C90N-4C-C 98096296

NALC Branch 100 - 1038-C-97

Arbitrator Jonathan I. Klein

Date: 6/16/02

Issue:  Whether the Postal Service violated the National agreement when it failed to conduct a sixty-day review at the Manhattan Station in Toledo, Ohio, following the route realignments which occurred on February 22, 1997.  If so, what shall be the remedy?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

   The issue according to the Union is as follows:  “What is the remedy for management violating Article 19, specifically, the “Building Our Future Together Handbook,” by not conducting a sixty-day review?”  There is no dispute that an inspection was conducted at the Manhattan station during the week of September 13, 1996, and the routes were subsequently realigned on February 22, 1997.  Therefore, a joint review was required to be conducted within sixty days from February 22, 1997.  However, the required review was not conducted, and a grievance was filed on December 16, 1997.  During the grievance procedure, the postal Service argued that the grievance was not filed in a timely manner.  However, on January 25, 2002, Arbitrator Mark Lurie ruled that the grievance was in fact timely filed, and the dispute was arbitrable. (Joint Exhibit 3).

     The Union argues that the Postal Service flagrantly violated its contractual obligation to conduct the required sixty-day review in the instant case.  Any argument presented by the Postal Service at the hearing must be considered a new argument, according to the Union.  It notes that the Postal Service has never asserted that it conducted the review within sixty days, nor that it was excused from conducting the required review due to operation reasons.  The Union further contends that an award of punitive damages is warranted in this case because the continual violation by the Postal Service is both willful and flagrant.  It believes that there is no incentive for management to adhere to the contract in the event that there is no remedy awarded by the arbitrator.  The Union cited numerous awards in support of its position that a monetary remedy is warranted in this case.  For each of the aforementioned reasons, the Union requests that each letter carrier at the Manhattan station receive one hour at the overtime rate of pay for each day from December 2, 1997, until the date upon which the required joint review is conducted.

     The issue as stated by the Postal Service is as follows:  “Did the Postal Service violate Articles 15, 19 and 41, the Memorandum of Understanding, the –39 Handbook, and the pre-arbitration decision concerning the sixty-day review at the Manhattan Postal Center?”  The Postal Service acknowledges that the routes at the Manhattan station were inspected between September 7 and 13, 1996, and the DPS process was implemented soon thereafter.  According to the Postal Service, no further route adjustments were necessary after the target DPS goad of 70 percent was achieved because the routes were properly adjusted at that time.  The Union presented no evidence that the routes at the Manhattan station required further adjustments even in the event  that a sixty-day review had been conducted.  Additionally, it was subsequently determined that the only two letter carriers who requested special route inspection did not qualify for such inspection.

     The Postal Service further argues that no harm was suffered by the letter carriers assigned to the Manhattan station as a result of its actions in this case.  It asserts that adjustments after a sixty-day review are not necessary under all circumstances.  Additionally, the Union presented no evidence which would indicate that the alleged contractual violation was continual and/or flagrant.  It notes that the incident at issue occurred in 1996 and 1997.  For each of the aforementioned reasons, the Postal Service requests that the grievance should be denied.

AWARD:

     The grievance is sustained as follows.  Each letter carrier in the class of grievants assigned to the Manhattan station during the sixty-day period following the realignment of the routes at that station on February 22, 1997, shall be awarded one hour at the overtime rate of pay for each day which the letter carrier worked during the controlling sixty-day period.  The Postal Service shall comply with the terms of the Award within thirty (3) days from the date of issuance.