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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Fighting to Protect Our Jobs

(This article was first published in the July/August 2009 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

An arbitration hearing of fundamental importance to protecting APWU jobs was held June 9 and 10, before Arbitrator Shyam Das.

The language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement backs up our contention that the hours worked by unassigned employees should be combined to create duty assignments.

For many years, the APWU has been successful in forcing management to establish duty assignments by tracking the regularly scheduled hours worked in a given facility by employees — including casuals — in various categories. By charting the total number of hours worked, we have been able to substantiate our assertions that the hours worked by unassigned employees could be combined to create duty assignments.

To support our demands to establish duty assignments, we relied on the language in Article 7.3.B of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which says,

“The Employer shall maximize the number of full-time employees and minimize the number of part-time employees who have no fixed work schedules in all postal operations;”

The Postal Service, however, has declared that the language in Article 7.3.B requires interpretation: The USPS filed an “interpretive dispute” in June 2004, which essentially asked an arbitrator to rule that the provision cited above should be read as follows:

“The Employer shall maximize the number of full-time employees ‘by minimizing’ the number of part-time employees who have no fixed work schedule in all postal operations;”

By twisting the meaning of Article 7.3.B, postal management is attempting to circumvent an important provision of the contract — one that protects bargaining- unit jobs.

In a Feb. 24, 2009, letter outlining its position, management’s representative wrote, “It is the Postal Service’s position that there is no contractual requirement to count or combine hours worked by casual employees and TEs under the maximization clauses of Article 7.”

Our position, as stated in a Feb. 23 letter, is outlined as follows:

1. A duty assignment is understood to be a set of duties and responsibilities within recognized positions, regularly scheduled during specific hours of duty. (Article 37.1.B, Article 38.2.C, Article 39.1.C.5, and Article 41.A.)
   
   
2. The two clauses of Article 7.3.B are to be read “in the disjunctive” – they are two separate and distinct obligations of the Postal Service.
   
   
3. The first clause concerns maximization of full-time duty assignments: “The Employer shall maximize the number of full-time duty assignments.” The second is about minimizing the number of part-time employees without fixed schedules: “…minimize the number of part-time employees who have no fixed work schedules in all postal installations.”
   
   
4. Simply put, the Postal Service’s maximization obligation under the first clause of Article 7.3.B is not limited to consideration of the second clause, which concerns the work hours of part-time flexible employees.
   
   
5. The first clause of Article 7.3.B obligates the Postal Service to combine the work hours (which are not already part of an existing duty assignment) of all categories of non-full-time employees: part-time regular, part-time flexible, transitional, and casual employees, to establish full-time duty assignments.
   
   
6. Furthermore, because overtime is not part of full-time duty assignment calculations, the Postal Service must also combine regularly scheduled overtime hours of full-time employees with the work hours of non-full-time employees to establish full-time duty assignments.
   
   
7. The full-time duty assignments resulting from combining work hours of non-full-time employees must be posted for bid in accordance with the bidding provisions of the National Agreement.
   
   
8. Even though the Postal Service has employed part-time regular, part-time flexible, transitional, and casual employees in accordance with the National Agreement, it does not mean that these non-full-time employees may be utilized in such a way that their work hours are excluded in determining whether there exists a full-time duty assignment that the Postal Service must post for bid: The Postal Service’s right to employ these non-full-time employees does not override its obligation to maximize full-time duty assignments under Article 7.3.B.
   
   
9. Although Article 7.3.C offers a way for the Postal Service to maximize full-time duty assignments, it is only one of several methods available. The Postal Service’s maximization obligation under the first clause of Article 7.3.B is not limited to the fact situation described in Article 7.3.C.

Finally, whether in any particular situation a full-time duty assignment exists that the Postal Service is required to establish under Article 7.3.B is a matter of local fact circumstances.

We presented a strong case in arbitration, and are hopeful of a positive outcome.

[back to top]