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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Arbitration-Case Backlog at 25-Year Low

(This article first appeared in the March/April 2008 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

The cases pending arbitration have been reduced to the lowest number in at least 25 years — down from nearly 100,000 to less than 15,000. This is a direct result of multiple meetings between the Postal Service and the APWU.

Over the last four years, the number of cases pending arbitration was reduced by 80,000, and the APWU saved several million dollars in fees and expenses.

At these meetings, the regional coordinators, craft directors, and I worked with the USPS to push for settlements of grievances at the lowest level possible, and we ultimately agreed to continuous joint training to reinforce the USPS-APWU commitment to reducing the backlog.

The meetings began in 2003, when we started the process to ensure that postal employees with pending grievances could receive justice on their cases, and in a timely manner.

The backlog reduction has been more significant in some parts of the country than others. We will press the issue until all employees receive timely resolution of their cases.

A major part of the effort involved Greg Bell, APWU’s Industrial Relations Department director, who successfully negotiated with the Postal Service to establish an increased number of local arbitration panels.

This has meant a reduction in our costs — despite an increase in hearings — because we not only pay arbitrators, we pay their expenses as well. When we had only “regional” panels it was not unusual for us to pay an arbitrator who lived in Florida to travel to Texas. Now we have more arbitrators, and they are more widespread geographically.

Other Improvements

We also have seen an increase in the number of cases listed in an individual arbitrator’s scheduling letter.

In the past, an arbitrator may have been assigned only one case at a time. If the parties settled the case pre-arbitration, we “lost the arbitration date.” In many instances, even though the case never went to arbitration, we would have to pay an arbitrator.

Now we schedule a number of cases on a single date: Even if all the cases are settled ahead of time, we get a better return on the date. Furthermore, if 11 cases are scheduled and 10 are settled, one case will still go before the arbitrator.

Along with that, a greater emphasis has been placed on efforts to settle cases earlier so that fewer lost dates occur and so that arbitrators can be rescheduled to a different location if all the cases scheduled for hearing at a specific location are resolved.

It should be noted that not all lost dates are bad news — we have had a large number of good settlements. But holding last-minute settlements to a minimum means the best utilization of our advocates and resources, as well as the arbitrators themselves.

At What Cost?

The union’s share of the cost for arbitrators and their expenses was $3.5 million in 2001, and $3.7 million the next year. Had this trend continued, it would have been expected that, with inflation, the cost in 2007 would have been at least $4.5 million.

Near the end of 2002, however, President Burrus assigned me, the Industrial Relations Department, and, indeed, all the National Business Agents, with trimming the backlog.

In 2003 our arbitration costs dipped to $3.1 million, and in 2004, they were down to $2.9million. The 2005 and 2006 figures were $2.6 million and $2.5 million, and last year, we whittled our costs to below $2 million. Granted, in 2007 we heard fewer cases (we were negotiating the selection of arbitrators with management; then we negotiated the arbitrators’ contracts). However, during this four-year period, the policies of this administration have led to a backlog reduction of 80,000 cases while saving millions of dollars — our cost in lost dates alone has been reduced to almost half of what it was in 2003.

All in all, not bad.

Vets’ Rights Upon Returning to Postal Jobs

It is always difficult to succeed in balancing the rights of specific groups of employees with the contractual rights applicable to all: The rights often seem to be driven by separate and colliding forces.

For example, veterans have legal rights that can appear to conflict with rights provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We want to assure returning veterans that they will receive all their legal rights — period.

The Postal Service and the Department of Labor have been utilizing the code of Federal Regulations (20CFR Part 1002) to implement veterans’ rights. Under the “Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act” (USERRA), 20CFR Part 1002 applies to the private sector. The implementing instructions for USERRA in the federal sector are found in the law titled “Restoration to Duty From Uniformed Service or Compensable Injury” (5 CFR 353).

Note that the language specifies “compensable injury.” We have been dealing with the issue of employees returning from “compensable injuries” for many years. The Merit Systems Protection Board has ruled that service-seniority rights do not include craft seniority to be carried into another craft or installation.

Service seniority provided to restored veterans and those injured on the job is seniority for retirement, leave accrual, within-grade increases, no-layoff provisions, and severance pay.

We are currently working with the Postal Service to resolve any differences in these rights.

[back to top]