94N-4C-C 97083530

NALC Branch 100 – 242-C-97]

Arbitrator:  Raymond Britton

Date:  3/29/01

Issue:  What is the remedy for moving the grievant from Route 526 and sending him to Station D?

POSITION OF THE PARTIES:

The Position of the Union.

     It is the position of the Union that management failed to live up to two signed Step 2 agreements.  The Union contends that management agreed to retain the Grievant on route 26 at Station A until his “claim is adjudicated”.  The Union further contends that management failed to live up to the grievance procedure and to its Step 2 and Step 3 responsibilities under Article 15 as the answers given by management to the grievance failed to follow the guidelines of Article 15.  The Union contends that as management failed to answer any of the charges brought by the Union, the only issue is one of remedy.  The Union also contends that the arguments of the Employer are new arguments, as they are not contained in the grievance package.  By way of remedy, the Union requests that the Grievant be awarded full back pay, minus the amount of money earned during the period April 7, 1997, to the present, and that the Grievant be returned to Station A and made whole for all lost benefits.

The Position of the Employer.

     The Employer takes the position that the contention of the Union that management agreed to retain the grievant on Route 26 at Station A until his “claim is adjudicated” is without merit as his claim was adjudicated in April of 1993, and he is therefore not entitled to any of the benefits of such compensation after that date.  The Employer contends  that the demand of the union that the Grievant be returned to Station A and awarded back pay fails for several reasons.  Firstly, the Employer contends that the Grievant is no longer employed as he retired on disability in January of 1998 and therefore is no longer entitled to the benefits of the National Agreement.  Secondly, the Employer contends that Route 26 at Station A has been eliminated through route inspections and station adjustments.  Thirdly, the Employer contends that under Article 13, there are no guarantees to an employee as to hours of work or place of work while on light duty.  Lastly, the Employer contends that an Arbitrator is limited to the provisions of the National Agreement and therefore cannot award an individual who no longer is an employee a postal position with fullback pay and benefits, when the removal of that employee through Article 16 is not the issue of the grievance.

AWARD:

     For the reasons given, the grievance is sustained and the Grievant awarded back pay, minus the amount of money earned, from April 7, 1997, until the date he resigned from the Postal Service.