C90N-4C-C 94043690/94043691

NALC Branch 100 168-C-91/61-C-92

Arbitrator:  Linda DiLeone Kline

Date:  1/27/95

 

Issue:  Did the Postal Service violate the National Agreement by failing to create router positions after router time was established on numerous routes in the Reynolds Corners installation?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?

 

UNION POSITION:    

 

     The Union submits that Management failed to adhere to its own rules and regulations regarding route adjustments, Router time and the 8-hour work day.  No explanation was given for this failure, says the Union; in fact, the only reason offered was the high cost of monetary settlement.

 

     The Union asks the Arbitrator to evaluate the evidence presented, consider the awards submitted with the post-hearing brief and find there from that the Postal Service violated the National Agreement by failing to provide appropriate Router relief for the Router time they established.  The Union further asks for “compensation in the amount of one hour overtime for every day carriers worked overtime”.

 

MANAGEMENT POSITION:

 

     The Postal Service is adamant in its position that it was “not practicable” to establish Router positions even though Router time was listed on Joint Exhibit 4 for several routes.  The letter issued by the parties at the National Level in September 1988 does not require the creation of Router positions in all instances where Router time is established.  The parties recognized that there may be legitimate reasons where it is not practical to establish such positions.  The Postal Service submits that the parties thereby acknowledged Management’s right to provide relief in an efficient, economical manner.

 

     Although no Step 2 decision letters were issued, the Postal Service insists that the Union was well aware of the reasons why the creating of Router positions was impracticable.  The Reynolds Corners Station was overcrowded in 1988 when the route inspections were done, and by September of 1989, numerous carriers had moved to a now location known as the Annex.  All of one ZIP Code zone could not fit into one building and several zone 15 routes were moved to the Annex along with zone 17 routes.  With this split, there were times when mail had to be transported to the “right building”, says Management.  With this split, there were changes in “travel time’ which affected the route times established by the 1988 route inspection.  In November 1990, Management lost the lease on the old building, and in March 1991, they were evicted.  Another location had to be found because the new Reynolds Corners facility would not be completed until December 1991.  Again, says Management, circumstances requiring a move had an effect on route times, and it was therefore not practicable to create Router positions to provide permanent relief.  In other words, states Management, route times from the 1988 inspection were no longer valid or accurate, and it was impractical to create Router positions which would only be temporary; it was Management’s intent to wait until all Reynolds Corners routes were reunited in the new building.  The Union was aware of these problems, says Management; said arguments were previously made in the case before Arbitrator Powell.

 

     As it relates to the grievance filed in May 1991, Management requests that it be denied due to the impracticability of establishing Router positions under the circumstances in existence at that time.

 

     As it regards the grievance filed in may 1992, the Postal Service requests that it be denied as well.  In April 1991, the Postal Service set up a tentative schedule for route inspections in Reynolds corners in fiscal year 1992;  clearly, by this time, it was apparent that the results of the October 1988 inspection were no longer applicable.  However, the parties at the National level were arbitrating a case involving the Router concept for route adjustments.  The award in said case was issued in July 1992, and on July 30, 1992, the parties at the Nationl level agreed to a moratorium on all route adjustments.  At that point, Management could not make the adjustments requested by the union because the old route times were not valid and new times could not be established or implemented. 

 

     The Postal Service insists that carriers were not “required” to work overtime to perform casing and routing duties on their own routes.  The carriers who performed these duties had signed the 12-hour overtime desired list and they thereby “requested” the overtime work.  When assistance in any form is needed, the most efficient method of providing such relief is for the carrier on the overtime desired list to perform the work on his own route, adds Management.

 

     As it regards the remedy requested, Management asserts that punitive damages cannot be justified.  The Arbitrator’s authority in fashioning a remedy is generally limited to compensating the employee for monetary losses, or making the employee whole, states Management.  The employees involved in this case suffered no losses; they were on the 12-hour overtime list, and they were properly compensated for all overtime hours worked.  No employee was harmed, claims the Employer.

     

     Furthermore, these grievances were filed in May 1991 and May 1992, yet there were not appealed to  arbitration until mid-1994.  With or without Step 2 decisions, the Union could have appealed both cases to arbitration in a timely manner; therefore says Management, the claim for a monetary award extending into 1995 is entirely unjustified.  In addition, after July 30, 1992, no route adjustments could be made due to the moratorium agreement.

 

     In summation, the Postal Service submits that it was not practicable to establish Router positions due to the repeated “physical movement” of the station and due to the fact that the window of operations precluded the establishment of such positions within the contractually required “workday”.

 

     The Postal Service requests that the grievances be denied in their entirety.

 

In the Opinion the Arbitrator stated:

 

     Case No: C90N-4C-C 94043690 is granted to the extent that carriers shall receive one hour of pay at their regular rate for each day they worked overtime beginning 14 days prior to May 18, 1991 and ending on July 30, 1992.

 

     Case No:   C90N-4C-C 94043691 is granted to the extent that carriers shall receive one hour of pay at their regular rate for each day they worked overtime beginning 14 days prior to May 19, 1992 and ending on July 30, 1992.

 

AWARD:

 

            The grievances are granted as set forth in this Opinion