C94-N-4C-C  98056762

Arbitrator:  Thomas J. DiLauro

Date:  11/19/98

Issue:  What is the remedy and corrective action, if any, for the Postal Service’s failure to implement adjustments as part of the 60 day review process?

Union Position:

     In September, 1992, the Union and the Postal Service executed six memorandums of understanding to resolve past disputes regarding route adjustments and to set a joint course for the future.  The six memorandums comprised a road map to the changes that delivery point sequencing (DPS) would bring to letter carrier routes.

     Chapter 4 was entitled “The Future: X-Route Process” and set forth rules regarding DPS percentages and at what point letter carrier routes would be realigned.  The parties agreed to follow the X-Route process and agreed to introduce DPS when such mail reached a target of 70%.  In the early part of 1997, the Union was advised by the Postal Service that the 70% threshold had been reached and that the Zone 17 routes at the Reynolds Corners postal facility needed to be realigned.

     The Union and Postal Service worked together as a Joint Resolution Team to realign the routes.  As a result, one route formed after a 1995 inspection was abolished and split-up and assigned to the other seven routes in that zip code.  Although the Union was concerned with adding time to routes already in excess of eight hours, it felt it had to honor its previous agreements regarding route changes and seek relief in the 60 day review, if it was needed.

     The changes were implemented on April 19, 1997 and, within the first thirty days, it was apparent that routes of ten hours or more had been established.  The parties met and agreed to compile data for the first thirty days and for the entire sixty-day period.  In August, 1997, adjustments were agreed to by the parties.  Station Manager sent the results and agreement on the 60-day review to Postmaster.  On that date, the local union and management officials were in agreement regarding realignment of the routes and implementation thereof.  Implementation has not yet taken place because the Postal Service’s District Office has refused to allow it.

     The Union noted that the instant grievance was filed in protest of the postal Service’s refusal to implement changes resulting from the sixty-day review.  The Postal Service never responded at Step 2 and no verbal answer was ever forthcoming from the three pre-arbitration hearings requested by management.  The Union argued that the Postal Service has a flagrant disregard for the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, the various memorandums of understanding, the agreement to realign, and Step 4 and arbitration decisions addressing this issue.  The only reason given to date by the Postal Service for its refusal to implement the agreed-upon realignment is that it is too expensive.

     The union further noted that all representatives of management on the parties’ Joint Resolution Team engaged in the meetings, discussions and resolution of the realignment problems and that there was no dispute as to what was needed to adjust the routes to as close to eight hours as possible.  The Union argued that the Akron District has a long history of meddling with route inspections and dragging its feet beyond the mandated contractual time limits in implementing route adjustments.  A number of arbitrators have recognized that fact and have awarded progressively higher monetary damages as a result.

     The Union asked that this grievance be sustained and that each carrier in Zone 17 at Reynolds Corners post office be awarded two hours penalty overtime pay for each day the route adjustments are not implemented.

Postal Service Position:

     The Postal Service agreed that the issue in this case revolves around the question of corrective action and remedy for its failure to implement adjustments as part of the sixty-day review.  However it contended that this issue should not be grieved but should be sent to the Joint Resolution Committee for resolution.

     The Postal Service argued that the arbitration awards submitted by the Union did not deal with the same issues that are involved in this case regarding implementation of route adjustments due to the activation of DPS, and, therefore, are not applicable in the instant case.

     The Postal Service also argued that no harm has been caused to the letter carriers in Zone 17 at the Reynolds Corner postal facility.  The bulk of those carriers are on the overtime desired list (ODL) and have been and will be continued to be paid for any overtime they worked or will work.  These carriers sought and agreed to work overtime and none of them have suffered because of working overtime routes.  The Postal Service noted that the arbitrator’s authority is limited by the provisions of Article 15.4.A.6 to the terms and provisions of the parties’ agreement and that he may not alter, amend or modify its terms.  In fashioning a remedy, the arbitrator is generally limited to compensating employees for monetary losses or making employees whole.  Punitive damages  cannot be justified under the terms of the agreement and consequently, the grievance filed by the Union requesting punitive damages must be denied.

In the Opinion the Arbitrator wrote:

     The Postal Service is directed to pay $100.00 per week beginning August 26, 1997, which is the beginning of the fourteen day period prior to when the Step 1 meeting was held on September 8, 1997, until it implements the adjustments resulting from the sixty day Zone 17 review.  That amount is to be accrued until the changes are implemented and, when implemented, is to be divided among the full-time regular carriers who hold bids in Zone 17 routes at the Reynolds Corners postal facility.

AWARD:

     The grievance is sustained and the remedy is as set forth in the last paragraph of the Opinion.  The arbitrator will retain jurisdiction for a period of sixty days for the specific purpose of resolving any questions as to how the remedy is to be implemented.