South Carolina State Association of Letter Carriers

    Welcome Union Brothers and Sisters to our Step B Team Decision webpage.  The decisions here are real cases.

Names of the grievants have been omitted or changed.  The decisions have been shortened or summarized for all practical

purposes.  Most if not all decisions on this page will be favorable ones. Therefore we saw no need to display

management's contentions here.  There is sufficient information present to cite or request a copy of these

decision(s) from the appropriate branch or authority.  If you wish to share a Step B Decision for this page, mail the

You can appeal to management that if the conditions, circumstances, and/or principles of your grievance are the same

as what it is referenced here, then only time (time is money) is wasted by appealing to the Step B Team as their decision

******************************************************************************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

 

to resolve this grievance.  Management failed to post city route 20 within 14 days of the date it became vacant. Local

management has received previous instructional resolutions on the same issue and it appears the lump sum amount

of $100.00 and a "cease and desist" have been insufficient to insure future contract compliance.  In an effort to emphasize

the commitment of the parties to contract compliance, the DRT has agreed to the following:

 

    Upon finalization of the bid process for city route 20, each successful bidder who is shown to remain on the bid route,

will be awarded a one time lump sum payment amount fo $200.00.  In addition, the employee who is converted and assigned

to the remaining vacant duty assignment that resulted from the posting of city route 20, will also be awarded the lump sum

amount of $200.00.

 

Statement of the case: A city carrier working in the Myrtle Beach Post Office retired effective June 1, 2008, leaving city route

20 vacant.  A "Route Vacancy Notice" provides the city route was posted on June 26, 2008 and closed on July 5, 2008.

The Union contends management is posting routes according to a 28 day cycle that does not conform to the 14 day time

limit of Article 41 and this same practice was addressed in a previous Step B resolve dated December 7, 2007. (ref. #5908)

    The union requested the DRT to increase a previous settlement amount of $100.00 when addressing the third cited

violation in the December resolve.  Instead, the DRT elected to note the repetitive nature of the violation and not increase the

remedy so as to allow management a final opportunity to comply with its obligations under Article 41.  In that this is now the

fourth shown violation the DRT has agreed an increase is appropriate for failure to post a route within the 14 day period.

 

PS Form 8190                           Prior Step B Decision (ref. 5908)                       Union Position

Listing of Attachments               Bid Cycle Chart                                               Notification of Separation

Certification of Steward              Detailed/Route Vacancy Notice

 

 

 

 

 

this grievance.  Management was shown to have violated Article 41 of the National Agreement, when the grievant was

removed from a "hold down" assignment at the Eau Claire Station and required to work at the Capitol Station instead.

Management will cease and desist removing a carrier from a "hold down" assignment (opt assignment) in violation of Article 41.

                                                              John Doe $25.00

 

Explanation:  According to the facts in the file, the grievant was working a "hold down" assignment" on route 03018, pursuant

to Article 41.2.B.4.  The grievant was scheduled to work route 03018 (regular scheduled day) on April 10, 2009 but was

removed from the assignment and required to work at the Capitol Station, where he worked a total of 9.78 hours.

  The Union contends the following:  Management deliberately violated Article 41.2.B.5 when the supervisor removed the

grievant from his "hold down" assignment.  Management feels they can move PTF carriers anywhere they need them even

if it means violating the contract.  The union requested light duty documentation for the grievant, but all they have received is a

blank Medical Condition Report-Light Duty Request Form.  The union requested management be given a stern cease and desist

and pay the grievant 75% out of schedule pay for the 7.83 hours he was mandated to work off of his opt because management's

blatant disregard of Article 41.

    There is no dispute that the grievant had properly opted for and was awarded the "hold down" assignment on route 03018 and

April 10 was a regular scheduled day for the assignment.  The file contains no evidence supporting a contractual reason to

remove the grievant from his "hold down" assignment.  Management contends the grievant was on light duty and the grievant was

given work at the Capitol Station within his work restrictions.  However management failed to show how the grievant would be

violating work restrictions by working the "hold down" assignment or that the grievant was even on work restrictions on April 10.

JCAM page 41-11 Article 41 states in relevant part "An otherwise qualified employee on light duty may not be denied hold

down assignments as long as the employee can perform all the duties of the assignment."

 

Step B Ref # 6356                            PS Form 8190                        Email

Steward's Statement                         Union Contentions                  Carrier Route Daily Performance Report

JCAM 4-11 4 pages                          Grievant's Statement               Request for Information/Investigation

0-13 Hold Down Request                   Weekly Schedule.                  Material Reference System 2 pages

Management's Contentions               TACS report 5 pages               Light Duty Request Sheet.

 

 

 

 

to resolve this grievance.  The 7 Day Suspension was not for just cause and will be expunged from the grievant's record upon

receipt of this resolve.

 

Management contends the grievant was given instructions to remain in his case and put up all available mail.  Management 

contends the grievant did not follow the instructions, but left his case in an effort to speak with the steward.  Management

contends giving the the grievant instructions three times to not leave his case and the grievant failed to follow the instructions.

In addition, management contends the grievant yelled out profanity on the workroom floor.

    A PDI was conducted on August 1 and discipline was requested on August 6.  The grievant was issued a 7 Day Suspension

on August 15.  Management cited a Letter of Warning dated March 21, 2008 to establish progression to the 7 Day Suspension.

    The grievant disputes leaving his case but merely turned around to speak with the stewad.  The grievant also contends he

did not use profanity.  The girevant contends the confrontation on the work room floor by the supervisor caused him to become

physically ill to the point of having to leave work.  The grievant contends he was unable to complete a PS Form 3971 and it was

necessary for the grievant to ask for help from the steward.  The steward indicated in the record that he observed the grievant's

hands shaking uncontrollably.

    Management bears the burden when issuing discipline to establish the employee acted as charged, was aware of the rule

or regulation being violated, and knew the consequences for his/her actions.  In this instant case, management has proven

no evidence with the file other than the supervisor's statement of events.

 

Step B Ref#6179                         PS Form 8190                         Union's Contentions          PS Form 3971

Employee Everything Report       Management's Contentions        Steward's Statement     Supervisor's Statement

7 Day Disciplinary Notice            Disciplinary Action Request       Grievant's Statement      Contract Sites

Route/Carrier Daily Perfomance/Analysis Report                         Supervisor's Questionaire of Considerations

NALC Request For Information                                                   Fax Verication Report 

 

 

 

will be rescinded and expunged from all files.  The grievant is advised to submit a PS Form 3996 when OT is evident, to

verbally notify management if street conditions require a late return, and shall complete a PS Form 3996 upon his return

to the office.

 

Explanation:  The grievant exceeded 8 hours on his route on 6/18/09, by .23 hundredths, and on 6/22/09 by .15 hundredths.

He was instructed to carry his route in 8 hours and went into unauthorized OT. A Letter of Warining was issued for these

dates.

    The grievant states he tried to call in when he was aware of his possibility of going into overtime.  He states no one answered

the phone.  Management writes, "The grievant claims that he called the office on both days to tell someone he would be late

returning.  That's not the point!  The point is that he shouldn't have needed any extra time, on either day at all!"

   In contradition to Management's "That's not the point!", the carrier followed proper procedure in calling in to verbally notify

management of going into OT.  At that point Management must instruct the carrier what to do, continue to carry the mail into

OT, bring back the mail, or they would send someone out to relieve him of the OT.  Telling the carrier to continue to carry the

mail is inherent authorization of Overtime.

    Management goes on to state, "with an hour of undertime projected for one day and 20 minutes projected for the next,

    This confirms that DOIS projections are used for the leaving and return times.  There is no provision for wholesale

denial of a PS Form 3996 request.  The Letter of Warining will be rescinded and expunged from all files.

 

Reference # 6452                         PS Form 8190                        Letter of Warning

NALC Contentions                       USPS Contentions                  Route/Carrier Daily Performance/Analysis Report

Workload Status Report               TACS-EER                             Grievant's Statement

Steward's Contentions                  PDI                                       Record of Discussion

Workload Status Report               Route Information Card            PS Form 1840 Reverse

PS Form 3996                             Information request

 

                                                                        Step B Decision

 

 

cause for the 14-Day Suspension dated June 14, 2007 because it was not issued in a timely manner.

 

Explanation:  On June 25, 2007 management issued a 14 Day Suspension to the grievant for Unsatisfactory Work Performance

/Unauthorized Overtime.

 

Dispute Resolution Position: Rather than explain each of the parties contentions concerning this dispute, the union raised the

technical argument that this discipline was not issued in a timely manner.  The incident date was May 15, 2007, the disciplinary

notice was dated June 14, 2007, and it was not issued to the grievant until June 25, 2007.  One of the tests of just cause is

outlined in Article 16.1 on page 16-2 of the JCAM.

* Was the disciplinary action taken in a timely manner?

 

PS Form 8190

Joint Exhibit

Union Contentions

Management's Contentions

Disciplinary Notice

Disciplinary Action Request

Management's Investigative Notes.

 

 

 

 

to RESOLVE this dispute.  There is no dispute there was a delay by management in the completion and submission of the

needed paper work.  Management did not complete the paperwork until January 29, 2008, which was approximately 77 days

after the grievant submitted his portion of the paper work.  Claiming inexperience of the responsible 204-B, compounded with

delay by the regular supervisor, who was shown to have knowledge of the issue before January, was not reasonable. The

grievant was more than patient and his efforts to advise and make management aware were crucial to the completion of

the process.

 

    The Postmaster of this installation will communicate with all management personnel the importance of handling disability

retirement process requirements in a timely manner.  The delay may have caused the grievant to use more sick leave or

be placed in a non-pay status for longer than was necessary.  This delay would also prevent management from an additonal

hire to replace the grievant as the grievant would remain on the rolls until the outcome of the retirement application is

determined.

    Management will cease and desist delaying the timely submission of critical paper work that serves to impact an

employee's benefits and/or the possibility of disability retirement.

    The grievant will be paid a lump sum amount of $400.00 for this delay.  The Step B Management Team Member

will make the payment through GATS.

    The grievant is advised the Step B Team was given information that the OPM is currently behind in retirement

processing.  The Step B Team was also told that the OPM has accepted disability retirement applications without the

supervisor statement.  Shared Service's policy in regards to processing an incomplete file in not known.

 

PS Form 8190

Grievant's Statement

Union's Interview Notes

Union's Contentions

6 additional pages

 

                                                Step B Decision

 

 

 

 

to resolve the dispute.  Management was unable to confirm the infromation requested by the union had been provided and

thereby stipulates to a contract violation.  Management's focus of dispute centers on the appropriateness of the union's

requested monetary remedy.

    In devising an appropriate remedy the DRT has considered what party would have been the most harmed when management

failed to provide the union with the officially requested information.  In that it is the union who is the authorized agent under

Article 1 to represent the letter carrrier craft, the union and its constituents would stand in a position to be most harmed.

    Whether or not failure to provide certain information within a grievance could serve to influence the outcome of the resolution,

but in that each case is fact specific the degree of harm could vary and shold be determined on a case by case basis within

the grievance itself.

     Management may not continue to ignore its contractual obligations under Articles 17 and 312 with impunity.  Management

this incidence of violating will constitute one "credit" for use by local branch 233.  The credit will serve as full payment for one

invoice must be in accordance with the contractual guidelines established for reimbursement by the union for copies in excess

of the allowed non-chargeable number (free).

    Management will ensure prompt compliance with Article 17 and 31 when responding to the union's request for information.

It is understandable a delay may be necessary and justified.  However, management should still provide the union with a prompt

response as to the reason for the delay and when the information should be expected to be made available.

 

PS Form 8190

Request for information

Shop Steward Statement

Union's Formal A Contentions

28 additional pages

 

 

 

 

was remanded to the parties for further development.  The local parties were unable to resolve the grievance and it was again

appealed to Step B.  The parties agreed to have the grievance remanded in an attempt to resolve the grievance at the lowest level

possible.  Nothing in the file indicates the information was provided after the remand.  The file alleges this is an ongoing violation

and it was not disputed by management. Therefore, to convey the importance of compliance of Article 31, the management Step B

member will make the following lump sum payment to the identified steward.

 

                                                       Shop Steward will be paid $100.00

 

Explanation:  The file includes a request for steward time and information from the steward.  The request was noted that it was given to

management on April 9, 2009 and management refused to sign as received.

   The union contends that management never provided the requested information.  Mangement contends the information was provided.

However, the file is void of any game plan for the week. 3971's, 3996's, TACS reports, CA-17's and 2499 as requested on two

documents described as sample 1 and attachment 2.  The request for information is a Union document and therefore would not be

considered a PS Form.  However, management is advised to sign the request for information form as it would clarify the date of

receipt.  Additionally, management could have the Union sign the same form indicating what information was received.

Management will cease and desist violating Article 31 of the National Agreement.  Future proven violations may result in additional

remedies in order to ensure contract compliance.

 

Step B Ref# 6335B

PS Form 8190

Union Contentions (6 pages)

Managment's Contentions

Request For Information (3 pages)

Previous grievance/ settlements 26 pages

 

 

 

 

did violate Article 31 when they refused to give the union the documentation to settle this dispute at the lowest level. Management

is hereby instructed to "Cease and Desist".  Request for union time and/or documentation will not be unreasonably denied or

delayed, nor may management refuse to participate in the grievance process.  Management is required to participate in the

grievance process.  Participation requires full disclosure at Formal A.  Any and all information necessary for the parties to

make an informed decision must be made available no later than the Formal A Meeting.  Future violations will result in a monetary

remedy.

 

Explanation:  On June 18, 2009, the Shop Steward requested information for a grievance and management did not provide it

for him.

 

The Union contends:

1.  The Shop Steward did request information on June 18, 2009

2.  Management can not provide the PDI notes that was given on both John Doe and Jane Doe.

3.  Management has not provided the Game Plan for the days in question, Clock Rings, nor proof that John Doe was given a

discussion.

is a serious infraction in the city of Columbia.

 

Step B Reference 6465                                   PS Form 8190                       Request for Information Documents

Union's Contentions                                       40 other pages

Management's Contentions

 

 

 

 

to resolve this grievance.  The joint file does not establish just cause for the issuance of a 14 Day Suspension to the grievant

for a missed MSP scan on August 11, 2008.  The 14 Day Suspension will be expunged from the grievant's record upon receipt

of this decision.

 

The file assumes the grievant was responsible for this scan on this day as there is no evidence to establish his required duties

on this day.  In that the only documentation of a missed scan allegedly by the grievant occurred on August 11, the file is absent

evidence to establish missed scans as an ongoing and repetitive problem with the grievant.

    Management contends a discussion was held with the grievant regarding missed scans on August 11; however, the fact that

missed scans were discussed does not establish a san was actually missed by the grievant.  A discussion in intended only to

establish that an employee has been made aware of some particular obligation or responsibiltiy.  It does not establish the employee

was guilty of mis-conduct.  Nor may management cite a discussion as an element of an employee's past record in any future

disciplinary action.

 

Step B Ref# 6178                      PS Form 8190                     Management's Contentions

Supervisor's Statement              Union's Contentions              Discipline Package

Steward's Statement                 Contract Sites                      PDI Questions

Report of Adverse Event Involving Postal Employee

 

 

 

 

Explanation:  The grievant was issued a Letter of Warning for failure to deliver an Express Mail before noon.  The label stated

"before 3:00 p.m." and the grievant delivered it at 14:48 p.m.

Management claims the grievant failed to deliver an Express Mail by noon as required.  The case file shows no requirement to

deliver mail by noon.  There is no requirement listed in the S.O.P., and no other document with the case file that sustains

management's contentions.  The Express Mail Label shows deliver by 3:00 p.m.  Management does not sustain its burden

of proof to show that there is any policy or directive for delivery of Express Mail by noon.  Management failed to show just

cause for the disciplinary actions.  The LOW is rescinded and expunged from all files.

 

Ref # 6451                                   PS Form 8190                           NALC Contentions

Information Request                      Steward Contentions                  USPS Contentions

Letter of Warning                          N.E. Station S.O.P.                   Disciplinary Action Request

PDI                                             Track and Confirm                      Daily MSP Route Report

TACS-EER                                  PS Form 3849                           Express Mail Label and PS Form 3849

 

 

                                               Step B Decision

 

 

to resolve this grievance.  Management did violate Article 16 of the National Agreement when they issued the

grievant a 7 Day suspension on March 27, 2009.  Management did violate the Weingarten Rule when the steward and the

grievant were not told the purpose of the meeting before the meeting began.  Management must comply with this

Federal Law and failure to do so could serve to overturn the discipline that results from an Interview where management

has been shown to be in violation of the rule.

    Management did not use progressive discipline and the discipline they issued was punitive rather than corrective.

Management is to "cease and desist" in issuing discipline not by the National Agreement.  The grievant's 7 Day

Suspension is to be Expunged from her records.

 

PS Form 8190                                    Step B Ref# 6317

Union Contentions (5 pages)                Copy Weingarten Rights

JCAM 17-6 (2 pages)                           Request For Information

Investigative Interview Notes                  Disciplinary Action Request

ELM-664                                             Notice of 7 Day Suspension

LOW 3/16/07

 

 

 

 

 

to Resolve this grievance.  Management did violate Article 10 and Article 19 of the National Agreement when they

issue discipline to carriers who do not have a record of attendance problems.  Management will "Cease and Desist"

and follow the proper guidelines of the contract for issuing of discipline on absenteeism.

 

at the local level.

    The Union contends management did issue Ms. Jane Doe a LOW for two unscheduled days of Dependent Care.

Dependent Care is given to the carrier to use for aiding, helping and looking after a family member who is in need of such

care.  The contract states that the carrier is entitled up to eighty hours of dependent care a year.

    The union contends management is also giving discipline to carriers for being out sick for more than three days in one

year for not being in regular attendance.  A person can not schedule an illness or injury and for management to say that

discipline will be issued for three days or more in one year is inappropriate on their part because no one person can schedule

an illness or injury either on themselves or their family.

    The union contends they have ask management for the rules stating that they could issue discipline for attendance and

they have not come up with one or do not know of one but yet they are using it.  It only states is that if a carrier has an attendance

problem he must be placed on restriction sick lieave and then if continued they can issue a source of discipline, but first

must go through the proper procedures.

    The union contends under the contract in Article 10 it clearly states the carrier has the right to take up to 80 hours of

dependent sick leave to care for their family members in case of illness, injury or other means that will cause the family to be under

the weather.

    According to the relevant facts in the file, the Dispute Resolution Team has decided to resolve this grievance.  Managment did

violate Artilce 10 and Article 19 of the National Agreement.

 

Step B Ref#6316                           PS Form 8190                                       Union Contentions 2 pages

JCam 10.5 (2 pages)                     Request to Investigate                             Letter of Warning dated 3/23/09 2 pages

Steward Statement (3 pages)         Investigative Interview (3 pages)                J-Cam 10

National Agreement (2 pages)        P.S. Form 3972 (4 pages)                       Letter of Warning 3/23/09 (2 pages)

P.S. Form 8190 (4 examples)

 

 

 

this grievance.  Management was shown to have violated Article 10.  Upon submission of a properly filled out PS Form 3971,

the grievant will be approved up to 8 hours annual leave on the day of her choice, regardless of the amount of carriers on

approved annual leave on this date and regardless to whether the leave is requested during the month of December.  The

leave for this purpose is to be taken by February 31, 2010.  This grievance settlement shall be noted in the remarks section

of the PS Form 3971 and shall not count against the percentage of carriers allowed off in the delivery unit, on any given day.

The normal local procedures for submission of requests for annual leave will not apply to this leave as the approval of leave

is for the purpose of remedying the grievant in the instant case, without adversely affecting the rights of fellow employees.

Management will cease and desist obstructing employees from taking approved annual leave.  Management will treat

 

was approved for 30 minutes of Annual Leave for June 18, 2009.  On June 18, 2009, the grievant was instructed to take

.50 hours of auxiliary assistance from her route and leave on the floor for another carrier to complete.  Additionally, the

grievant curtailed half a set of circulars ("Neighbors").  Two members of management went out on the street to find the

grievant.  When they found the grievant they gave her the curtailed half set of circulars and instructed her to deliver all

of them.  The grievant was unable to complete her duties in time to take the .50 hours of approved annual leave.

    Management is reminded that "making the numbers" is not an excuse for contractual violations.  Specifically,

Management can not deny an employee the opportunity to take leave because they believe the employee in not

"making the numbers."  Likewise, the grievant is reminded to follow the proper procedures for curtailing mail,

including obtaining prior authorization from managment

    Management will cease and desist obstructing employees from taking approved annual leave.  The grievant will be allowed

to submit and be approved up to 8 hours of annual leave on a day of her choice as specified in the Decision Section.

 

Step B Ref # 6433                              PS Form 8190                      Union Contentions

Request For Information                      Carrier Statement                 Step B Decisions

Fax Cover Sheet                                PS Form 3971                      Management Contentions

Employee Everything Report                                                          Route Carrier daily performance

 

 

                                                   Step B Team Decision

 

 

decided to resolve this grievance.  Management was shown to have improperly adjusted clock rings for numerous

carriers during the period of time from September 0f 2008 through mid January of 2009.

 

The Installation Head will make certain all supervisors have been given the necessary training in Time and Attendance

Control (TACS) to ensure the input of data through the system is accurate and reflects the work that is being

performed.

 

Carrier assignments do not take place in a vacuum, but under the direction of management.  Management will conduct

the necessary training for all carriers in the Columbia Installation to ensure they are able to accurately record the task

being performed to the appropriate designation code and are aware that they are responsible for performing task.

Management will post the appropriate codes at the clock.

 

Management will cease instructing carriers to enter codes in clock rings that serve to transfer carrir work hours into

a function (code) that does not reflect the work being performed by the carrier.  Due to the improper deletions of

carrier clock rings and the use of improper codes, the data for the period of time provided in this grievance is not shown

to be accurately reflected and is to be reviewed and corrected jointly by the parties (union and management) prior to

being used for the purpose of adjusting carrier routes

 

PS Form 8190

Formal A Statement

Step B Ref #6260

Union Contentions

Clock Rings (pp 5 -301)

Additions and Corrections

 

 

 

this grievance.  Management was shown to have violated Article 7 of the National Agreement.  The grievant will be paid a lump

sum payment through GATS for 8 hours at the straight time hourly rate.  The management Step B member will make the following

payment through GATS:

                                          PTF John Doe $208.00!!

 

Office.  Friday, February 20 was the non-scheduled day for route 075008.  February 16 was an observed Holiday.  The grievant worked

31.34 straight time hours during the pay period and was not scheduled to work Friday, February 20.  The grievant's regular assigned

office is the Myrtle Beach Post Office.  Management scheduled transitional employees to work at the grievant's original pay location,

Myrtle Beach Post Office.  The file indicates TE's worked a combined 26.91 hours on Friday, February 20.

    The fact that the grievant was allowed and was awarded a "hold down" bid in another station complicated the issue of priority

scheduling of PTF carriers over TE carriers at the straight time rate.  Even though the awarding of the "hold down" assignment was not

contractual, it was awarded nonetheless.  Article 7.1.B.3 requires management to "make every effort to ensure that qualified and

Since the grievant was available to work at Myrtle Beach Post Office on February 20, scheduling him to work was an effort management

was required to make.  The grievant was not scheduled at Surfside Station for Friday, February 20.  The pay period included an observed

holiday on Monday and the non-scheduled day of the "hold down" was Friday.  It is reasonalble that management should have been

aware prior to Friday that the grievant was available to work up to 8 hours at the straight time rate on that day at the Myrtle Beach Post

Office.  Further, the Myrtle Beach Post Office is the office in which the grievant is assigned to, per PS Form 50.

    The grievant will be compensated for 8 hours at the straight time hourly rate as specified in the decision section.  Management will

cease and desist scheduling TE's in violation of Article 7.1.B.3.

 

Step B Ref# 6301             National Resolve              PS Form 8190           Form 50        email          1723    Management's Contentions

Statement                       Carrier Schedule              Extension                  Pay Stub      LMOU          Exhibit 8190 previous resolve

 

 

                                                   Step B Decison

 

 

did violate Article 7 when a casual clerk was utilized in the carrier craft to make a collection run and deliver mail on

September 7, 2007. PTF carriers were available to deliver the mail delivered by the casual clerk.  Additionally, PTF

John Doe showed a BT of 10:14 a.m.  Had this carrier reported to work at 0800, management could have moved this

carrier to make the collection run and then continue with his/her deliveries. On the same day of this grievance

management failed to maximize the ODL to the extent possible.  To further compensate the ODL would be undue

enrichment.  Although the contract does not provide for a monetary remedy when the PTF is not worked as it relates

to OT, it does provide for a make whole remedy for the work missed by the available, qualified employee who had a

contractual right to the work.  We do find that there were PTF's who could have performed this work at the applicable OT rate.

The PTF will be paid for 4 hours of the hours worked by the casual clerk.  The other PTF's will be paid for the 1.81 hour

balance.  Management will Cease and Desist from violating Article 7.

 

PS Form 8190

Union Contentions

Employee Everything Reports

Management Contentions

 

*18************************18*********************************18****************************************************18************************************************18**********************************18

 

                                                      Step B Team Decison

 

 

not entered because 204B did not have access to computer / pay adjustments were done in PP 08-07-2 / grievant

has proven there is a need for a full time position and the next PTF should be made regular as of March 15 / grievant

had numerous hold downs / Article 7 provides entitlement to position if qualifying / there was a holiday in 08-5-1 and

sick leave was not processed / PP 08-05-02 grievant took leave that was not entered / PS Form 3971's requested

but not furnished.

 

 

PS Form 8190

Employee Everything Reports (over 80 pages)

Union's Contentions

Management's Contentions

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************19

                                                                    Step B Decision

 

 

this grievance.  Management was shown to have violated Article 8 of the National Agreement in the assignment of overtime.

Management will "cease and desist" violating Article 8 in the assignment of overtime.  OTDL carrier John Doe will be compensated

for 8 hours at the overtime rate and non-otdl carriers will be compensated at 50% the straight time rate for hours mandated

in violation of Article 8.  The management Step B member will make the following payment through GATS:

 

Carrier                                                                                     $ Amount

John Doe                                                                                 $296.00

Employee A                                                                             $8.00

Employee B                                                                             $4.00

Employee C                                                                             $21.00

Employee D                                                                            $13.00

Employee E                                                                             $18.00

Employee F                                                                             $20.00

 

Explanation:  According to the facts in the file, one non-otdl carrier worked 1.57 hours of overtime on May 28, 2009.

Five Work Assignment (WA) List carriers worked a total of 4.96 hours of overtime off their own assignments.  Clock

rings indicate 11 carriers returned to the office after the stated "Window of Operation" of 17.25 hours. Management did

not seek to use OTDL Carrier John Doe for overtime on his non-scheduled day.  If the last dispatch is not adhered to,

it cannot be considered as a limiting factor in the administration of overtime assignments pursuant to Article 8.

Management was shown to have violated Article 8.  Management will cease and desist.  The appropriate carriers

will be compensated for the violation, as specified in the Decision section.

 

Step B Ref # 6436                                          PS Form 8190                           Table of Contents

Union's Contentions                                       Management's Contentions          Information Request

Window of Operation Letter                             Formal Designee Letter               Carrier Schedule

Workload Status Report                                 OTDL                                         PS Form 3971

Steward Notes                                              Employee Everything Report         PS Form 3996

JCAM Pages                                                 MRS                                          Step B Decisions

Mutual Time Limit Extension                           Hours Type Inquiry Report

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************20

 

 

 

Decision: After consideration of all evidence and arguments within the joint file, the Dispute Resolution Team has decided to

Resolve this dispute.  We find management could have achieved their stated goals, of getting the mail delivered and the final

dispatch met, while at the same time adhering to the provisions of Articles 8.  The Dispute Resolution Team agrees a violation

of the above cited articles occurred and a remedy is appropriate.  We agree to provide a make whole remedy of an additional

50% at the straight time rate for the WA carriers mandated to work overtime this day.  Management is to cease and desist

from violating the provisions of Article 8 of the National Agreement and adhere to the instructional decisions of the Step B.

 

The Union contends:  Carriers worked past management's contention of an 1800 "Window of Operation".  The Union does

not recognize this Window of Operation.  OTDL Carriers should have worked up to 12 hours.  Transitional Employees

and Part Time Flexibles should have been worked up to 12 hours.  Transitional Employee John Doe could have been brought

in earlier.

 

Dispute Resolution Explanation:  Based on the information in the file, we determined the issues before us in this instant

grievance are not new or isolated.  The file indicates prior Step B decisions have found local management in violation of

Article 8 of the CBA. The decisions have instructed local parties as to the pertinent and binding language of the contract.

The management Step B representative will make the payments through GATS.

Employee A - $23.01    Employee B - $13.00     Employee C - 81.64    Employee D - $6.50  Employee E - 19.50

 

PS Form 8190 (two each)              Union Contentions                  Union Supporting documents (41 pages)

Management's Contentions

 

                                                                   Step B Decision

 

 

has decided to resolve this dispute.Management failed to comply with Article 8 when the grievant was mandated to

work April 13 and April 14, 2007.  The provisions on page 8-12 of the Joint Contract Administrative Manual, regarding

the protection of an off day with annual leave, provide no criteria to limit its application.  Only the National Parties may

interpret or add to the contract.  Local management may not add to the contract. Local management may not add

stipulations that narrows or limits the current language.  Management is to cease and desist mandating carriers to work

off days who have approved annual leave connected to either side.  The grievant will be given his choice for the utilization

of 16 hours of annual leave or a lump sum award.  The leave must be used no later than December 31, 2007 without

regard to the cap percentage or current leave provisions of the LMOU.  Submission of the request is to be made no less

than 5 working days prior to the requested leave date.  Instead of / or otherwise, the grievant may elect to receive an

additional 50% compensation for the two days he was improperly mandated to work ($200.00).  The grievant has until

the remainder of this fiscal year to make his choice.  Should the grievant elect to receive the lump sum amount, the grievant

should so designate in writing to the union and to his supervisor.  The union may then notify the DRT management team

member who will make the lump sum payment throught GATS.

 

PS Form 8190

Local Union's Contentions

Information Request

Contract Site

TACS Reports

Leave Calendar

Management's Contentions

Union's Additions and Corrections

Formal A Contentions

Page 5 of LMOU

MRS (C-05393)

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************22

                                                 Step B Team Decision

 

Issue:  Did management violate Article 14 (should be 19 also) of the National Agreement when they instructed the

grievant to perform work that violated her restrictions?  If so, what is the appropriate remedy?

 

Employees to work out of their job restrictions as per their CA-17.  Management must also use proper procedures

when contacting the employee's medical provider as stated in the ELM 545.52. The Supervisor must also take an online

course 3720101 Injury Compensation Course for supervisors and provide the union with a copy of the supervisor's training

record showing completion of the course.

 

Step B Ref # 6312                Investigative Interview 5 pgs           Letter from U.S. Department of Labor

PS Form 8190                      2499   (5 pages)                          Employee Everything Report (19 pages)

Formal A Statement             CA 17 (4 pages)                           previous Step B Team Decision

Union Contentions                Grievant's Statement                    CA-16

Physicians Report               Statement from Doctor

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************23

                                                  Step B Team Decision

 

 

 

 

2007.  The letter of charges listed as reason for the action, three instances of unscheduled

absences for a total of 40 hours:

January 29, 2007                 -    8 hours unscheduled annual leave

January 31 - February - 1   -    16 hours unscheduled annual leave

April 9 - April 10                  -    16 hours unscheduled sick leave

 

LOW dated Feb. 3, 2006 for attendance issues and failure to follow instructions

7 Day Suspension dated July 18, 2006 for attendance issues.

 

 

 

 

 

to resolve the grievance.  Management did violate Article 16 and did not have just cause to issue the grievant a 7 Day Suspension.

The 7 Day Suspension will be expunged and rescinded from the grievant's file.  Management is reminded to bargain in good faith.

 

Explanation:  On June 23, 2009 management issued the grievant a 7 Day Suspension for his/her attendance.

 

 

 

 

 

Carriers prior to mandating Work Assignment and NON-ODL Carriers to work off their assignments resulting in overtime.

 

The following ODL Carriers shall be paid the lump sum payments indicated, less applicable withholdings.

The amounts indicated are calculated by multiplying the number of hours denied and 100% of the overtime rate of the carrier.

 

Carrier A - $310.00                             Carrier B - $27.00                         Carrier C - $27.00

 

The following Non-ODL carriers shall be paid the lump sum payments indicated, less applicable withholdings.  The amounts indicated

are calculated by multiplying the number of hours worked off the carrier's assignment resulting in overtime and 100% of the hourly rate

of the carrier.

 

Carrier D - $44.00     Carrier E - $42.00     Carrier F - $24.00     Carrier G - $48.00    Carrier H - $37.00   Carrier I - $48.00

 

Explanation:  Based upon the facts and information contained in the case file, a violation of the JCAM has been shown.

The union contends management improperly forced carriers on the Work Assignment and Non-ODL Carriers to work overtime off of their

assignments prior to maximizing  ODL Carriers.  Further, the union contends management scheduled five (5) routes vacant in lieu of

scheduling ODL Carriers on their non-scheduled day.  The union contends the Postmaster has instructed his management staff to non-

schedule ODL Carriers on their off days regardless of the impact.  Finally, the union contends this is a repeat violation. 

Managment contends carriers are assigned additional duties as undertime, but turn into overtime.  Management contends ODL Carriers

were not scheduled to work because their routes were to be pivoted on undertime.

    The evidence presented in the case file reveals this is a repeat violation.  The Step B Team considered all contentions raised by the parties in

arriving at this decision.

 

PS Form 8190

Employee Everything Report

Overtime Desired List

Previous Step B Team Decisions

Union's Contentions

Management's Contentions

 ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************26

 

 

be paid $576.00 per the August 14, 2008 settlements.  In an interest based resolution, we have decided to award the grievant an

additional $75.00 for management's failure to adhere to grievance resolutions as the file shows where this has been an ongoing

and persistent problem in the past. Management will cease and desist from not honoring grievance resolutions, non-compliance

may result in graduated remedies.

 

Explanation: On August 14, 2008 the parties resolved a grievance for Article 8 violations that occurred on July 8 and 16, 2008. The

settlement called for paying the grievant $288.00 for each incident, for a total of $576.00.  The union claims in this instant, grievant

that the monies were never paid. There are no rebuttals or contentions from management, as the parties failed to meet. Adherence

to grievance resolutions and development of a grievance file is not optional.  The Management Step B representative will make the

pay adjustments for $651.00 through GATS.

 

Settlement: M-01517 USPS Letter May 31, 2002

Compliance with arbitration awards and grievance settlements is not optional. No manager or supervisor has the authority to ignore

or override an arbitrator's award or a signed grievance settlement. Steps to comply with arbitration awards and grievance settlements

shold be taken in a timely manner to avoid the perception of non-compliance, and those steps should be documented.

 

The Formal Step A meeting must be held between the installation head or designee and the branch president or designee as soon as

possible but no later than seven calendar days after the installation head receives the Joint Step A Grievance Form (unless the parties

agree to an extension). The parties' representative at Formal Step A shall have the authority to settle or withdraw grievances in whole

or in part. Both parties must work together to ensure that each grievance is fully developed.

 

Step B Ref#6158          PS Form 8190          NALC Contentions          PS Forms 8190          Attachments          Step B Ref 00716

Time Limit Extensions

 **********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************27

 

 

this dispute.  The grievant will be paid $36.50 per the September 8, 2008 Settlement.  In an interest based resolution, we have decided

to award the grievant an additional $15.00 for management's failure to adhere to grievance resolutions as the file shows where this has

been an ongoing and persistent problem in the past.  Management will cease and desist from not honoring grievance resolutions,

non-compliance may result in graduated remedies.

 

Explanation: On September 8, 2008 the parties resolved a grievance for Article 25 violations that occurred while the employee was on a

T-6 assignment.  The settlement called for paying the grievant $36.50 total.  The union claims in this instant grievant that the monies

were never paid. There are no rebuttals or contentions from management, as the parties failed to meet.  Adherence to grievance

resolutions and development of a grievance file is not optional.  The Management Step B representative will make the pay adjustments

for $51.50 through GATS.

 

Step B Ref#6162          PS Form 8190          Table of Contents          Steward Statement          Attachments

 

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************28

 

 

dispute.  Management was shown to have violated the contract.

 

Eplanation:  The union argues the absence of a PS Form 2499x equates to an injured employee not being on limited duty and by changing the

grievant's start time without a 2499x, the grievant was entitled to out-of-schedule pay.

    The file provides two CA-17's completed by the grievant's physician on August 24 and October 2, 2007. These CA 17's indicate the injury occurred

on August 20 due to a vehicle accident.  The injuries are stated as musculoskeletal pain in the neck/arm/shoulder strain.  Management stipulates a

PS Form 2499x was not provided to the grievant until October 18.  Clock rings indicate the grievant was on sick leave from September 10 through

September 13 and returned to work on September 14.  It is not known whether he or she worked between the accident of August 20 and the use of

sick leave on September 10.

    The clock rings indicate the grievant came in at 8.00 a.m. on September 14 through September 22.  On Swptember 24, the grievant began coming

in at 9:00 a.m. except for September 27 when shec came in at 8:50 a.m.  The clock rings indicate the grievant was on either operation code 558,

722, or 782.  These duties were all assigned to the grievant's route.

    The ELM provides language to guide the employer in searching out work for a limited duty employee. The language is intented to reduce any

adverse impact on the injured emplyee by the order in which management must search. The question in this dispute is whether the grievant was properly

assigned within the pecking order. The grievant should first be worked within his or her craft and within his or her regular tour as long as work is available

within his or her medical restrictions. The file provides no information to determine what may have changed beginning on September 24 when the grievant's

start time was moved forward one hour.  The clock rings provided indicate some of the work performed by the grievant before his or her schedule was changed

was carrier work.  There is no indication the work went away or was no longer available.  It would appear from the file that the grievant should have been allowed

to continue in her regular tour.  However, the grievant did work, was paid, and has not been shown to have been harmed. Given also that there is no evidence

of prior violations of a similiar nature, the DRT has agreed a cease and desist is in order. Management must ensure compliance with the related contract

provisions regarding limited duty work.

 

PS Form 8190

Employee Everything Reports

CA-17's

Grievant's Statement

Union's Contentions

Management's Contentions

ELM Chapter 546 & 540

JCAM 13-10

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************29

 

 

 

within her medical restrictions.  Minor accommodations will be granted by management so the grievant can work her assignment, to the extent

possible, including part, or all of her assignment.

 

Explanation: The grievant is a limited duty carrier.  She was issued a modified job offer according to her medical restrictions.  The Union contends

that she should be working her bid assignment up to and including all work within her medical restrictions.  Management is denying that she can

do work on her assignment and is scheduling her to vacant assignments in the station and within her limitations.

 

The Union states the grievant is the regular carrier on Route 20.  The file establishes she is a carrier on limited duty. Her medical limitations are

included in the file.  A Modified Job Offer was issued to the grievant on 8/18/09. 

Applicable ELM Language is Listed Below:

546.14 Disability  Partially Overcome

       546.142 Obligation - In part, "the Postal Service should minimize any adverse or disruptive impact on the employee.

National Arbitrator Mittenthal held in H8N05B0C 22251, November 14, 1983 (C-03885), that Article 13, Section 4.H applies to both light and limited

10.507 How should the employer make an offer of suitable work?

10.515 What actions must the employee take with respect to returning to work?

10.516  How will an employee know if OWCP considers a job to be suitable?

Code of Federal Regulations-Subpart C- Compensable Injury

353.301 Restoration  Rights.

Section III Agreement and Signatures

Supervisor/Manager should discuss the offer or Modified Assignment and the duties of the assignment with the employee.  If the employee has

concerns not addressed with this offer or Modified Assignment, the supervisor/manager should discuss the concerns with the employee and,

if possible, suggest alternatives.

 

    It is agreed the grievant is the successful bidder of her assignment and qualified to do some, if not all, her duties of the assignment. The

grievant claims she can do the full assignment and Management has made no argument, other than the flat trays are heavy.  Mail "tubbed"

or put into flat trays can be individually strapped out, or banded out, so the weight tolerances can be within the grievant restrictions.

   Management does not make any argument against the Union Contentions that the grievant has carried other business routes, including

tubs, and other apartment buildings.  There is no explanation why this route is specifically different in nature than any other route in the

station.

  The DRT has resolved the dispute. The grievant shall work her assignment within her medical restrictions.

 

REF #6542                    PS Form 8190                NALC Contentions                       Grievants Statements

Steward Statements       USPS Contentions          Table of Contents                        Modified Job Offer

CA-17's                           ELM                             JCAM                                         Step B Decision - K06N4KC091 15527

Fax Cover Sheets   

 ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************30

 

 

The Step B Team agrees management violated Article 8.  Management is issued an instructional cease & desist from future violations of

Article 8.

 

Management will pay City Carrier A a lump sum of $1,170.00 and City Carrier B a lump sum of $3,969.00.  Management will enter the

lump sum payments into GATS within 10 days of receipt of this decision.  Additionally, Management will provide documentary evidence of payment

to NALC Branch 233 President within the same 10 days.

 

Explanation:  The PS Form 8190 showed there were no stipulations of facts and contentions between the parties.  All facts and contentions are in

dispute and subject to the respective parties burden of proof as applicable.

    NALC Branch 233 contends Management failed to properly track and distribute overtime equitably during Quarter 2 2009.  Furthermore, NALC

contends Management failed to adhere to the Formal A resolve as agreed upon in grievance 139-GH-CAP-09 in regards to City Carrier A and

City Carrier B.  Management does not dispute the two carriers were low in hours.  However, Management contends their opportunities  were

equitable.  In regards to City Carriers A, Management contends that City Carrier A tour is from 1000 - 1850 hours. Carrier A is available on

scheduled days off (SDO) and pre-tour overtime.  NALC Branch 233 has submitted documentary evidence of work Carrier A could have

performed in effort to maintain equitability. Management did not dispute NALC's contentions or documentation.

    It is management's responsibiltiy to accurately track overtime hours and opportunities distributed to those employees on the overtime

desired list during the quarter.  This includes overtime worked by an ODL employee off their own assignment on a regular schedule day

and overtime worked on a non scheduled day.  Overtime offered and refused is to be tracked into the total numbers of overtime hours/

opportunities.

    The tracking sheet demonstrates City Carriers A and B were improperly tracked through the entire quarter resulting in Carriers A and B

ending Quarter 2, 30 hours and 63 hours below the average respectively. 

The JCAM reads in relevant part:

Remedies. National Arbitrator Howard Gamser ruled in NC-S-5426, April 3, 1979 (C-3200) that the Postal Service must pay employees

deprived of "equitable opportunities" for the overtime hours they did not work only if management's failure to comply with its contractual

obligations under Article 8.5.c.2 shows "a willful disregard or defiance of the contractual provision, a deliberate attempt to grant disparate

or favorite treatment to an employee or group of employees, or caused a situation in which the equalizing opportunity could not be afforded

within the next quarter, or pay a compensatory monetary award if this is not done..." (JCAM pages 8-11 and 8-12)

 

DRT Reference #6530          NALC Worksheet          PS Form 8190          Overtime Tracking Chart          Emails Titled "CSS Name"

NALC Request for Info         Union's Contentions       Formal A Resolve (290-GH-Cap-08)                         Table of Contents

Step B Ref#6293&6275       Steward Statement         Step B Ref# (09121973; 09121915)                         Formal A Resolve (139-GH-Cap-09)

Fax Cover Sheets               Procedures                    Employee Everything Reports                                2006 Proposed Overtime Tracking

Hours Analysis Reports       Additional: Request For Informations documents and NALC Worksheets

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************31

 

 

this dispute.  Management failed to conduct a thorough investigation.  The grievant has no prior discipline and no prior issues with Express

Mail failures.  The LOW will be rescinded and expunged from the grievant's file from received of the decision.  The carrier has been made

aware of the importance of scanning.

 

Union's Contentions:  Charges are false / Thorough Investigation not completed / Discipline procedurally flawed / Burden rest on

management / Single most important question not asked during PDI / Rest of PDI does not prove guilt.

 

Dispute Resolution Position:  After consideration of all evidence provided in the file, the Dispute Resolution Team finds that management

did not conduct a thorough investigation.  Management failed to present scan reports and failed to ask critical questions during the PDI.

Asking the grievant whether he scanned the Express should / could have led to other questions supporting management's position.

Even considering the grievant failed to scan the Express, no evidence exists that has shown any problems with scanning in the past,

nor has any other past performance issue been presented in the file to support issuance of discipline.  Waiting more than 2 weeks

before conducting the PDI and issuing corrective action 29 days after the incident causes concerns related to the timeliness

provisions of Article 16.  The LOW will be rescinded and expunged from the grievant's file from the received of the decision.

 

PS Form 8190          Union Contentions          Management's Contentions              Table of Contents

Disciplinary Notice    Interview Notes              Request For Discipline Document      Request For Information Document

Steward Statement    Grievant's Statement      Supervisor's Statement                    Express Sign In/Out Log

Track and Confirm Sheets

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************32

                                                    Step B Decision

 

 

Management did violate Article 28 when they issued the grievant a Letter of Demand for the amount of $504.00.  The file only

provides the Letter of Demands and no contentions from management.  The union provided the Letter of Demand with what

appears to be an invalid date.  The Letter of Demand will be rescinded and the alleged indebtedness waived.

 

Explanation:  On October 6, 2009 the grievant was issued a LOD for $504.00 for a salary advances issued on September 19, 2009.

A POS One report with a business date of September 19, 2006 shows 2 amounts ($504 and $125) with a code of 764.  No information

is found in the file explaining this code.  A second LOD is in the file that indicates a $125 debt.  The local parties came to a resolve

for this LOD which was stated as occurring because of a salary advance on July 27, 2007.  It is not explained how this same is on

the September 19, 2006 POS One report if it is just occurred in July 2007.  No invoice from Eagen is found in the file.  No receipt

from the alleged advance is found in the file.  Management offered no supporting contentions.

 

Step B Explanation:  Normally in a contract case, the union bears the burden of proof.  The burden may be shifted back and forth between

the parties with the introduction of evidence and prevaling challenges to contract provisions.  In the instant dispute City Carrier X was

presented two LOD's dated August 19, 2009.  The grievant is listed as being indebted to the USPS for $504.00 and $125 due to  a

cash  advancement he received  September 19, 2009 and July 27, 2007.  The grievant was alleged to have failed to repay the cash

advancement to the USPS.

    For management to prevail in a dispute concerning a Letter of Demand, management must be able to establish the employee was

actually advanced this money, actually owed the debt, and was actually paid for the shortage giving him the opportunity  to repay

the alleged debt.  The employee must be given sufficient information within the letter to prove responsibiltiy  for the debt.

Management provided no contentions or argument to dispute any of the union contentions.

    The grievant has the right to know what the Postal Service relied upon to determine a debt was owed.  Without management

contentions and documented evidence, the burden of proof has not been met.

    The LOD was issued more than three and two years after the alleged cash payment.  The LOD that is in the sum of $504 was

issued with management not knowing the date of when the salary advanced happen.  The LOD for $504 will be rescinded and

the alleged indebtedness waived.

 

Step B Ref#6625B

PS Form 8190

20 Pages

 ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************33

 

 

These two 8 hour entries on the tracking sheet (July 14 for John and July 15 for Jane) will be removed upon receipt of this decision.  Management

is to "cease and desist" in wrongfully tracking OT opportunities.  Management is also reminded to bargain in good faith.

 

Explanation:  Letter carrier Jane was on vacation (annual leave) July 6 thru July 18, 2009.  Management contacted Jane and asked her to work on

Wednesday, July 15.  Jane explained she was on vacation.  Management entered 8 hours on the Overtime Tracking Log and noted it as (*Call).

JCAM 10-12 Overtime and Annual Leave (applies)

Letter Carrier John was called in to work on Tuesday, July 14 but did not get the message until 1:00 p.m.  Management failed to make contact

with Anderson.  The following language from a Step 4 is applicable to this incident.

An employee who cannot be contacted to work on his/her nonscheduled day will not have that call recorded as a missed opportunity.  The day in

question also will not be counted as a day where the employee was available for overtime.

 

Step B Ref# 6487B

PS Form 8190

42 additional pages