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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

To Enforce National Awards,
We Need Local Help

(This article first appeared in the July/August 2005 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

In the recent casuals-hired-in-lieu-of-career-employees arbitration victories, locals had to have filed grievances in order to benefit from the remedy. And before we could obtain the nationwide upgrade of Mail Processors from Level 4 to Level 5, we needed to have locals pursuing the issue.

In recent years, we won two national-level cases concerning bargaining unit work that was being performed by EAS (non-bargaining unit) employees. As with the upgrades, we need our locals to contest violations so that we can protect jobs.

What to Do With EAS

In the 1990s, the APWU filed a Unit-Clarification petition with the National Labor Relations Board. In our petition we showed that a number of EAS positions belonged in the Clerk Craft bargaining unit.

On Aug. 27, 1998 , the APWU initiated a number of national-level grievances claiming that these EAS positions belonged in the bargaining unit, and that many of the duties that EAS personnel were performing in those positions constituted bargaining-unit work.

On Dec. 13, 1999 , the parties agreed to submit the Unit Clarification case to arbitration. The agreement states in part:

“In initiating the several Aug. 27, 1998 grievances, the APWU intended to broadly encompass disputes over whether the positions belonged in the bargaining unit or whether the positions contained duties which should be assigned to the bargaining unit.

“The parties shall apply national-level arbitration awards which are issued as a result of this settlement agreement as broadly as possible in an effort to resolve other pending EAS grievances raising the same or similar issues or arguments.” [Emphasis added.]

AMS Arbitration

But it’s never that simple.

In the Address Management System (“AMS”) Specialist case, the APWU argued that because none of the duties listed in the AMS Specialist position description fell within the exclusions of Article 1.2 or Article 1.3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the position belonged in the Clerk Craft. We also noted that the duties listed in the AMS Specialist position-description were Clerk Craft duties.

The Postal Service argued that the position — and predecessor positions — historically had been excluded from the bargaining unit and that the APWU was seeking to increase the ranks of the Clerk Craft, contrary to the law developed by the NLRB in representation proceedings. The National Association of Letter Carriers intervened in the case.

On April 29, 2003 , Arbitrator Carlton Snow issued an award sustaining the grievance. Applying the rule that says “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another,” he found that both the AMS Specialist position and duties belonged to the Clerk Craft, stating: “It is reasonable to conclude that the parties intended the work and the position to be in the bargaining unit” [Emphasis added.]

The arbitrator also found that nothing in the NLRB’s rulings prevented him from awarding the work to the Clerk Craft, particularly in light of the APWU’s ongoing challenges to the assignment of bargaining-unit duties to EAS employees. “While NLRB guidelines and judicial decisions are instructive,” Snow wrote, “the parties’ collective bargaining agreement ultimately is dispositive.”

The Intervening Party

At the close of the hearing, the arbitrator gave the NALC 14 days to notify the parties about whether it intended to call rebuttal witnesses. Believing that at least some of the work belonged to the city letter carrier craft, the NALC suggested that the arbitrator issue an award about whether the work was craft or EAS work and remand any jurisdictional disputes to the unions for resolution.

To avoid delays, the APWU expressed willingness to separate the case so that Arbitrator Snow would decide whether the position and work was non-EAS, leaving for a later date resolution about which craft the work and positions belonged to.

But the Postal Service responded by telling Snow that it saw “nothing in either [union’s] correspondence that prevents you from issuing a full and final decision in this matter.” Arbitrator Snow closed the hearing on Oct. 31, 2002.

After the award gave the position and work to the APWU, the NALC wrote to the arbitrator, arguing that he should not have issued an award that also resolved the inter-craft issues. The APWU responded that the Postal Service specifically objected to the NALC’s suggestion of a split award, so that procedure was never adopted by the parties and thus the award was final and binding.

The Postal Service then went before the NLRB and filed a Unit Clarification (UC) petition of its own, seeking to make clear only that the APWU unit excludes all EAS positions. Changing its earlier position, the Postal Service argued that the NALC should have been given an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence.

The arbitrator did not respond, and his 90-day retention of jurisdiction expired. Since then, the Postal Service has balked at scheduling the next case, and the APWU has filed suit to compel it to do so. [Note: Arbitrator Snow passed away Nov. 19, 2004.]

Waiving Review Rights

The APWU has argued to the NLRB that the Postal Service waived the right to seek review of the Snow Award by entering into a settlement providing for final and binding arbitration of all issues regarding EAS positions and work, as well as regarding the withdrawal of the APWU’s Unit Clarification petition.

The Postal Service’s UC petition is still pending before the labor board.

Whatever may be said about the NLRB’s right to review the Snow Award as it applies to unit placement of AMS EAS positions, the AMS Award is final and binding on its holding that the duties of the AMS Specialist position belong to the Clerk Craft because the NLRB has no jurisdiction over work assignment issues.

Why It’s Never So Simple

We’re asking locals to tell local managers to get their specialists off our work, or pay us hour-for-hour for the time they work in the Address Management System.

Moreover, given the UC settlement agreement’s provision that awards be applied broadly, we feel that the AMS Award established that all non-supervisory and nonmanagerial EAS duties of all EAS positions in customer services and mail processing facilities are bargaining-unit work.

Locals should file grievances wherever management is not in compliance with this basic principle. If EAS employees are performing duties that are not supervisory or managerial, management’s failure to assign those duty assignments to bargaining unit employees violates Articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The duties may be both those things listed in EAS position descriptions or craft work that you observe EAS employees performing.

A grievance should be filed even if there is some question as to which bargaining unit the work should be assigned to – that is a side issue that should not detract from the basic premise of the grievance.

If the situations are long-standing and management argues that the grievances are untimely, we’re asking locals to assert that the violations are ongoing, continuing violations.

Above all else, we need our locals to be assertive, and we need to know that you’re being vigilant. This is especially true in these instances where bargaining-unit work is threatened.

[back to top]