Interviewing Postal Inspectors, Obtaining Their ... - NALC Branch 908

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NALC Arbitration Advocate Page 10 Volume 2, Issue 2 May 1998 0192*1.&546+%.'FM416'%6+105 USPS Must Seek Work for Carriers Without Driving Privileges, or Place them in Paid Leave Status 1ational Arbitrator Carlton Snow has ruled that Article 29 requires management to make temporary cross-craft assignments to provide work for carriers whose driving privileges have been suspended or revoked. C-18159, April 8, 1998. The interpretive ruling established that management’s obligation to find work for such carriers in other crafts continues even though the NALC and APWU contracts were negotiated separately in 1994. The case arose when management proposed to remove a letter carrier whose state driver’s license had been suspended for three years. Management contended that there was insufficient non-driving work available in the carrier craft, and offered instead to transfer the carrier to a part-time flexible position the clerk or mail handler craft. The carrier refused and management initiated the removal. At national arbitration NALC contended that management had violated Article 29 by failing to find the carrier temporary work in another craft. Article 29 provides: ... An employee’s driving privileges will be automatically revoked or suspended concurrently with any revocation or suspension of State driver’s license and restored upon reinstatement. Every reasonable effort will be made to reassign such employee to non-driving duties in the employee’s craft or in other crafts. ... Management contended that it could have sought temporary work for the carrier in another craft, e.g., the clerk craft, if APWU and NALC had negotiated this provision in a joint contract—as they did in every bargaining round until 1994 negotiations, when the two unions negotiated separate agreements with USPS. However, management argued, once the unions bargained for separate contracts USPS could no longer honor its obligation to NALC to find work in the clerk craft because APWU’s own agreement with USPS did not permit it. APWU intervened in the case to argue essentially the same thing— that USPS could not obey its contract with NALC by working a carrier in the clerk craft in violation of the APWU agreement. Arbitrator Snow sustained the NALC position that despite the change in bargaining structure, USPS was still obligated to obey the unchanged language of Article 29. He also acknowledged that any cross-craft assignments of carriers in the clerk craft must be accomplished in a manner consistent with the APWU agreement. Recognizing that in some cases USPS would be caught in conflicting obligations under the two national agreements, Arbitrator Snow decided that USPS could resolve its conflict by paying the carrier rather than assigning him or her temporary duties in the other craft. #0#)'/'06 /756 1$'; +65 %1064#%6 9+6* X '8'0 +( +6 /#&' # %10(.+%6+0) 241/+5' 61 T In instances where it is impracticable to fulfill its contractual obligation under both agreements, the Employer is without contractual authority to remove such employee. Such individuals shall be placed on leave with pay and reinstated to working status as soon as work is available by placing the employee is a position which will not violate the collective bargaining agreement of either party. In essence, Arbitrator Snow decided that if USPS had made conflicting contractual promises to two different unions, that was the employer’s fault for planning poorly in negotiations. USPS cannot escape its contractual obligation to NALC by claiming that fulfilling that promise would violate another of its agreements. Advocates facing similar cases should be prepared to enforce the Snow award. If management refuses to provide a carrier whose license has been suspended with temporary work in another craft, claiming that to do so would violate its obligations under a different agreement, NALC should demand that the carrier be placed on paid leave until work is found or the license is reinstated. …
NALC Arbitration Advocate Page 11 Volume 2, Issue 2 May 1998 '/'&;(14'.#;'&&,756/'065 Proof of Harm Supports Advocate’s Demand for Remedies 6ometimes a persuasive arbitration advocate can marshal powerful facts to help wring an unusual remedy from a relatively ordinary contract violation. That’s what happened in a recent case decided by regional Arbitrator Walter Powell, C-17771, November 15, 1997. The case arose in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, where jointly administered route inspections were completed on October 15, but despite two extensions of time, 12 of the required new routes were not established by the following January 31 st . As the arbitrator stated, the facts were “largely undisputed.” Various management difficulties, rather than intentional stalling, had led to the delay. The Postal Service had placed a temporary freeze on PTF promotions to full-time. Postings had to be conducted throughout the entire Philadelphia area. Transfers of carriers from other stations were delayed. New vehicles were unavailable and the old ones eventually obtained needed complete overhauls. New relay boxes had to be installed. Extreme winter weather added to these delays and also brought extra burdens to carriers who were already working overburdened routes. Some twenty-two snow and ice storms delayed the mail and made the routes particularly difficult to carry. During this period all of the carriers at the Lansdale Post Office worked maximum overtime. In arguing for a monetary remedy at arbitration, NALC needed to convince the arbitrator that overtime pay alone was insufficient to remedy the Postal Service’s failure to implement needed adjustments within 52 days, as required by Section 211.3 of the M-39. And it needed to overcome the fact that management’s contract violation was not intentional or in bad faith, but rather the result of difficulties and omissions. *' #&81%#6' 5*19'& 6*' *#4/ &10' $; 6*' (#+.74' 61 #&,756 4176'5T The union advocate succeeded by providing evidence that the affected carriers had suffered a “harm”—they had been forced to work extraordinary hours under difficult conditions. NALC offered facts showing that the carriers had suffered “bad morale, additional stress and total discomfort” as a result. The union also provided arbitration precedent establishing the power of an arbitrator to grant monetary remedies in situations not explicitly contemplated by the language of the National Agreement. National Arbitrator Gamser’s decision in C- 03200 was quoted by Arbitrator Powell’s decision: To provide for an appropriate remedy for breaches of the terms of the agreement, even where no specific provision defining the nature of such remedy is to be found in the agreement, certainly is found within the inherent powers of the arbitrator. Arbitrator Powell distinguished the case before him, in which management’s violation had resulted from omissions and failures, from the facts of this Gamser case, in which management behavior had flagrantly disregarded the contract. However, he apparently was convinced by two additional cases offered by NALC, in which arbitrators had specifically approved the granting of additional, compensatory remedies to carriers affected by a failure to adjust routes within the time limit. C-14385, Regional Arbitrator Alan Walt, April 13, 1995; C-10167, Regional Arbitrator Robert Williams, August 6, 1990. Arbitrator Powell sustained the grievance even though local management had not violated the contract intentionally. He further ordered monetary remedies for all of the carriers whose routes were not timely adjusted: ♦ $10.00 per day for affected carriers who had signed the overtime desired list; and ♦ One hour of pay at the overtime rate per day, for carriers who had not signed the OTDL. This award shows how an advocate can use precedent and effective argument to obtain a monetary remedy even where management’s contract violation is apparently unintentional. It stands for the principle that the National Agreement empowers an arbitrator to provide a remedy where there has been a wrong. …
Page 1 and 2: Volume 2 Issue 2 May 1998 A Publica
Page 3 and 4: NALC Arbitration Advocate Page 3 Vo
Page 9: NALC Arbitration Advocate Page 9 Vo

Interviewing Postal Inspectors, Obtaining Their ... - NALC Branch 908

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?