Interviewing Postal Inspectors, Obtaining Their ... - NALC Branch 908
Interviewing Postal Inspectors, Obtaining Their ... - NALC Branch 908
Interviewing Postal Inspectors, Obtaining Their ... - NALC Branch 908
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>NALC</strong> Arbitration Advocate Page 10<br />
Volume 2, Issue 2 May 1998<br />
0192*1.&546+%.'FM416'%6+105<br />
USPS Must Seek Work for Carriers Without<br />
Driving Privileges, or Place them in Paid Leave Status<br />
1ational Arbitrator Carlton<br />
Snow has ruled that Article 29<br />
requires management to make temporary<br />
cross-craft assignments to<br />
provide work for carriers whose<br />
driving privileges have been suspended<br />
or revoked. C-18159, April<br />
8, 1998. The interpretive ruling established<br />
that management’s obligation<br />
to find work for such carriers<br />
in other crafts continues even<br />
though the <strong>NALC</strong> and APWU contracts<br />
were negotiated separately in<br />
1994.<br />
The case arose when management<br />
proposed to remove a letter<br />
carrier whose state driver’s license<br />
had been suspended for three<br />
years. Management contended that<br />
there was insufficient non-driving<br />
work available in the carrier craft,<br />
and offered instead to transfer the<br />
carrier to a part-time flexible position<br />
the clerk or mail handler craft.<br />
The carrier refused and management<br />
initiated the removal.<br />
At national arbitration <strong>NALC</strong><br />
contended that management had<br />
violated Article 29 by failing to find<br />
the carrier temporary work in another<br />
craft. Article 29 provides:<br />
... An employee’s driving privileges<br />
will be automatically revoked<br />
or suspended concurrently<br />
with any revocation or<br />
suspension of State driver’s license<br />
and restored upon reinstatement.<br />
Every reasonable<br />
effort will be made to reassign<br />
such employee to non-driving<br />
duties in the employee’s craft or<br />
in other crafts. ...<br />
Management contended that it<br />
could have sought temporary work<br />
for the carrier in another craft, e.g.,<br />
the clerk craft, if APWU and <strong>NALC</strong><br />
had negotiated this provision in a<br />
joint contract—as they did in every<br />
bargaining round until 1994 negotiations,<br />
when the two unions negotiated<br />
separate agreements with<br />
USPS. However, management argued,<br />
once the unions bargained for<br />
separate contracts USPS could no<br />
longer honor its obligation to<br />
<strong>NALC</strong> to find work in the clerk<br />
craft because APWU’s own agreement<br />
with USPS did not permit it.<br />
APWU intervened in the case to<br />
argue essentially the same thing—<br />
that USPS could not obey its contract<br />
with <strong>NALC</strong> by working a carrier<br />
in the clerk<br />
craft in violation<br />
of the<br />
APWU agreement.<br />
Arbitrator<br />
Snow sustained<br />
the <strong>NALC</strong> position<br />
that despite<br />
the<br />
change in bargaining structure,<br />
USPS was still obligated to obey the<br />
unchanged language of Article 29.<br />
He also acknowledged that any<br />
cross-craft assignments of carriers<br />
in the clerk craft must be accomplished<br />
in a manner consistent with<br />
the APWU agreement.<br />
Recognizing that in some cases<br />
USPS would be caught in conflicting<br />
obligations under the two national<br />
agreements, Arbitrator Snow<br />
decided that USPS could resolve its<br />
conflict by paying the carrier rather<br />
than assigning him or her temporary<br />
duties in the other craft.<br />
#0#)'/'06 /756<br />
1$'; +65 %1064#%6<br />
9+6* X '8'0 +( +6<br />
/#&' # %10(.+%6+0)<br />
241/+5' 61 T<br />
In instances where it is impracticable<br />
to fulfill its contractual<br />
obligation under both agreements,<br />
the Employer is without<br />
contractual authority to remove<br />
such employee. Such individuals<br />
shall be placed on leave<br />
with pay and reinstated to<br />
working status as soon as work<br />
is available by placing the employee<br />
is a position which will<br />
not violate the collective bargaining<br />
agreement of either<br />
party.<br />
In essence, Arbitrator Snow<br />
decided that if USPS had made<br />
conflicting contractual promises to<br />
two different unions, that was the<br />
employer’s<br />
fault for planning<br />
poorly in<br />
negotiations.<br />
USPS cannot<br />
escape its contractual<br />
obligation<br />
to<br />
<strong>NALC</strong> by<br />
claiming that<br />
fulfilling that<br />
promise would violate another of<br />
its agreements.<br />
Advocates facing similar cases<br />
should be prepared to enforce the<br />
Snow award. If management refuses<br />
to provide a carrier whose<br />
license has been suspended with<br />
temporary work in another craft,<br />
claiming that to do so would violate<br />
its obligations under a different<br />
agreement, <strong>NALC</strong> should demand<br />
that the carrier be placed on<br />
paid leave until work is found or<br />
the license is reinstated. …