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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Addressing the Grievance Backlog

(Updated excerpt from the March/April 2003 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

The grievance backlog continues to be a problem. We have tens of thousands of grievances in the system and we are scheduling thousands of arbitration cases: But the backlog is not diminishing as quickly as we would like. What's the problem?

Why is the backlog not being reduced faster?

There are a couple of problems, and they are largely logistical in nature: More cases are entering the system than are being heard.

Can more cases be scheduled?

Not really - the scheduling system is at its maximum capacity.

Can we make better use of our schedule?

Yes. Many cases now on the schedule have not been reviewed, and get reviewed only after being scheduled. Because of this, reviewed cases often are withdrawn or settled, causing a loss of arbitration dates. In addition, many cases are presented in arbitration - regardless of merit or evidence - simply because they are scheduled without review.

What's the solution?

We believe the solution is to place the review process before the arbitration scheduling so that we are absolutely certain that the cases we place on the arbitration docket are the cases that we want to have heard.

What would be the effect of reviewing and scheduling only our best cases to arbitration, and closing all the others?

We believe that the effect would be that the American Postal Workers Union's credibility before the arbitrators would increase. We believe that the threat, "we'll arbitrate," will again have meaning.

How do we accomplish this?

We have been attempting to negotiate an agreement with the USPS that would require management to hold pre-arbitration discussions with local advocates who could be "on the clock" 60 days prior to preparing a schedule. Whether or not we are successful in reaching an agreement, we must review cases before they are scheduled for arbitration. We are confident this will result in a better arbitration-win ratio, and improved credibility.