C94N-4C-C 98056721

NALC Branch 100 – 1012-C-97

Arbitrator:  Nicholas Duda, Jr.

Date:  6/30/2001

Issue:  Did the Service violate the commitment made by the Postmaster of the Napoleon, Ohio Post office in his agreement with Branch 100 President?  If so, what is the remedy?

POSITION OF THE PARTIES:

…I contracted the Napoleon Post Office Postmaster and suggested we agree to extend the data from the most recent route inspection to turn on DPS and then inspect in a DPS environment.  This would mean we would be waiving the current route inspection data (18 months or less.)  In return for that waiver the Postal Service would agree to inspect after DPS was implemented, which meant any additional street time would be build into the route.

The Napoleon, Ohio Postmaster said it sounds like a win-win situation, but he had to speak to this boss, Post Office manager …  Both the Napoleon Postmaster and I spoke to Post Office Manager …   and an agreement was signed on 2/2/97 agreeing the Napoleon Post Office would be inspected when DPS reaches 50% or no later than November of 1997.

     No such inspection was conducted.  This union was never advised of a cancellation.  No explanation was ever provided to Branch 100.

     On 12/8/97, a grievance was filed at the Napoleon Post Office and is now properly before you today.

     …the Napoleon Post Office reneged on a good faith, signed agreement.  The union will prove the carriers at Napoleon were denied their rights under this agreement.

     …I ask you find in favor of the carrier and award each carrier one hour per day at the overtime rate from December 1, 1997 to March 12, 1998 when the office was finally inspected.

     Whether automated equipment was available before November 1997 is irrelevant.  If the equipment had not been available at Napoleon in June of 1997, DPS could not have started at that time as scheduled, but the Service could have made the route inspections as promised in November 1997 before the DPS start up just as the Service inspected the routes in march 1998 before DPS started on April 29, 1998.  A November 1997 study could have been used as the 198-month study.  The Sickles case was a different type of situation.

     As to the monetary award, this Postal area is notorious for not living up to agreements and arbitrators have imposed monetary penalties such as requested in this case.

POSTAL SERVICE POSITION:    

     The Local Agreement shows the Parties anticipated having inspection after DPS was implemented but DPS could not be implemented until the automation equipment became available, as stated in the Step 3 decision.  In effect the Service commitment became impossible to be performed so the Service should be excused for having failed to perform the obligation.  In the regard, the Service cites Arbitrator Sickles decision in his decision for another Toledo Area cases C94N-4C-C-98056634/C94N-4C-C-98110532.  Here the Postal Service was acting in good faith.  The grievance should be denied.

AWARD:

     The grievance is sustained.  The Postal Service violated the Local Memorandum of Understanding dated February 27, 1997 by not conducting the Napoleon route examinations until March 12, 1998, long after the commitment period of November 1997.  This is another instance of Akron District’s failure to honor its commitments to Local 100, as shown in the submitted arbitration decisions.  The Service is directed to give each Napoleon Carrier one hour of overtime pay for each day that the Carrier worked from December 1997 to march 12, 1998, when the office was finally inspected.