E7N-2C-C 26042

Arbitrator:  Walter H. Powell

Date: 4/25/92

Issue:  1.)  Did Management violate the National Agreement  Article 14 in making carriers work in unsafe conditions. 

     2.)  Did Management violate Article 3, 15, 19 and 41 of the National Agreement and the memorandum of Understanding by not adjusting routes within 52 days of the inspection?  If so, what shall the remedy be?    

Union Position:

     The Memorandum of Understanding in the National Agreement asserts that exceptions taken must be communicated to the Union.  It calls for a ‘detailed written statement’.  No such statement has ever been given to the union by Management.  Throughout this entire period of time, many meetings of the Employee Involvement committee at Reynolds Corners occurred; management contends that the president of the local union agreed not to put the new agreed upon routes into the Post Office as they would further compound an already unsafe condition.  This conversation took place well after the 52 days had elapsed, and did not relieve management of finding an alternative sight in which to place the new routes.

     Management’s failure to follow the findings of the station inspection has exaggerated and imposed upon the carrier who had to continue carrying out over burdened routes.  Many carriers were forced to work undesired overtime.  An effective remedy for these carriers is additional pay for the period of time that the inspections are not timely followed.  Management was culpable in not carrying out the needed new routes.  The adjustments were ultimately made 11 months after the inspections rather than the 52 days prescribed.  Administrative leave would be granted for all hours of overtime as well as a monetary penalty.

Postal Service Position:

     The Toledo Post Office denies emphatically that they wantonly or discriminatively delayed the installation of the new routes.  At least a year or more before the inspection, management had sought to expand the postal facilities at Reynolds Corners.  Physical aspects of the land, complications with the City and with other federal agencies prevented the expansion.

     This information has been freely discussed with the union and its representatives at Employee Involvement meetings.  Six new routes could not be physically included within the then existing facility.  This conversation has been acknowledged by union leadership; there is no requirement that notifications of exceptions must be in writing.

     The remedy requested by the union is neither just or available.   The vast majority of the carriers had signed the overtime desired list.  At any given period in the interim delay, no more than three carriers had opted not to sign the ODL.  The carriers were paid for their overtime, they are not entitled to premium pay or punitive damages for time already worked, acknowledged and paid.  Because the carriers sought and agreed to overtime none of them suffered because of working the overburdened routes.  The Union has been aware of the problems facing management in trying to create and build a larger facility, they have offered nothing by way of alternatives to what management did and should not gain from management’s sincere efforts to correct the situation, even if such correction went beyond the 52 days.

AWARD:

     Based on consideration of all the evidence, I make the following Award.

1.)    The Postal Service violated the intent of the parties’ Agreement and the M-39 Handbook.

2.)    All regular carriers at the station during the period from January 2, 1989 until September 23, 1989 shall receive one hour of pay at their regular rate for each day they worked overtime, or $1,000.00, whichever is less.

3.)    The undersigned arbitrator will maintain jurisdiction over the proper payment of this Award for thirty days.