Article 1.5 Clerk Craft Jobs MOU Interim National Arbitration Award

On March 4, 2026, Arbitrator Margo Newman issued an interim award holding that the APWU’s Clerk Craft Jobs MOU Step 4 grievance may proceed to arbitration at the national level. The decision clears the way for the APWU to litigate on the merits of its claim that the Postal Service violated Article 1.5, the Clerk Craft Jobs MOU, and related work-preservation provisions of the National Agreement by assigning non-managerial and non-supervisory work outside the Clerk Craft.

In concluding that the Union’s grievance is arbitrable at the national level, Arbitrator Newman found that it presents an interpretive dispute concerning the “scope and meaning of the phrase ‘non-managerial and non-supervisory work’ contained in Article 1.5.A” and related work-preservation MOUs. She concluded that resolving that question requires application of contract-interpretation principles to determine the parties’ intent, and therefore the dispute is “not just a question of fact.” Arbitrator Newman also rejected the Postal Service’s argument that it lacked adequate notice of the dispute raised by the Union, finding that the record showed the Postal Service understood the nature of the dispute during the grievance process, including in the Postal Service’s correspondence holding related grievances in abeyance and in the parties’ 15-day letters at Step 4, where the Union made clear its position that the agreement draws a “bright red line” between bargaining-unit work and managerial or supervisory work and leaves no contractual room for “shared duties.”

Arbitrator Newman further found that the dispute is one of general application because the framework created by Article 1.5 and the related MOUs is national in character. As the award explains, those provisions involve national-level notice to the Union, national-level creation of positions and assignment of work, national job audits of EAS positions, and position descriptions that exist at the national level. Because “the entire context for the work preservation provisions of the National Agreement is nationally focused” and may affect job descriptions and work assignments across the country, the Arbitrator concluded that this is “not a factual dispute about the assignment of specific duties at a particular location,” but rather an interpretive dispute concerning the scope of non-managerial and non-supervisory work being performed in positions outside the bargaining unit. For these reasons, Arbitrator Newman held that the Union’s Step 4 grievance may proceed to arbitration at the national level.