Printer-Friendly Page
Ask the President Question: The issue of Tour Compression and other management excessing initiatives were the subject of discussion at the recent National Presidents’ Conference meeting in Washington, DC. Brother Bell gave a brief update on the issue. However, I have received a number of inquiries from local presidents requesting an update on this issue, specifically (1) the status of the ULP charges, (2) the status of the injunction, (3) national-level grievances, and (4) any further discussions/negotiations between the parties to return employees back to Tour 2. I thank you in advance. John H. Dirzius President Burrus: Thank you for your inquiry. Below is an update on national issues regarding the USPS policy of “Tour Compression.” The national union filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge [PDF] with the National Labor Relations Board on Nov. 25, 2008, contesting management’s refusal to negotiate with the union prior to initiating the change. The charge is pending a decision by the NLRB. The ULP alleges that management failed to bargain over the nationwide plan to consolidate mail processing into two tours — a plan that would eliminate or greatly reduce the number of assignments on Tour 2. The charge also asserts that the Postal Service failed to provide information to the union regarding this initiative. In addition, the charge says the APWU could “show that the Postal Service answered the Union’s request for information dishonestly.” When the APWU requested documentation detailing the program in October 2008, management denied that it was “considering or is in the process of implementing a nationwide program establishing a two-tour operation, which is intended to eliminate or greatly reduce Tour 2 assignments, operations, and staffing.” The Postal Service also wrote, “Regarding your request to produce documentation regarding ‘any nationwide or region- or district-wide program, plans or initiatives to eliminate or reduce Tour 2 operations and/or Tour 2 staffing,’” no such documentation exists.” The APWU requested immediate, injunctive relief, asserting that without such relief the initiative would be completed before the board would be able to address the charge. Step 4 Disputes We also initiated two Step 4 grievances on Dec. 16, 2008, contesting the program. The first (HQTG200819) [PDF] challenged management’s authority to initiate the changes without providing the union the required 90-day advance notice at the national level and the required six-month advance notice at the regional level. I discussed this grievance with management’s representative on Jan. 30, 2009, and have been promised a written proposal for resolution during the week of March 30, 2009. Upon receipt of management’s proposal, I will either pursue a final resolution of the issue or initiate an appeal to arbitration. The objective of the grievance is to clarify that the USPS and APWU at the national level agree that Article 12.5.B.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires management to notify the union up to six months in advance whenever possible before the Postal Service undertakes reassignments such as the “Tour Compression.” Our goal is to reach agreement that no “interpretive issue” is involved in the re-assignment of the employees; if agreement can be reached on this principle, disputes will be deferred to the local parties to determine if it was possible for management to provide the required notice prior to reassigning employees. Second Step 4 The second Step 4 dispute (HQTG200820) [PDF] focuses on management’s violation of Article 17.5.B.4, which requires the Postal Service to discuss new initiatives with the union during the development stage, and to bargain in good faith. The APWU learned of management’s plans from local union officials and did not receive notification of the plan from the Postal Service until after the ULP and Step 4 disputes were filed. The dispute also asserts that the USPS failed and refused to provide the APWU with relevant information requested by the union. In response to a written request for documentation regarding any “nationwide or region- or district-wide program, plans or initiatives to eliminate or reduce Tour 2 operations and/or Tour 2 staffing,” the Postal Service informed the APWU that “no such documentation exists.” However, evidence shows that the two-tour initiative is, in fact, nationwide in scope and that it was initiated by the Postal Service at the national level. The Step 4 dispute also asserts that the plan violates the parties’ commitment to protect day-shift assignments. Management’s actions violate Article 7.1.B.4 and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Supplemental Workforce and the Conversion of Clerk Craft Part-Time Flexibles. The protection of existing Tour 2 assignments was central to the historic agreement reached in 2006 contract negotiations. Industrial Relations Director Greg Bell met with a USPS representative to discuss this grievance on Jan. 21, 2009; Fifteen-Day Statements of the Issues and Facts involved in the dispute were exchanged on Feb. 13, 2009, and the dispute was appealed to arbitration on Feb. 17, 2009. [PDF] Summaries of these developments were posted on the union’s Web site as they occurred: www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008/08124-tour2dispute-081217.htm www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008/08125-tour2dispute-081219.htm www.apwu.org/dept/ind-rel/webarts/irwebart2tourinit.htm April 1, 2009 |
