vacancy by surveying alternative solutions . It took the easy
course and did what it had twice done previously in the same week of
this action . Such actions meet neither the letter nor the spirit of
Article 41, Section 1, C 4 of the National Agreement .
To Management's
credit, however, is the fact that it has recanted since September 1982
and T-6 Carrier assignments at the Station are no longer being temporarily changed .
7
Secondly ,
the Local Memorandum of Understanding speaks unequivo-
cally on this issue . It holds that T-6s " shall work their duty assignments as posted and awarded during installation-wide bidding ." This
language is mandatory and no exceptions to it are enumerated in the
Memorandum .
Moreover ,
the negotiators of the National Agreement provided
in Article 41, Section 1, C 4 that the Local Agreement might contain provisions different than those set forth in the National Agreement . This
clearly means that the Local Agreement can go beyond the provisions of
Article 41 , Section 1 ,
C 4 of the National Agreement and the local pro-
visions will be honored .
Hence, the quoted provision of the Local
Memorandum prohibits that which was done in the instant case .
It may be true ,
as the Employer contends ,
in view of Management ' s recantation .
that the issue is moot
I am unwilling to dismiss the
grievance on this ground , however, since the Union has no assurance that
the "practice " will not be reinstituted at some future date by some subsequent Manager .
A positive ruling will put an end to the matter .
Finally, there is nothing in the record to prove that the Union
did not raise the issue of the applicability of the Local Memorandum
prior to the hearing .
Moreover , the Employer did not raise 'e the defense
in the hearing and addressed it only in the post hearing brief . Therefore , this defense is not available to the Employer .
8
AWARD :
The Arbitrator hereby Awards as follows :
The Postal Service violated the National Agreement
and the Local Memorandum of Understanding by assigning a T-6 Carrier outside his bid assignment . The
Employer shall desist in such action in the future .
Knoxville , Tennessee
August
5,
1983
J . Fred Holly, Arbit
1-6/33
OWM
g
c_
Rmllnnxto
In the Matter of Arbitration between
0911mo 14NO RbARD
United States Postal Service
Rochester , New York
Milton Schwartz
ROCHESTER,
%
A .
N . E . 1561
National Association of Letter Carriers
Rochester Branch, No . 210
a
and
d ,3 00/
The case to be arbitrated involves "Milton Schwartz, et al, Rochester,
New York, concerning allegations to the effect that pivoting caused
curtailment on a regular route", with the parties agreeing "that the
decision in this case will resolve the grievances concerning the same
issue filed by the 45 grievants whose names are on the attached list ."
(Letter of June 19, 1973, addressed to the undersigned arbitrator and
jointly signed by 2h• . Darrell F . Brown and James H . Rademacher .)
The parties met for the hearing in Rochester, New York, on July 19,
.
1973 A transcript was taken and it was understood that the parties would
submit summation briefs within three weeks of submission of it . The
transcript was slow in coming, not arriving until mid-October . It was
badly garbled, although, together with notes taken and the briefs,
including rebuttal briefs, it is possible to proceed to the final
conclusion . It is to he noted, however, that the Union submitted its
brief on August 14, 1973, without waiting for the transcript . The brief
of the Postal Service was submitted on November 5, 1973, and was received
by the arbitrator on November 8 ; its rebuttal brief was received on
November 20 . The rebuttal brief of the Union was mailed on November 21,
1973, and was received on November 23 .
Appearances for the Postal Service :
Joseph J . Mahon, Jr ., Regional Labor Counsel
John McCarthy ,° Regional Labor Representative , Rochester
Francis 11-hi, Acting Superintendent , Southtotn Station, Rochester
Philip Palermo, Station Superintendent , Southtown Station, Rochester
James Stanton , Regional Labor Relations Representative , Philadelphia
Appearances for the Union :
Bernard R . Murphy, President, Branch 210, Rochester
Thomas Brennan, Executive Vice President
John Co=ons, Steward, Southtown Station ; Rochester
Milton Schwartz, Letter Carrier, (Grievant)
George Roman, Letter Carrier
HEaouW
4N O T \t,1G 49M M
wasa
To AOtt of Hgovt\ Q
W ow. 0% "tit
W1
ROUtE Rc
RovtES wAS cusLM%L-EO .
RTIM~
-2-
.
Theme
.ated
In its simplest form the issue is whether the Postal Service vio?
t, t!lton Schwartz to work on another
any contractual provisions by Pi•o`= o "
d10~-ACED :
route at a tine when work on his own rout U& ~e1A~~ PRt~GLES tE
r, XII, "'`
VII_i rievance it was alleged th2t Articles V I,
n the g r the sections of these articles that it 7
. Later,
:II
ware
violated
:
Xi
claimed were violated were listed as follows
Article VII, Section 2, B
Article
Section
Article VIII,
XII, (from
the5 article With the same number from the
1908 Agreement, incorporated into the 1971 Agreement,
."Reassignments" an
and further identified
under
.)
: Letter Carrier Craft-etc
I
Section A, 4
Section. B, 1, 3, 4
Section C, 4
.XII, (from the article by the*_ number fro n e 1968 as a
Article
F
Agreement,
incorporated into ~the,1971 Agreement nposting,'')
part of Article X-11 and further dentified as
Section D
union, as the grievance was discussed, also claimed that either the
failure
or refusal of the vestal service to negotiate the change in
The
.
work assignment was a violation
cf thr•
_
or +., .,r
t_s rs peco"rized by th-_ Arbitrator
nO Si .t ions GI
the backdrea for err :?ucai
t`.1~ i.
s are set and adjusted foflowing inspections and are
r
delivery
and
a
;or; (in casing nd
P,outes ofto
carrier
eight
hours
of
,
des~~
d
provide
ei
and
related duties) under typical or normal conditivds•
..
, :hen routes era posted
A letter carrier_ obtains his route by bidding bidding
°a• on carrier routes is not constant day in and day out, nor
r,>il delivery is it -uniform throughout the year .
.on
-3-
If a letter carrier has more work on his route on a given day than that
which is normal, the carrier ray be authorized to perform on overtir :
may be given auxiliary assistance (another carrier may be assigned to
give assistance), or be directed to curtail certain mail deliveries
until the next day . If a letter carrier has a light day he ray be given
additional work suitable to his craft . (The arbitrator is not concerned
with the rules regarding this, solely with the contractual legality of
the pivoting which is at issue in this case .)
Pivoting is when letter carriers are assigned to assist in performing
work on other routes , usually owing to absence of other carriers due to
illness or vacations .
No dispute is made about pivoting a letter carrier to another route
when the carrier has excess time (when there are insufficient duties
,on his own route) owing to light volume of mail . Doing this work on
another route might or might not involve overtime .'
Curtailment of deliveries (postponement of deliveries) is not unco . : . .on,
particularly with respect to third-class mail, although first-class
mail is only curtailed under emergencies . The curtailing of third-class
mail deliveries has always been used as a work-leveling device .
Position of the Union
The Union ' s position is that a letter carrier is contractually
entitled to regularity ( certainty ) of assignment , that new duties not
a part of his bid cannot be imposed upon him, certainly not without
negotiating with the Union .
Accordingly , it is contended that a letter
carrier cannot be pivoted to another route when there is enough work
on his own route to keep him busy ; that to impose such an assignment
upon a letter carrier is an improper action of manageri ent .
The Union contends that the Postal Service , in violation of the
Agreement , instituted a new work procedure which adds additional work
to routes of letter
r carriers .
It argues that manage ment does not have
an unrestricted right to reassign letter carriers , t_et there was no
emergency , that management found itself i n the situation from which
it attettpt •ad to extricate itself by the illegal pivoting because it did
not hire to fill known vacancies , and that management could and should
have called nonscheduled letter carriers to work on tine open routes,
noting that there were approximately one hundred letter carriers who
w: -ere on their scheduled day off and who were .
available
By not calling
in unscheduled letter carriers overtime opportunities were diminish-ad
for than .
-4The Union contends, therefore, that management of the Postal S . : rice
violated the
of Schwartz ( and others) to remain on the assign 'nt
for which he bid (his route ) when he had sufficient work in that
assign : a nt to fill h is day .
It a rgues that mail was imp rope rly cu rtain ed
on hit: route when ha was pivoted off and that nail was also curtailed
on the route to wh ich he was pivoted . Specifically, it contends the
additi o nal nor': : : as improperly added to the route without a planned
approac ! , T7i'ereas , in accord_e nce w i th Article VII, Section 2, B, p- SL
and present agrea-eats , and the P.-39, a letter carrier has the right
to emect t ;a t n_=nagcment will advise him of a proper schedule,_and
observe it, =_ -.d that an addition to his work load or schedule w ll r
nadc only in accordance with the Agreement .
It contends that Article
nil, Section D, gives the letter c arrier the right to expect his,
bid (his raut_ ) will be honored and i t points out that at no time
n:nagemant mined on a route -bid notice or posting that an assignncrt
to a part of anot he r route would be made when there was full-time
work or, his bid route .
The Union further contends that it was denied the right to
r e as_ ignment of its membe rs in keeping with provisions of the
Agreement and th_t ri_^.nagemer:t violated Schw .artz's bid assignment when
it changI cd .. . ._ regulations . governing an eight-hour assignment as noted
in the posted bid. .
riegoti cle
Position of the P : stel Service
The Postal Service holds that the grievance is without merit,
contenting that no contractual violations are involved and that the
arg;umants of the Union are specious . It insists that tesporary
assignments to do additional work on other routes is both provided for
and e;. acted .
It insists that pivot_ __ an established practice rzot
prohibited by the Agreement and that curtailment of nail does not
violate the either - that a combination of the two, that is,
. It insists that
pivotir a .: cur__ .___ :ent, is mot . . violation either
the duties of letter carriers are not limited to their bid routes,
.
because the : . _ ' ant : arc from:-i
. ti
Lo tins, assigned to assist
other routes ;
.
limitations
th_~:
the j
ob
d esc ription c lea rl
y
states this
and without
The Postal San-Ice rejects applicability of any of the contractual
provisions cited o-• the Uaion : Article VII, Section 2 n, because it
gives ranahe-eat the right to make signments to wordl in other crafts
and in no is it a li ::itation on assignments within the craft ;
Article VIII, Section 5, because it provides for equitable distribu*_ion
of ova tim^_ -hi& is not an issue - that ilanagene11 t by its action only
ler.sen_•ri t . . v ^_ o, fr-sY.ti e pork, ^ricfi is not violation, for
management has the right to minimize overtime ; Article XII, because
it deals with reassignments in excess of needs - not the issue in the
case - changes in permanent assignments - not the issue involved - and
with "burping" - and no one was bumped ; and Article flu, Section D,
because, while it deals with the conditions of posting bids and it is
conceded that no explicit mention is made of the fact that letter
carriers will be expected to perform duties on other routes, it is
well understood by them that they will and from tire to time they do .
Regarding the allegation that management refused to negotiate,
the Postal Service insists, first, that this issue was not made a part
of the grievance and, for this reason alone, could not be entertained
but, more importantly, a grievance must be based- urn- contractual
violation of which there is none . It contends that neither of the
two local agreements submitted into evidence by the Union contain any
provisions even remotely relevant to the grievance . Finally, a local
union has no bargaining r hts independent of the national union, w ;nich
is the exclusive bargaining agent . It points cut that attempts made in
negotiations in 1972 to have tempora3y assign :rents made on the basis
of seniori ty, to eliminate normality from temporary assignments of
letter carriers, and to have all mail cased and delivered on a daily
basis, were all rejected by the Postal Service . It asserts that the
local union is attempting to gain in arbitration what the nat ional
union failed to gain in negotiations .
Regarding the 1i-39 and '4-41 Handbooks, the Postal Service insists
that these are instructional handbooks and are not contractually
binding and are not pertinent to the dispute, but, of course, do not
restrict pivoting of the type at issue in this grievance .
Discussion and Findings .
We are dealing with two conflicting interests : the Union's
interest in having regularity, certainty, and definiteness in letter
carriers ' route assignm ents ; and the Postal Service's inter est in uanaging
as economically and efficiently as possible . Both are legiti±*ate
interests , but each must . be considered under the terms of the Agreement .'
There seems to be no question about the Postal Service's right to
make an assignment to a letter carrier in addition to work on his own
route if work on his own route is light . Also, some temporary types of
alteration of work on a route by curtailment of deliveries is
permitted, particularly of third-class mail as a work leveling device
but even first-class rail in an emergency .
-6p ;anagement of the
er_ency may be laid aside .
It does not
question of an ar g was an emergency .
.
The
ro (ye that there b such a contention
y
e°
,tal Service doesgave
not to rise
the ,grievance
on an emerg i>
tile action
[ as acting
pi ah d e that r : nape-ent
and
L.tifp
fill
from failure to hire
the Union that t t assext
vas
that there was no emir issu'on an emerge5 '
arbitrator finds
yThf
is
not
germane to the case
.
cant positions
that the question of an emerge=icy
postal wit Service
a,=ement of the
:
eTh help, It is within
said at this oint that r
o hire or not to hire o dit u
:_ .
hire additional carriers to serve as auxi arily but'neit'
her the Un hat can be expected ishtsatla
.
ectAth
the terms of
the Agreement
icy
of
•
e
anddresp
pnt to canobser
-It
the
Postal
SerPo
not in
a able
as
use an
excuse
shortag a ex a
postal Service would
try gor to use the shortag
Certainly the
then
not hiring additional helpf and
oreement ,
It could not
terms
s of letter carriers . .
not to follo [a the
xiant
Lent
The Postal
h
e
. in
g
the
Agreem e nt .
.setting and
of
circumventing
way
not allcdbof the Agreement
thereby j ustify practice
the
Service cast respect
requirements
.
aadministering its .policies
,
The Union argued that the Postal Service could
and should have
off .
That the
their
doubt there
is r,PCQnniahlet
caned letter carriers who were on
t heniabl rl
on open
overtime
could have d=one this
to
"'
have
called
postal Service
who would havepostal Service should '
er
were letter carriers
. To sa houp-ver that the Postal
off is s°
routes
nave who were on their sche nt o Ythe Pcstal Service to.ze
~ is
to m,nirai
letter
carriers
rf
of ud en t, and is a matter for mama
within
. rtainl
the Postal
Service is
upti overtime, only
[ ioation to o p Y
it has no ob__~ This is the purport of Article
assi nmentS
e
over
uitable basis .
to schedule it on an eq eld that there is no evidence of a violation
, and it is h_
VIII, Section 5
of this contractual provision in Cly a°minimization ofaovz time -At most, there was only schedule overtime*
arbitrated .
not a failure to equitably fts
not a violation --'
regalates assionments tthathis,
cit
is
,
vrithin a craft ,
Consequently,
VII , section 2 B
Article set
limits to assignments letter carrier craft .
it does not
si,.,ar
. lents within the
arbitration •
not addressed to as6
issue in this
it is not applicable to the
mentss of
4,
is
addressed
to
reansinstallatiou
Article Sectionneeds
A , of a section within
.
orient under such a condition
not
employees excess
The issue
here does
service- '
issue It
does not involve dressi_
Section B, 1, is consisterit v thlthetneedsnofithe
Article
am, but, a
being kept to a ninin ='
decide
-7-
Conse(juently, if the needs of-the service are sufficient it would
appear that some dislocation and inconvenience must be accepted : .
The question of 1lnitaticn .might rest, of .course, . inothercontractua4
provisions .- Article XII, Section B,-3, :deals-with "bumping", . a .<
matter not involved-in the case ; no one was "bumped ." Article XII,Section B, 4, dews with advance notification to the Union of
reassignments,as identified in Section A,' but it has already been-noted-that ,---permanent reassignment wasnot being made . In arguing,
that negotiation was necessary before raking the type of pivoting assignment involved in this cese, the Union charged that . the Postal :
Service- had- . failed to'hotify the Union, but, :as:-much as notification
might be good practice, formal notification of temporary assignments
Aoes-not seen . to be reanired and it appears that the Union was wall aware of the policy of- the Postal Service .and .there is no evidence of a -management refusal to discuss the matter . Article XY.II,
Section-D . Is addressed-to posting of vacant eduty . assignments and,
while it is required that a-posting identify -the assignment area,it is to be notedthat Section 4 states "principal assignment
area" which must-mean that other assignments are expected . or
pe rifted, unless contractually or cu stomarily denied . Also,
Section E, 3, states, ~u)rmally the successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted ." This must mean that under some circumstances .
other assiE -ents might Wade .
With regard to the claim by the Union that the Postal Service
failed to negotiate with the Union, it is to be noted that the Union
in its appeal to Step 3 charged that -it had been "denied the right to
r T_
th e assign
en_ :e~t
. .t of overtim e_ ;et, also, "we
. ..ent [<bn
< u tj _ cn
reach a o„~e=
have not been given the right to negotiate the reassignment of our
members in keeping with contract provisions" and further, "management '
arbitrarily changed the regulations governing an eight hour assignment ."
Hence, it must be held that the questi .on of negotiation was alive
prior to arbitration and that it was not untimely to raise it at the
arbitration hearing . Ho-rever, this does not make the matter at issue
a subject requiring negotiations . There is no contract provision or
local custom which would require negotiation of this issue . '1n fact,
it appears that the national union attempted to impose certain
requirements upon the Postal Service with respect to assignments but
these were rejected . it is not likely, however, that the <nestion
at issue here was among them ; but is not for this reason that the
Union's claim is not recognized .
Regarding management's rights to reassign letter carriers, it is
necessary to distinguish between nerrenent and temporary assignments .
Regarding the former, the Agreement explicitly provides a procedure
which must be fcllo~ :ed . But we are not concerned here with changes in
.-n-rent
permanent nssi . ants . 'Te are concerned only vi th a temporary astir
to pivot . at'.'c'a'ah rh`_ I`nion n med to i .! nr:;uirtt that '-rn7inent
not
Li:c case . ii . . rcate .as . .-,
c.: in :onto .7as
changed . T he open rout . to which Schwaartz teas given an assignm :'nt, • :,leg
the third-class .ail on his o n route was curtailed, was not changed . either-.
-sWe are dealing only with the propriety of a temporary assignment :
We -have already recognized that-: . some types of temporary assignments -They are . provided for and e .cpect •_ci . . .
are -co ionly - and_-customarily . wade .
The job description (Joint Exhibit 4) explicitly says, "Makes deliveryon other routes as assigned ." Hence , the remaining question :- the key
issue - is whether . it was proper for the Postal Service to curtail
n assignment . on another
-Schwartz!s .thirdrclass . .mail and pivot him to an
route .
I find nothing in the Aereemert, national or local ;-or-1w past
-practice which-prevents . : the Postal-Service from curtailinw third-cl . ;_
mail and temporarily pivoting a letter carrier from his own rou te to
help cover-au open route . The integrity of Schwartz's route .was .not_
.impaired . - No change wasmade-in it . No one was assigned to do any
of, his work . . - .His work wan accumulated f or him . - This is not _to say,
.however, that Schwartz night-not-be given auxiliary help on : :his routes
on .a :subsequent,=day, if-necessary or desireable, or that he .mightnot be authorized to work overtime to distribute the curtailed :ail
if the total load warrants it . Of course, rules and practice with
respect to overtime assignments would be observed .
Tee
RRSIM OR ROL%0
Award : The grievance of Milton Schuartz, N .E . 1561, is denied .
i
Ithaca, New York
December 5 , 1973
C UTAoERtlli11 rz %DDED
Vern
n
7i / ^`
ense
Arbitratot
n
,,
,'"
..
'"
REGULAR ARBITRA nON PANEL
In the Maner of the Arbitration
between
)
United States Postal Service
)
and
)
National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL-CIO
)
)
Grievant: Class
)
Post Office: Toledo, Ohio
)
USPS Case No: COIN-4C-C 02249902
)
)
NALC Case No: 197C02
Before: Colman R. Lalka, Arbitrator
Appearances:
For the U.S. Postal Service:
Richard L. Acker
For the Union:
Michael Miskiel
Place of Hearing:
Toledo, Ohio
Date of Hearing:
March 2, 2004
Date of Award:
August 15, 2004
Relevant Contract Provisions
Article 41.1.C.4
Contract Year:
200 I - 2006
Type of Grievance:
Contract
Award Summary:
The Postal Service ordered Carriers to curtail third-class mail on their Duty
Assignments, and pivot onto vacant routes. The vacancies were not unanticipated. The
grievance is sustained. The Postal Service shall cease and desist the practice, and all affected
Carriers shall receive one hour of pay at the overtime rate for each day they were forced off their
Duty Assignments.
,~.
'~'f,
,.
Colman R. Lalka, Arbitrator
AUG 2 3 2004
fD)
VICE
PRESIDEN!" S
OFF2(:E
NALc
HEADQUARTERS
rn
@
rn
a
~~
\VI rn
fn)
WILLIAM J. COOKE
.
.
.,'
"
ISSUE
Did the Postal Service violate the Parties' Labor Agreement by ordering Letter
Carriers to curtail third-class mail on their Duty Assignments and carry first class
mail on routes the Postal Service knew in advance would be vacant? If. so, what
is the remedy?
CONTRACT AND MANUALS
The Parties identified following provision of the their Labor Agreement as applicable to
these proceedings:
ARTICLE 3
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The Employer shall have the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Agreement
and consistent with applicable laws and regulations:
A. To direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties;
B. To...
transfer, assign, and retain employees in positions within the Postal
Service. . . ;
C. To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it;
D. To determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations
are to be conducted;
...
ARTICLE 41
LETTER CARRIER CRAFT
...
Section I. Posting
...
B. Method of Posting
. ..
4. Information on notices shall be shown as below and shall be specifically
stated:
(a)
The duty assignment by position title and number (e.g., Key or
Standard).
(b) Grade.
(c) Hours of duty (beginning and ending), including, in the case of a
Carrier Technician assignment, the hours of duty for each of the component routes.
(d) The fixed or rotating schedule of days of work, as appropriate.
(e) The principal assignment area (e.g., section and/or location of activity).
(f) Invitation to employees to submit bids.
(g) Physical requirement unusual to the assignment.
(h) If a city carrier route is involved, the carrier route number shall be
designated. If a Carrier Technician assignment is involved, the route number of the
Carrier Technician assignment
and the route numbers of the component routes shall be
.
designated.
(i) Date of last inspection and date of last adjustment.
. . .
-2-
.
,
.'
-,'
C. SuccessfulBidder
...
4.
The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted.
Unanticipated circumstances may require a temporary change in assignment. This same
rule shall apply to Carrier Technician assignments, unless the local agreement provides
otherwise.
...
The Postal Service identified the following provisions of the Postal Operations Manual as
being applicable to this matter:
617.2 Employee Undertime Utilization - Pivoting
,II Pivoting is a method of utilizing the undertime of one or several carriers to
perform duties on a temporarily vacant route or to cover absences. Non-preferential mail
may be curtailed within delivery time standards on the vacant route and/or on the routes
of the carriers being pivoted.
.12 Pivoting is not limited to periods when mail volume is light and when
absences are high but can be utilized throughout the year for maintaining balanced carrier
workloads.
DISCUSSION
This is a representative case involving more than one-hundred fifty grievances. The facts
of this representative case are straightforward.
On four days over a two week period at the
Manhattan Postal Center of the Toledo, Ohio Post Office, August 2, 3, 9, and 10, 2002,
numerous Letter Carriers were ordered to curtail third-class mail on their assigned routes and
carry first-class mail on vacant routes. The vacancies were due to, for example, the regular
Carrier's Scheduled Day Off on an odd route with no assigned Floater. That is, the routes were
not vacant due to unanticipated circumstances. 1 Management was aware in advance the routes
would be vacant, and used curtailing and pivoting as part of its work plan to cover the vacant
routes.
Management contends the curtailing of third-class mail as a work leveling device' has
been an on-going practice at the Postal Service for at least the last thirty years.
Moreover,
Management continues, Article 3 expressly grants it the right to direct the work force, and the
Postal Operations Manual (POM), § 617.2, specifically provides for the curtailing of third-class
mail and pivoting.
I
Management attempted to establisl1through cross-examination that unanticipated circumstances may
have been the cause of the curtailing and pivoting. Nothing substantive was elicited, however, and the
Arbitrator is convinced by a preponderance of evidence of record. Management was aware well in
advance of the dates at issue the routes would be vacant, i.e., the vacancies were anticipated.
-3-
.
. .'
".'
While Article 3 does grant Management the right to direct the work force, in doing so
Management is subject to all other provisions of the Parties' Labor Agreement.
Article 41
provides the procedure for posting bids, for bidding, and further provides that the successful
bidder shall work the Duty Assignment as posted.
Assigrunent is made for unanticipated circumstances.
An exception to working the Duty
The Parties' Labor Agreement does not
define unanticipated circumstances, however, the Parties jointly submitted a dictionary definition
as not anticipated, unexpected, or unforeseen.
In this matter no unanticipated circumstances
exist, and, it follows, the exception provided in Article 41 is not applicable.
The POM, § 617.2, which is incorporated into the Parties' Labor Agreement through
Article 19, does, as argued by Management, provide for curtailing of third-class mail and
pivoting as a method of utilizing the undertime of one or more Carriers and as a work leveling
device.
The POM goes on to provide, however, the pivoting is to perform duties on a
temporarily vacant route or to cover absences. This exception is outside the scope of the factual
situation herein. The routes in the within matter were not temporarily vacant, but vacant as the
result of Carriers not being assigned to cover the routes on scheduled days ofT. Additionally, on
July 28, 1997, the Parties reached a Step 4 settlement regarding POM, § 617.2, as follows:
.. .
The issue in this grievance is whether management violated the National Agreement
when it utilized routers in undertime basis to perform delivery duties.
...
The parties agreed that application of section 617.2, Pivoting, of the Postal Operations
Manual (POM) does not change the provisions of Article 41, Section l.CA. of the
National Agreement. Routers must be kept on their bid assignment and not moved off
the duties in the bid description unless there is an undertime situation, or in
"unanticipated circumstances."
. ..
While the underlying factual situation leading to the Step 4 Settlement dealt with Routers,
the agreement did provide that POM, § 617.2 does not alter Article 41, § l.CA, the operative
section in the within matter. Moreover, there is noting in the record to lead the Arbitrator to
believe the Parties, when entering into the Step 4 Settlement, ever intended to keep Routers
under the protection of Article 4l.l.CA, while stripping Carriers of that SfllIleprotection.
The Postal Service relied heavily on the Arbitration Award of United States Postal
.
Service and National AssoCiafion a/Letter
"
Carriers, N.E. 1561 (Jensen, 1973), which it
identified throughout the Arbitration Hearing and in its Post Hearing Brief as a National Award.
-4-
,
..
.'
Subsequently, however, the Parties jointly submitted a letter wherein they stated the Jensen
Award was Regional, not National.
The Jensen Award held that the curtailment of third-class mail has always been used as a
work leveling device, however the Award did not address a situation of curtailing and pivoting to
the extent it can be considered to have changed a Carriers' Duty Assignment.
Following the
Jensen Award, the Parties in 1976 reached the following Step 4 Settlement:
...
Having reviewed the evidence in this grievance file, we find that under the
unique circumstances set forth, the T -6 Carrier's route assignment was not temporarily
changed due to unanticipated circumstances.
This is not to be interpreted as implying that a T-6 Carrier cannot be temporarily
scheduled from one route to another within his string when a Carrier is called in on his
off-day to carry his normal route and the T-6 Carrier is moved to another route to cover
an absence. Local management must have a rational basis for determining that unusual
circumstances exist before moving a T-6 Carrier from his normal route. (emphasis in
original)
...
Thus, almost thirty years ago, in 1976, the Parties agreed legitimate unusual
circumstances must exist before moving a T-6 Carrier off his or her Duty Assignment.
In addition to the Jensen Award, other Regional Awards were submitted by the Parties.
In United States Postal Service and National Association of Letter Carriers, G90N-4G-C
94067055 (Dennis, 1996), a case resulting from one Carrier curtailing and pivoting for one-half
hour, the Arbitrator held, "The Postal Service has a right to curtail third class mail in order to
pivot a Letter Carrier to save overtime and deliver preferential mail on time." In dicta later in the
Award, Arbitrator Dennis opined:
The Supervisor of Mails has an obligation to respect the integrity of a Carrier's bid
assignment and to schedule the work in such a way so that an employee can plan on
performing his bid assignment each day in the manner that it is established. On occasion,
it is understood that all employees may have to deviate in one way or another from
established routines in order to get the mail delivered on time. The supervisor in charge,
however, should not be allowed to work pivoting of regularly assigned Carriers into his
or her Management plan for avoiding overtime payor equalizing Carriers on a
permanent, long term basis. Carriers have a right to expect that they will be allowed to
work their bid assignments, as designated.
In United States Postal~. Service
and National Association of Letter Carriers, C94N-4C-C
...
."
99216894 (Britton, 2001), a matter involving a Router given street duties even though he had
eight hours of work on his Duty Assignment, unanticipated circumstances had not been
-5-
. ..
"
.'
established, and there were Overtime Desired List Carriers who were not maximized, Arbitrator
Britton held:
While the router position may not be automatic, it nevertheless differs trom that of a PTF
or casual. A router cannot be removed trom his job and placed on the street unless
"unanticipated circumstances" are found to exist.
Finally, in United States Postal Service and National Association of Letter Carriers,
C94N-4C-C 0~138830 (Ross, 2002), a case arising in the Toledo, Ohio Post Office with the
same factual circumstances
as this representative
grievance, Arbitrator Ross held:
Management improperly used pivoting to plan around anticipated circumstances and
force carriers to pivot when there was no indication that the work on their own routes was
light. The grievance is sustained. Management shall cease and desist from this practice.
All affected carriers shall receive one hour of pay at the overtime rate for each day they
were forced off their bid assignment during the period at issue.
In spite of the cease and desist order in the Ross Award, Larry Ramsey, NALC Branch
President, testified the curtailing and pivoting has continued, as further evidenced by this matter
being a representative case for over 150 grievances,
Article 41.1.C.4 is clear, and provides
Carriers shall work their Duty Assignments as posted unless unanticipated circumstances exist
that require a temporary change.
Under the evidence of record in the within matter, this
Arbitrator is convinced Management was using curtailing and pivoting as part of an ongoing
management plan of filling anticipated vacancies with Carriers ordered to curtail mail on their
Duty Assignments and pivot onto the vacant routes.
-6-
.
...',... ,',. - . .
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, this Arbitrator finds a violation of the Parties' Collective
Bargaining Agreement, and the grievance is sustained. The remedy granted in the Ross Award is
carried forward. The Postal Service shall cease and desist the practice of ordering Carriers to
curtail third-class mail on their Duty Assignments and pivot onto vacant routes, in the absence of
unanticipated circumstances requiring a temporary change in assignment as provided in Article
4 I. I .CA. Additionally, all affected Carriers shall receive one hour of pay at the overtime rate for
each day they were forced off their Duty Assignments.
.
-7-
alka, Arbitrator
~-~ 358
REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL
In the Matter of the Arbitration
between
)
)
)
)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
)
)
and
)
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER)
CARRIERS, AFL-CIO )
GRIEVANT : Class Action
POST OFFICE : Toledo
USPS No . C98N-4C-C 02138830
NALC No . 11-040001
BEFORE: Jerome H . Ross, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES :
For the U .S . Postal Service :
Sonja Trimble
For the Union :
Michael Miskiel
Place of Hearing :
Toledo, OH
Date of Hearing :
June 12, 2002
Date of Award :
June 21, 2002
Relevant Contract Provisions :
Article 41 .1 .C .4
Contract Year :
1998-2001
Type of Grievance :
Contract
JUN 2 8 2002
VICE PRESIDENT'S
OFFICE
NALC HEADQUARTERS
Award Summary
Management improperly used pivoting to plan around anticipated circumstances and
force carriers to pivot when there was no indication that the work on their own routes was light .
The grievance is sustained . Management shall cease and desist from this practice . All affected
carriers shall receive one hour of pay at the overtime rate for each day they were forced off their
bid assignment during the period at issue .
0
2
Statement of the Case
In this grievance, dated April 11, 2002, the Union asserts that management of Station A,
under the Toledo Center, violated Article 41 .1 .C.4 of the National Agreement by pre-scheduling
pivoting and forcing carriers to pivot when there was no indication that the work on their own
routes was light . As a remedy, the Union requests a cease and desist order and payment to all
affected carriers of one hour at the overtime rate for each day they were forced off their bid
assignment .
By way of background, Station A services 25 routes . Auxiliary Route 27, which has no
full-time carrier assigned, required about 30 minutes of casing and two hours of street time . The
route rarely shows curtailment due to its low mail volume .
The period covered by this grievance is February 25, 2002 through March 14, 2002 .
Excluding Sundays, which are non-work days, there is no evidence for the following days :
February 28 (Thursday), March 5 (Tuesday), March 6 (Wednesday), March 12 (Tuesday) and
March 13 (Wednesday) . The Union acknowledges that evidence concerning these days was not
presented, because no carrier was curtailed and pivoted . In this regard, the record reflects that
curtailing and pivoting generally does not occur on Tuesdays, when "advos" are delivered .
The evidence establishes the following facts concerning curtailing and pivoting on the
remaining days during the period at issue .
On February 25 three carriers, all with projected overtime, pivoted onto Route 27 . Two
other carriers with projected undertime did not pivot . They curtailed mail and worked eight
hours but did not carry auxiliary mail from the six carriers who work over eight hours .
3
On February 27 four carriers had projected undertime and curtailed mail . Two of these
carriers pivoted onto Route 27, and two did not but worked eight hours and did not carry
auxiliary mail on another route . Nine carriers worked overtime .
On March 1 four carriers with projected overtime were curtailed and pivoted onto Route
27 . Another carrier with projected undertime was curtailed and worked eight hours but did not
pivot.
On March 2 four carriers with projected undertime and three carriers with projected
overtime were curtailed , while two others with projected undertime were not curtailed and four
others worked overtime . Three of the four carriers with projected overtime pivoted onto Route
27 .
On March 4 two carriers with projected overtime were curtailed and pivoted onto Route
27, while two other carriers with projected undertime were curtailed and did not pivot or carry
mail from routes with projected overtime but did work eight hours .
On March 6 two carriers with projected overtime were curtailed and pivoted onto Route
27, while four other carriers with projected undertime were curtailed .
On March 7 four carriers were curtailed and pivoted onto Route 27 . Two of the carriers
had projected undertime and the two others had projected overtime . Three other carriers with
projected undertime were curtailed but did not pivot and worked eight hours .
On March 8 four carriers were curtailed and pivoted onto Route 27 and another route .
Three of these carriers had projected overtime . One carrier with projected undertime did not
pivot and did not carry auxiliary mail on another route .
Five other carriers with projected
undertime were curtailed but did not pivot . Seven carriers worked overtime .
4
On March 9 five carriers with projected undertime were curtailed and pivoted onto Route
27 . One carrier with projected overtime was curtailed and pivoted onto Route 27 and worked
eight hours.
On March 10, 18 carriers were curtailed . Seven had projected undertime . One carrier
with projected overtime was curtailed and pivoted onto Route 27 . Three carriers work overtime .
On March 11 three carriers pivoted onto Route 27 . Eight carriers worked overtime, of
whom five had projected undertime and three had projected overtime . Seven of the eight carriers
were curtailed . Three carriers with projected overtime were curtailed and pivoted onto Route 27
.
The record also contains an e-mail, dated February 11, 2002, from the Toledo Postmaster
to station managers . It states in part :
The purpose of the 2 :30 pivoting telecon daily is to find out how many hours
under base you are pivoting for the next day . . . [D]ue to the current financial crisis
and cased volume 17% below SPLY YTD . . .there will be no route allowed to be
over 8 hours . We will expect all routes to take a 10 minute bundle everyday
except for light days when they will need to take a 20 minute bundle .
Relevant Authorities
The National Agreement contains the following provisions cited by the parties :
ARTICLE 3
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The Employer shall have the exclusive right , subject to the provisions of this
Agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations :
A . To direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official
duties ;
C . To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it ;
D . To determine the methods , means, and personnel by which such
operations are to be conducted ;
5
ARTICLE 7
EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
Section 2. Employment and Work Assignments
B. In the event of insufficient work on any particular day or days in a fulltime or part-time employee's own scheduled assignment, management may assign
the employee to any available work in the same wage level for which the
employee is qualified, consistent with the employee's knowledge and experience,
in order to maintain the number of work hours of the employee's basic work
schedule .
ARTICLE 34
WORK AND/OR TIME STANDARDS
A . The principle of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay is recognized by
all parties to this Agreement .
ARTICLE 41
LETTER CARRIER CRAFT
Section 1 . Posting
C . Successful Bidder
4 . The successful bidder shall work the duty assignment as posted .
Unanticipated circumstances may require a temporary change in assignment .
This same rule shall apply to Carrier Technician assignments, unless the local
agreement provides otherwise .
The M-39 Handbook, TL-13, states under Administration of City Delivery Service :
111 .2 Daily Operations
The daily service manager must on a daily basis :
i. Determine need for auxiliary assistance, overtime or curtailment of mail,
and determine the most economical manner of providing relief .
1 . Level the workload of carriers by having them deliver other than
preferential mail as promptly as practicable . Identify and manage mail in order of
classification, type and sequence of receipt .
122 .3 Authorizing Overtime and Auxiliary Assistance
122 .31 Before overtime or auxiliary assistance is authorized, determine whether
b. Leveling the daily workload can be achieved by observing provisions in
Section 612, Postal Operations Manual .
122 .32 When relief is essential, use the following criteria (not necessarily in the
order listed) in determining the most economical manner in providing it :
b. Use auxiliary street assistance in the field when it would be more
economical than using overtime . . . .
6
c . Use auxiliary assistance in the office when it would be more economical
than using overtime . . . .
Union Position
The Union contends that management's mandating of curtailment and pivoting on a daily
basis violates Article 41 .1 .C .4, because pivoting is being improperly used to balance workloads
or overtime . It emphasizes that the routes being pivoted out have no curtailment, and
management is curtailing 3`d Class (bulk) mail on routes so that the carriers can take mail on the
pivoted routes . The Union asserts the absence of any unanticipated circumstances that would
require carriers to curtail and pivot on a daily basis . The Union maintains that management's
actions have created artificial undertime, resulting from carriers curtailing their own 3`d Class
mail and pivoting to another route . It rhetorically asks why routes without curtailment are
pivoted if management's aim is to balance workloads through pivoting . The Union
acknowledges management's right to use pivoting on an ad hoc basis ; however, it asserts, in the
instant case the daily use of pivoting violates the carriers' right to work their bid assignment, as
provided under Article 41 .1 .C .4. In sum, the Union argues, curtailment, pivoting and overtime
occur on an almost daily basis, while carriers with undertime on four and five consecutive days
are not asked to pivot . Finally, the Union points to the Postmaster's e-mail, which orders
supervisors to require daily pivoting often to 20 minutes .
Service Position
The Service argues that management's actions were taken pursuant to its retained rights
to direct employees and maintain efficient operations . It also cites the contractual principle of a
fair day's work for a fair day's pay . The Service maintains that the Postmaster' s e-mail is not
7
relevant, because the carriers did not pivot every workday during the period at issue . It points
out that the only route that was curtailed daily was Route 27, which was significantly under eight
hours . The Service further observes that Workload Status Reports, which contain the
information for the days at issue, are final reports, which are created during pull down or after
the carriers have left for the street ; and, as a result, the curtailment data could include mail with
color-coded dates and in-home dates or mail received after the dispatch of value . It emphasizes
that a pivot bundle is used to meet a carrier's eight-hour day, in accordance with the above-cited
contract and handbook provisions . The Service further points out that Station A's mail volume is
down from the SPLY . It also asserts that the Union has not met the burden of proving a contract
violation, because the evidence does not include all of the workdays during the period at issue
and all of the clock rings for the workdays addressed during the hearing. In this regard, the
Service explains, it is altogether possible that carriers took leave or worked another route not
reflected on the summary sheets and thus worked eight hours . In sum, the Service observes that
different carriers pivoted on different days, and a carrier rarely pivoted on a Tuesday .
Discussion and Findings
Although the record does not contain an official Postal Service issuance defining the term
"pivoting", an arbitration decision submitted by the Service cites the following Postal Operations
Manual (POM) provisions :
617 .2 Employee Undertime Utilization-Pivoting
.11 Pivoting is a method of utilizing the undertime of one or several
carriers to perform duties on a temporarily vacant route or to cover absences .
Non-preferential mail may be curtailed within delivery time standards on the
vacant route and/or on the routes of the carriers being pivoted .
.12 Pivoting is not limited to periods when mail volume is light and when
absences are high but can be utilized throughout the year for maintaining balanced
carrier workloads .
8
These POM provisions set forth two pre-requisites for the use of pivoting : 1) the
undertime of one or several carriers, and 2) a temporarily vacant route or to cover absences .
With regard to the first pre-requisite, arbitral authority recognizes the element of
undertime in connection with pivoting . "There seems to be no question about the Postal
Service's right to make an assignment to a letter carrier in addition to work on his own route if
work on his own route is light ." (Underling added .) N .E . 1561, Rochester, Dec 1973 ; Jensen,
arb.
Article 41 .1 .C .4 amplifies the second pre-requisite by limiting pivoting to "unanticipated
circumstances", under which a carrier may be required to temporarily change his or her bid
assignment . Arbitral guidance establishes the test for unanticipated circumstances as whether the
occasion constitutes "an anticipatory event, and therefore one which supervisors should be able
to plan around" . S4N-3W-C-23922, Tampa, Apr 1988 ; Britton, arb . The purpose of this test is
to maintain "the integrity of a Carrier's bid assignment . . . so that an employee can plan on
performing his bid assignment each day . . . .The Supervisor in charge . . .should not be allowed to
work pivoting of regularly assigned Carriers into his or her Management plan for avoiding
overtime pay or equalizing Carriers on a permanent, long-term basis" . G90N-4G-C-94067055,
Westwego, Jul 1996 ; Dennis, arb.
The evidence clearly demonstrates that management regularly used pivoting to plan
around anticipated circumstances . Moreover, management forced carriers to pivot when there
was no indication that the work on their own routes was light . Such use of pivoting violated the
Article 41 .1_C .4 requirement that carriers work their bid assignment unless unanticipated
9
circumstances arise and present a need for their temporary change in assignment .' Even without
considering the Postmaster's e-mail directive (which refers to a daily 2 :30 pivoting telecon),
there is no doubt that the Station A Manager used pivoting to address what she termed a financial
crisis in the Postal Service and a significantly reduced mail volume for the entire fiscal year .
I find that management's efforts to solicit volunteers prior to forcing carriers to pivot do
not shield it from the Article 41 violations . Consistent with the above findings, it is reasonable
to credit the hearsay testimony of the Station A shop steward that carriers volunteer because they
know that they will have to pivot one way or another . Management's actions in soliciting
volunteers are properly viewed as an adjunct to its policy of using pivoting as a method for
equalizing carriers' work time on a permanent long-term basis .
AWARD
The grievance is sustained . Station A management shall cease and desist from using
pivoting to plan around anticipated circumstances and forcing carriers to pivot when there is no
indication that work on their own routes is light .
The grievance is remanded to the parties to determine the affected carriers, who shall
receive one hour of pay at the overtime rate for each day they were forced off (including
volunteers) their bid assignment during the period at issue .
I shall retain jurisdiction of this grievance for 30 days from the date of this Award to
resolve any dispute concerning implementation of the remedy .
June 21, 2002
e H . Ross, Arbitrator
II further note the Article 7 .2 .B reference to undertime and ad hoc use of reassignments in stating : "In the
event of insufficient work on any particular day or days in a full-time or part-time employee's own scheduled
assignment , management may assign the employee to any available work . . . ." (Underlining added .)
REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL
In the Ma tter of Arbitration )
between
)
United States Postal Service )
and
)
GTS
Grievant : Class Action
Post Office : Staten Island, NY
Case No : A90N-4A-C 96006017
15211
National Association of )
Letter Carriers , AFL-CIO )
Before :
GEORGE R .
SHEA, Jr .
Appearances :
For United States Postal Service : R . Lobrano
For National Association of
Letter Carriers ( Union ) :
Place of Hearing :
Date of Hearing :
Date of Award :
Staten
G . Mignosi
Island,
January
February
27,
26,
NY
1997
1997
AWARD SUMMARY
For the reasons more fully set forth in the attached
Opinion, the Arbitrator determines that in the
circumstances of this matter the Service did not violate
Section 41 .1 . C .4 . of the National Agreement
[ Agreement]
when it assigned Routers at the Staten Island , NY GPO off
the primary function of their bid assignments and
assigned them to the delivery of mail on June 10, 1995 .
Accordingly,
George R .
the grievance in this matter is denied .
Shea, Jr .
OPINION
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS :
The National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO [Union],
in accordance with the parties' National Agreement [Agreement],
appealed the above captioned matter ., to arbitration . The undersigned
was designated as the Arbitrator to hear and decide the matter- The
Arbitrator held a hearing on and at the previously referred to date
and location . The parties' representatives appeared . The Arbitrator
provided the parties with a full and fair opportunity to be heard,
to present evidence and argument and to examine and cross examine
witnesses . The Union called J . Harrigan and G . Rice as its
witnesses . The Service called R . Puglia as its witness .
BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONSThe unionon a standard grievance form dated June
19,
1995 appealedthe underlying grievance in this matter to Step
2 of the grievance procedure . The grievance, alleging a
violation of Section 41 .1 .C .4 of the National Agreement,
stated the following :
"Management is manipulating the third class
mail in order to use the routers as unassigned
regulars . GPO mail was brought into the
building on 6/9 but mailhandler was told by
manager Puglia to put it back on the platform
where it sat for Saturday and was finally
thrown on Monday afternoon . Meanwhile, the
routers who are suppose to -throw this mail .
were left without sufficient work on their
assignments and once again forced to perform
street work in an undertime situation in an
effort to save overtime . Management's position
that mail had until Tuesday to go out is sad
comment on our business . The routers are full
time bid positions and they were available to
work that mail . Pay routers for all street
time worked off their assignments on 6/10/95 .
Cease and desist in this - bad business
practice ."(J-#2, pg 7)
A90N-4A- C 96006017 1 OTS 15211
2 .
Section
41 .I .C .4 . of the Agreement provides the
following :
"The successful bidder shall work the duty
assignment as posted . Unanticipated
circumstances may require a temporary change
in assignment . This same rule shall apply to
T-6 and utility assignments, unless the local
agreement provides otherwise ." (J-#1A)
3 . The parties at the national level entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding Letter Carrier Craft
Routers dated July 21, 1987 . The Memorandum, in parts relevant
to this matter, provides the following :
"6 . A router may be temporarily moved from
his/her bid assignment only in "unanticipated
circumstances," pursuant to the provisions of
Article 41, Section 1 .C .4 . of the National
Agreement ."(J-#1A)
4 . The postings of the Router position at issue in this
matter describe the duties of the position in the following
manner :
"Cases all classes of mail on Routes
[insertion of the appropriate route numbers]
. . Routers on undertime may be assigned
duties outside their bid assignment . Two (2)
ten minute contractual rest breaks will be
scheduled by manager . Bidders must possess a
valid NY State Driver's License and also
qualify or be qualified for a SF 346
[Government Drivers license] and RH Government
vehicles .(J-#3)
ISSUE :
The parties agreed to the following statement of the issue
before the Arbitrator :
"Did the Service violate Section 41 .1 .C .4 . of the
National Agreement [Agreement] if it assigned Routers off
their bid assignments on June 10, 1995? If so, what shall
be the appropriate remedy?"
A90N-4A - C 96006017 /
QTS
15211
3
FACTS :
The parties' representatives entered into the following
stipulated statements of fact :
1 . The Routers in question in this matter worked street time
on June 10, 1995 .
2 . The mail in question, third class Carol Wright packets,
was brought into the Staten Island GPO [GPO / Station] by a
Mailhandler who was told to bring it out of the Station .
3 . Routers are Letter Carrier Craft employees . There are
seven Routers at the Station and they are all grievants in
this matter .
4 . All the Routers who are grievants in this matter have the
same general job description .
The events regarding this matter were described in the varying
testimony of the parties' witnesses and in the documentary evidence
offered by the parties . Based upon his review of that evidence,
including his personal observation of the witnesses during their
testimony, the Arbitrator determines that the preponderance of that
evidence supports the following findings of fact .
1 . At times relevant to this matter, the Mailhandler, J .
Harrigan, a former Letter Carrier, worked on Tour 3 at the
GPO . His specific hours of work were between 2 :00 pm and 10 :30
pm . Harrigan's duties as a Mailhandler included unloading mail
from trailers, breaking down the mail, dispatching mail to
stations serviced by the GPO and distributing mail into the
GPO . The mail unloaded from the trailers included both Mixed
and Direct Letter Carrier mail . The Mixed mail is sorted by
Clerks before it is distributed to the Letter Carriers . Direct
mail does not need to be sorted before it is distributed to
the Letter Carriers .
2 . The GPO has fifty-five Letter Carrier delivery routes .
3 . On Friday, June 9, 1995, Harrigan unloaded five hampers
of bagged direct bulk third class business mail for the GPO .
The mail was Carol Wright circulares [Wright mail] . Harrigan
pushed the mail into the Letter Carrier section of the GPO and
A90N - 4A-C 9600601 7
/
OTS
15211
4
was told by the supervisor of the Letter Carrier area of the
GPO to bring the mail back to the "staging area" of the truck
platform . He complied with the instruction . Local management
at the GPO use the staging area on the truck platform to store
mail for the GPO which has to be worked further by Clerk
employees before it is distributed to the Letter Carriers .
4 . A total mailing of Wright mail at the GPO consisted of
between fifteen and twenty hampers of mail . Accordingly, the
hampers of mail arriving at the GPO on June 9, 1995
represented between 25 and 30 percent of a total mailing .
Wright mail is time-specific mail which includes coupons and
other time-sensitive promotional material . The mailer of
Wright mail has requested the Service to have the mail
delivered between two and three days after the Service's
receipt of the mail . This request was made to avoid the premature delivery of the promotional material . The Service's
compliance with this request would allow delivery within the
Service's delivery standards which require delivery of such
mail within seventy-two hours of its receipt by the Service .
In the instant matter, the Wright mail received on Friday,
June 9, 1995 would have to be delivered on the following
Monday or Tuesday .
5 . The Service's standard operating procedure at the GPO is
to place mail received in bags, including Wright mail, into
trays before it is distributed to the Letter Carriers'
cases .
This practice avoids the Letter Carrier's working the mail out
of bags and limits congestion in the Letter Carrier work area .
(See and compare M-39, Section 116 .3 .e . J-#2, pg 20) The
Wright mail brought by Harrigan into the GPO on June 9, 1995
was not in trays .
6 . The Wright mail received on June 9, 1995 at the GPO for
Rice's assigned routes represented approximately twenty
minutes of Router work for each route assigned to Rice or a
total of 100 minutes for all the routes to which he was
assigned .(J-#3)
A90N-4A- C 96006017
/
4TS
15211
5
7 . The mail volume at the GPO on June 10, 1995 was light .
8 . On June 10, 1995, Rice was assigned street delivery
duties on three of the five routes to which he was assigned as
a Router .
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES :
National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO [Union]
The Union maintained that the Service violated the Agreement
when it assigned Routers at the Station to perform street delivery
duties on June 10, 1995 . Specifically, the Union contended that
such assignments violated Article 41 of the Agreement and Section
116 .22 of the M-39 Handbook, an Article 19 Handbook . The Union
argued that the Service curtailed the processing of Wright business
mail on June 9, 1995 to create an "undertime" situation . The Union
argued that the Service created this undertime situation to take
advantage of the exception provisions of Article 41, Section 1 .C .4 .
of the Agreement and to assign the Routers to deliver mail on June
10, 1995 under the license of those exceptions .
Based upon these factual assertions and contractual
contentions, the Union requested the Arbitrator sustain the
grievance and award the impacted Routers straight time for the work
they performed outside their bid positions' duties . Additionally,
the Union requested the Arbitrator issue a cease and desist order
preventing the Service from curtailing the processing of available
mail to create undertime situations for the Routers at the GPO .
United States Postal Service [Service]
The Service maintained that the instant matter is a
contractual matter ; consequently, the Union must bear the burdens
of proof and persuasion regarding its allegations that the Service
violated the Agreement . The Service argued that the Union had not
met these burdens . The Service specifically maintained that the
Union failed to establish its allegation that the Service created
an undertime situation by improperly curtailing mail available to
be worked by the Routers on June 9 or June 10, 1995 . Contractually,
the Service asserted that its assignment of the Routers on June 10,
A90 9 -4A - C 96006017
1 ax
15211
6
1995 to street delivery duties was sanctioned by Article 3 and
Section 41 .1 .C .4 . of the Agreement, the parties' relevant national
level memorandum of understanding and the job description of the
Router position .
Based upon these factual assertions and contractual
contentions, the Service requested the Arbitrator deny the
grievance .
DISCUSSION :
Section 41 .1 .C .4 . of the Agreement requires the Service allow
the successful bidder of a Router position at the GPO to work the
duties of that bid assignment . The Section, however, contains an
exception provision to this general rule . The parties do not
disagree that the Routers' primary work assignment is providing
casing assistance to Letter Carriers . Similarly, the parties do not
disagree that the Agreement sanctions the Service's assignment of
Routers to street delivery duties when there is insufficient casing
work available for them . The Union is correct in its contention
that an undertime situation upon which a Service's assignment of
Routers to street delivery duties is based must be unanticipated .
An unanticipated condition, by definition, cannot be one which is
known, deliberately created or planned by the Service prior to its
occurrence .
If the Union is to prevail in its allegation that the Service
violated the Agreement when it assigned Routers at the GPO to
street delivery duties on June 10, 1995, it must establish the
following : (a) on June 10, 1995, work in the Router's primary duty
assignment was available for the Routers to perform ; (b) the nonavailability of such work for Router performance was the result of
the Service's deliberate or negligent action or inaction ; and (c)
the Service's non-distribution of Wright mail to the Letter
Carriers' cases on June 10, 1995 was not sanctioned by the
Agreement or was prohibited by the Agreement .
It would be contractually inappropriate for the Service to
deliberately deprive the Routers of available work within the
"ON- 4A-C 96006017 / OTS
15211
7
Routers' position description to artificially create conditions
which would bring the exception provisions of Section 41 .1 .C .4 .
into operation .
The evidentiary record of this matter establishes that the
mail volume at the GPO on Saturday, June 10, 1995 was abnormally
low .
The primary question in dispute in this matter is whether the
Service's decision at the GPO on June 9 or 10, 1995 not to
distribute five sacks of Wright mail to the Letter Carriers' cases
to be worked by Routers on June 10, 1995 constituted a
contractually improper action . The Wright mail received by the GPO
on June 9, 1995 represented approximately 20% of the total
anticipated Wright mailing . The evidence is insufficient to allow
the Arbitrator to determine whether or not the Wright mail received
at the GPO represented a total or partial mailing for a particular
route or the routes to which that mail was addressed . The Wright
mail was bundled by route ; however, it was not in Letter Carrier
trays . Clerks at the GPO would normally work such mail and place it
in the Letter Carrier trays before it was distributed to the Letter
Carrier cases . If the Service distributed the Wright mail to the
Letter Carrier cases in the sacks rather than trays, as urged by
the Union in this matter, the distribution would be inconsistent
with the Service's normal, contractually sanctioned, operationally
based method of handling such mail . Similarly, if the Service
distributed the Wright mail to the Letter Carriers' cases and the
mail was cased into the Letter Carrier cases, the mail would either
have to be held in the cases until it was timely delivered or
delivered prematurely and inconsistent with the customer's delivery
instructions .
in consideration of this review of the evidentiary record, the
Arbitrator determines that the record does not support the Union's
contention that (a) there was casing work of Wright mail available
for the Routers at the GPO on June 10, 1995 and (b) the Service
contrived to artificially create an undertime condition for the
A90N-4A-C 99006017
/
OTS
15211
6
Routers at the GPO to bring into operation the exception provisions
of Section 41 .1 .C .4 of the Agreement .
Based upon the findings and reasoning set forth in this
Opinion, the Arbitrator makes the attached Award .
A90N-4A-C 96006017 / OTS 15211
9