C90N-4C-C 95030526
C90N-4C-C 95030525
C09N-4C-C 95029609
Arbitrator: Philip W. Parkinson
Date 7/17/95
Issue: Did management revert full-time
bid positions and continue to service it with part-time flexible carriers performing the same duties?
POSITION OF THE PARTIES:
- Union
The Union believes
the issue to be whether the Postal Service can revert a full-time bid position and continue to service it with part-time flexible
carriers performing the same duties. They point out that on October 1, 1994 the
Toledo Post Office advised the Union that Carrier C-1 at Point Place Post Office would be reverted. They also advised the Union on December 13, 1994 that Carrier C-6 at Reynolds Corners Post Office would
also be reverted. The Union furthermore points out that the only explanation
offered by management at Step 2 was that it is management’s right as well as “some rhetoric: concerning emergency
situations and unforeseen circumstances. They also point out that the Postal
service’s answer at Step 3 ‘Is completely false as they state the position was vacant because of retirement, permanent
duties of the position were substantially less than 8 hours of work and Management was required to find work for the incumbent”. The Union alleges that there was no shortage of work, but to the contrary, carriers
were working overtime up to 60 hours per week. The reverted positions were posted
as P.M. Collections with “other carrier duties as assigned” and prior to the reversion, this is exactly what the
carrier servicing the bid position did. After the reversion, the carrier servicing
the position has continued to honor that job description. The Union argues that
the Postal Service has reverted the two (2) carrier positions in name only. They
feel that supportive of this position is the fact that the Postal Service accepted “hold-downs” on a reverted
position. The Union points out that it accepts the Postal Service’s right
to revert and unneeded position, but cannot and will not accept the elimination on paper of a bid position when the position
still exists and is still serviced on a daily basis. To continue to service this
bid position with PTF’s is a violation, pure and simple.
The Union notes
that the Postal Service themselves cannot agree upon the situation in these cases inasmuch as the Postmaster states there
was not enough work to keep the carriers gainfully employed. However, Mr. …
said that there is work every day. They also note that the Postal Service said
the collection at the Reynolds Corners Station was reduced, yet Mr. … stated that it remained the same. The Union contends that the bid position being serviced by the PTF’s to this date is consistent with
the job description. The two (2) reverted positions were posted with the P.M.
Collections and with other carrier duties as assigned. This is exactly what was
done by the carrier prior to the reversion. Again, they note that after the reversion
the carriers did the same thing, the route is serviced in the same way and the job description continues to be honored. The reversion has been done in name only. The
Union asks that the Postal Service be instructed to re-post the position and the carriers be paid one (1) hour overtime for
every hour they were forced to work overtime. The Union submitted a number of
arbitration decisions in support of its position.
- Postal Service
The Postal
Service believes the issue to be whether Management at the Toledo Post Office violated Articles 3, 7, 12, 19, and 41 of the
Agreement as alleged by the Union when they reverted a vacant bid position from the Reynolds corners Station and the Point
Place Station. The Postal Service points out that a collection run consists of
a carrier who travels to designated mail boxes to collect mail which has been deposited there by Postal customers. The carrier then brings the mail to the Main Post Office or to another designated locations for stamp cancellation
processing and dispatch. They point out that under Article 3 of the Agreement,
management has the exclusive right subject to the provisions of the Agreement and consistent with the applicable laws and
regulations to maintain efficiency and to determine the methods, means, and personnel to conduct the operations. However, due to the changes in operations brought about by automation, mail is now processed faster than
ever before and the equipment now available can process all collected mail after 5:00 P.M.
Therefore, it is no longer necessary to have early collections from mail boxes in order to bring the mail downtown
early in the day. Management must carefully evaluate each position to determine
if it is necessary and neither collection bid at the RC or Point Place Stations
consisted of a full eight (8) hours of collection duties. The remaining time
of the bid consisted of various other duties as assigned. The Postal Service
also argues that insofar as Article 7 is concerned, there is nothing in this Article that mandates Management must continue
to post a vacant duty assignment if it is no longer needed as a full-time assignment simply on the basis that it has been
posed in the past. They point out that there has been no violation of Articles
12, 19 or 41 as alleged by the Union.
Insofar as
Article 7, Section 3.G of the Agreement is concerned, there is no evidence that the ratio was not in compliance with the Agreement. The Postal Service again points out that the PTF’s were not working the same
assignment. Except for the collection position of that particular route, they
were used for details that varied from day to day. The Postal Service argues
that it is not efficient to place a bid up for eight (8) hours when six (6) hours of that bid may not be there. Simply because it was done in the past does not mean that there would be work of this nature in the future. They also point out that there is no longer a collection at Reynolds Corners in the
morning. The Postal Service argues that the hours that the PTF’ work at
Reynolds Corners is not a factor to determine if the bid would be posted. There
is nothing in Article 7 that says the hours worked is a factor. In this instance
the assignment, other than the collection, varies from day to day. Therefore,
pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement, this is the reason they no longer need this position.
The Postmaster’s testimony indicated that automation changed the need for all collections being run. The Postal Service submitted an arbitration decision in support of its position.
AWARD:
The grievances
are granted in part. The Postal Service shall promptly re-post the C-1 position
at the Point Place Post Office and the C-6 position at the Reynolds Corners Post Office.
