All Sections ------------------------------- News & Events Pay & Benefits Departments & Divisions Members Only

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Principal Assignment Area

Article 37.3.E5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires the Postal Service to include a Principal Assignment Area (PAA) on all posted duty assignments. The PAA must include the duties of the position as well as the area. Furthermore, it is insufficient merely to list a station or a branch as the PAA.

A pre-arbitration settlement [PDF] between the USPS and the APWU dated Oct. 29, 2002, makes it clear that the purpose of a PAA is “to provide relevant information to employees who are interested in bidding for jobs in order that they may make an informed decision when deciding to bid for jobs.”

That position is clearly supported by the Questions & Answers on Mail Processing Clerk [PDF] that was negotiated by the APWU and USPS, as well as the arbitration decisions summarized below.

Other Duties as Assigned

The settlement also stipulates that the phrase “other duties as assigned” on a vacant duty assignment notice cannot be used in conflict with the Collective Bargaining Agreement or other agreements between the union and management.

The union had grieved the inclusion of the phrase on postings if it is not included in the Standard Position Description. Some supervisors had used the phrase to justify assigning work far outside the job description, such as assigning retail duties to a mail processing clerk.

The union asserted that when clerks are assigned duties outside their position description, it must be done in accordance with Article 7.2 of Collective Bargaining Agreement and other applicable provisions.

Stamp Credits

An excerpt from Part 426.6(3) [PDF] of the F-1 Handbook, Post Office Accounting Procedures, outlines the requirement that the USPS must cancel stamp credits that are not used at least once per accounting period.

Grievances should be filed requesting that management remove stamp credits that are not used at least once per accounting period and repost the assignments without the stamp credit. Duty assignments must be worked as posted. The existence of a stamp credit may have discouraged senior clerks from bidding on the assignment.

Schemes & the PAA

Management must move mail processing clerks from their PAA by juniority. The sole exception to this requirement is when a clerk’s duty assignment requires scheme knowledge.

An excerpt [PDF] from the Scheme Training Instructor’s Guide, Handbook 402-T, explains the 30-hour rule: scheme assignments may be made if management “has a reasonable expectation” that employees will work the scheme “for at least 30 hours within an accounting period.”

(If duty assignments containing schemes do not meet the 30-hour criteria, grievances should be filed requesting that the assignments be reposted without them.)

Distribution & Window Clerk Assignments

Case # Q9OC-4Q-C-C 93034647
Fayetteville, TN

In a ruling dated May 21, 1991, Arbitrator Edmund W. Schedler Jr. required the USPS to post two duty assignments as Distribution Clerk positions - rather than Distribution & Window Clerk assignments - because the incumbents were not sent for window training, were not issued stamp credits, and did not work at the retail window.

Case # S7C-3N-C 31627
Hattiesburg, MS

Arbitrator J. Earl Williams ruled on Dec. 3, 1990, that the USPS violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it assigned window duties to a Distribution Clerk who had previously served as a window clerk and had a "live record." The arbitrator required the duty assignment to be posted as a Distribution and Window Clerk duty assignment.

The union had grieved the assignment, asserting that window duties could not be added to a Distribution Clerk duty assignment and that the duty assignment must be posted as a Distribution and Window Clerk duty assignment.

The USPS took the position that since the Distribution Clerk position description states: "In addition, may perform any of the following duties: (viii) Renders service at public window," the assignment was permissible under the Agreement.

Arbitrator Williams concluded that the "public window" duties referenced in the Distribution Clerk position has been interpreted by the parties to mean service at the Dutch door, which serves as a public window.

Case G98C-4G-C 00035518
College Station, TX

In a ruling dated July 10, 2000, Arbitrator Glenda M. August rejected the USPS contention that the requirement to include a PAA on bid notices applied only to large offices and not to stations and branches. Management had argued that the entire station constituted the PAA. Arbitrator xxx required management to post the duty assignment with a specific PAA.

Case W7C-5F-C 18585
Las Vegas, NV

Arbitrator Claude D. Ames ruled on Oct. 20, 1993, that the PAA must identify where the "greater portion" of work would be performed. The USPS cannot rely on the phrase, "other duties as assigned" to justify posting an inaccurate PAA, he said.

Case COC-4U-C 3630
Denver, CO

Arbitrator Lamont E. Stallworth concluded in a decision dated Sept. 6, 1994, that management violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally combined three PAAs into one and then posted duty assignments accordingly.

Case E7C-2P-C 19963
Winchester, VA

Arbitrator Linda DeLeone Klein sustained the union's grievance on Dec. 23, 1994, finding that merely posting "incoming" as the PAA was insufficient. He wrote:

"...the applicants would be bidding on hours and days off without knowing the specific work area. In accordance with Article 37.3.E.5, they have the right to additional information in order to assess the desirability of the position and determine whether they want to exercise their seniority in order to be able to work in a "better" location or at a "cleaner" job. As employees accrue seniority, they should be afforded the opportunity to exercise that right to obtain what is perceived as a more preferable assignment. They cannot avail themselves of the exercise of their full seniority rights based on hours and days off alone. The posting notice must contain all the elements of Article 37.3E."

Case E9OC-4E-C 95001481
Aurora, CO

Arbitrator Robert E. Allen ruled on Feb. 25, 2000, that an entire station could not be listed as the PAA for a job that involved working on parcel post for approximately six hours per day, writing:

"the arbitral precedent required management to include the principal assignment area as part of a posting notice to describe the location in which the greater portion of the work assignment will be performed. Given that the posted position that led to the grievance involved approximately six hours of parcel post distribution work each day, the Employer was required to include 'parcel post' as the principal assignment area."

Case N7C-1P-C 40384
Parsippany, NJ

Arbitrator Herbert L. Marx Jr. ruled on Oct. 6, 1990, that the USPS violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when is posted duty assignments at a station with only "incoming/outgoing area" or "incoming/outgoing mail, window" as the PAA.

APWU Arbitration Advocates wishing to review these awards may utilize APWU Search, the union's grievance-arbitration database.

[back to top]