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:
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
Printer-Friendly Page
