Printer-Friendly Page
|
(12/18/09) In a letter dated Oct. 7, 2009, the USPS informed the APWU about plans to consolidate its “supply chain configuration” in order to reduce the cost of the Accountable Paper Network. [read more]
Postal Service Announces Plans
To Consolidate CFS Sites
(12/18/09) In letters
dated Oct. 7 and Dec. 1, 2009, the USPS notified the APWU of
plans to consolidate 39 Computer Forwarding System (CFS) sites in
Fiscal Year 2010. The consolidation is a result of the implementation
of the Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS). [read
more]
New Challenges in Small Offices
(This article first appeared in the January/February 2010 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)
On Oct. 22, the APWU filed a Step 4 Dispute over Violations of Article 1.6.B of the National Agreement, regarding the performance of bargaining-unit work by non-bargaining-unit employees in Level 15, 16, 17, and 18 offices.
The grievance alleges that the Postal Service has systematically reassigned bargaining- unit work in violation of several landmark arbitration awards that established the principles that guide the assignment of such work.
The APWU has evidence that the Postal Service is mandating postmasters in associate offices to spend a specific pre-determined number of hours performing bargaining unit work, without regard to the history of such work in a particular office. This constitutes a clear, widespread violation of the interpretive rulings of Arbitrators Sylvester Garret and Shyam Das, as well as a subsequent Step 4 decision. These awards and agreements are considered supplements to our Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Delivery Unit Relocation
In addition to these extensive violations of our National Agreement, the Postal Service has implemented yet another disruptive staffing program that is causing major problems in many small towns across the country.
The Delivery Unit Relocation (DUR) program is intended to make it easier for management to move Letter Carriers from one associate office to another. This action also moves the distribution functions to the gaining office.
The program is designed to lower the level of the losing post office, which lessens the administrative time allotted to the postmaster there. Very often, the program eliminates budgeting or authorization for a Clerk Craft employee in the losing office, which leads to an improper shift of retail window hours from clerk to postmasters.
All too often, the end result is the excessing of one or more clerks outside the office. In some cases, management eventually hires a postmaster relief (PMR) for the office and then shifts remaining functions that historically were conducted by Clerk Craft employees to the postmaster, the PMR or others.
Taken together, these and other programs are designed to take work hours from the Clerk Craft and give them to management. This type of clear violation of Article 1.6 of the National Agreement is not unprecedented. In fact, it is just a new name for an old ploy.
The Article 1.6 Cases in Point
In 1978, Arbitrator Garrett wrote (Case #AC-NAT-5221):
“There is no way, therefore, that 1.6.B reasonably could be read to grant an unlimited license to eliminate Clerk hours by transferring Clerk work to supervisors without also giving consideration to other possible means of reducing total work hours.”
In 2003, Arbitrator Das (Case #Q98C-4Q-C 01238942) embraced the Garrett award by writing:
“The ruling in the Garrett Award is part and parcel of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Essentially, the exception in Article 1.6.B can only properly be applied by applying the Garrett Award.”
Later in the 2003 award he wrote:
“The Garrett Award does not give the Postal Service carte blanche to increase the amount of bargaining unit work performed by a supervisor whose position description includes performance of bargaining unit duties, or to shift work from clerks to supervisors.”
Das added:
“Historical practice sets the baseline for what is ‘necessary’ at a particular office. Any substantial change, thereafter, has to meet the requirements Arbitrator Garrett spelled out.” [Emphasis added.]
These awards make it clear that management cannot simply shift work from the Clerk Craft to postmasters. The USPS asserts the “program” no longer “authorizes” the historically performed work to remain with the clerks, and that’s all there is to it. Balderdash!
A Step 4 Precedent
A Step 4 settlement supports the union’s position, however. A 1995 agreement (Case #Q90C-4Q-C 94011535 ) states: “The considerations established in Arbitrator Garrett’s decision will be reviewed and applied before any shift of bargaining unit work from craft employees to postmasters is effectuated.”
As clerks, you know the history of your own office better than anyone. If managers are shifting work to themselves or to PMRs — or to Rural Carrier Reliefs or anyone else — you should file a grievance.
Among the documents that can help support a grievance are previous budgets, “flash” reports, RDM/WOS Transaction and Visit Count documents, Function 4 reports/studies, clerk schedules, PS Forms 3930, and TACS reports or time cards. Statements from current clerks or former clerks — even truthful former supervisors — are also excellent sources of support.
On Oct. 19, the APWU filed a class-action Step 1 grievance to cover offices with 20 or fewer craft employees and where the union has not previously certified a steward. If you work in one of these offices, for remedy purposes you will still need to document the specific violations there. Anything you can get your hands on that shows that clerks were doing the work in question before it was shifted away will stand as useful “historical backup.”
Please work with local, state, and national officers to make sure that grievances are filed as soon as you see that managers are stealing your work. Your job depends on it.
