Grievance Phrases I
ISSUE:
(15)
Did the USPS violate Articles 5, 8, 14, 34, 41, and the joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace, on 3/3/06, with the implementation of DPS – N -Go (case only First Class and grab your DPS & Go? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate Article 8.8 of the National Agreement when they solicited Carrier Newsome to work her non scheduled day off, when they knew she would not be available to work a full eight (8) hours? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate Article 19 of the National Agreement by failing to adjust the grievants route following a Special Mail Count and Route Inspection? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate the provision of the 2/22/82 Memorandum of Understanding by denying the grievant a temporary bid on Route 717? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate Article 7.3 of the National Agreement by reverting position R78-1? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate Article 41.2.B.5 of the National Agreement by forcing the grievant to work off his opt duty assignment? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate their own provisions in ELM 513.36 by requiring the grievant to supply medical documentation? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violated Article 8.5 of the National Agreement when they worked non-overtime desired list carriers overtime when overtime desired list carriers were available to work? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did Management violate the provisions of the Local Memorandum of Understanding (Item 12, Sect. 3) when they denied the grievant Annual Leave for August 3, 2002 ? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy ?
Did Management violate Article 8.5.C.2.b of the National Agreement when they did not make every effort to equitably distribute the overtime hours among those on the overtime desired list during Quarter 2 of 2003 ? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?
Did management violate Article 41.2.B.5 of the National Agreement by forcing the grievant to work off his opt duty assignment? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did management violate their own provisions in ELM 513.36 by requiring the grievant to supply medical documentation? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did management violated Article 8.5 of the National Agreement when they worked non-overtime desired list carriers overtime when overtime desired list carriers were available to work? If yes, what is the remedy?
Did management violate Article 28 of the National Agreement when they issued the grievant a Letter of Demand dated April 30, 2002, in the amount of $2808.59? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?
Whether management violated the provisions of CFR 825.113 defining “son” for the purpose of an employee qualifying to take FMLA leave?
Whether management violated Article 8 of the National Agreement when they worked non-overtime desired list carriers overtime before seeking casuals and part time flexible employees to provide auxiliary assistance? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?
Did Management violate Article 19 of the National Agreement when the adjusted routes without special inspections? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?
Did Management violate Article 17 of the National Agreement when it denied Shop Steward time to process grievance? If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?
Did Management violate Article 1.6 of the National Agreement by doing craft work on 10/16/06 (collection tour)? If yes, what is the remedy?
PHRASES TO BE USED IN GRIEVANCE FORMS
DISCIPLINE
(15)
Did Management violate Article 19 of the National Agreement (Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace) on 9/10/07? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 9/10/07, Supervisor continually provoked Carrier Rumph, even after Rumph told him that he is not on the clock and not to talk to him. Supervisor Wrey followed him out the door continuing
his harassment. Rumph continued to the parking lot, with Wrey following him. Shop Steward Handville followed Rumph and Wrey outside and yelled to Wrey “What seems to be your problem?”, Wrey then returned to the building.
(15)
Did Management have just cause to issue the grievant a Letter of Warning, dated 1/2/08? If not, what is the remedy?
(16)
Carrier Devonne Grant was issued a Letter of Warning, dated 1/2/08, for Unsatisfactory Performance for an incident which occurred on 12/5/07. The Grievant was alleged to have had an Express Mail Failure.
(19)
Remove the Letter of Warning, dated 1/2/08, from all files and records.
(17)
(1) Even if the grievant had committed the infractions cited, they would not warrant the severity of discipline imposed
(2) The grievant's actions are not inconsistent with Part 665.13 of the ELM. Management has shown no proof that the grievant was not discharging her duties conscientiously and effectively. Management has not shown any impairment or harm to the efficiency of the mail or the Postal Service.
(3) Management failed to consider any mitigating circumstances. Accountable are not brought to the Carrier case, grievant had to go to the other end of building to get accountable and then walked out the far door. Accountable mail seldom brought to Carrier case.
Investigative Interview conducted on the 1/17/07, Management never advised the grievant that he was missing hot case scan.
Grievant had problem at 101 Aspen. He scanned everyday. First became aware on 1/17/07. Grievant took picture when he scanned. He asked Management to come out to verify that he was scanning label. No scanning problems after Management put in new scan labels
When the barcode is wet or damp, it will not scan.
On 1/3/07, when grievant came off the street, he wrote a note that scan point at 8039 Garden was missing. Card said that it was located at office. He verbally told Manager Protho and Supervisor Heisle the next morning at 8:22 A.M. He asked for a new label. Management showed the grievant this note at the Investigative Interview.
The scanpoint at 101 Dogwood was placed inside a mailbox, where the grievant was unable to scan it. It was placed inside a box, well above the grievants head. It was removed and placed on a alert card. The grievant informed Management that he was unable to scan it. The next morning the grievant asked Manager Protho to order a new label. The grievant tried to take a picture of this label, but was unable.
On 1/12/07, a customer at 8039 Garden#101 asked the grievant that no more sticker be placed in her mailbox. The grievant was not aware of any stickers in her mailbox. The grievant informed Acting Supervisor Wray of this conversation on 1/12/07. The scan label in mailbox #101 is supposed to be at the office.
On 2/12/07, Exec. Vice President Stroup interviewed the customer at 8039 Garden #102 (Sister of #101). She informed Vice Pres. Stroup that Jeremy Wray asked her to sign a statement that there was a label in box #101(she collects the mail daily for her disabled Sister). She refused and stated that Wray was very rude to her. She also stated that he was driving on the wrong side of the Blvd. and was speeding.
At 101 Elmwood, there are 2 barcode labels. One inside a mailbox and one on the outside.
The grievant does not purposely remove barcode labels. 101 Heathwood and 9015 Park Blvd., barcode labels are still there. Grievant still scans them.
Management changed the grievant’s label while he was on annual leave. Labels are not universal, some on the inside of boxes and some on the outside.
On 1/12/07, the grievant asked Management to come out to his route, talked on the phone with Supervisor Allen Berger, who talked to Manager Prother, who said they would be out tomorrow. The next day, they still did not come out. Trying to find out the problem, but Management did not come out.
Since day one, Acting Supervisor Wray does not like the grievant. When Wray tries to do something wrong, the grievant tells him that he can not do that, it violates the contract. The grievant is a former Shop Steward. Wray says no, look at page 84. After the first week he remained irritated with the grievant.
(4) The charge of Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet the provisions of Part 375.2 of the ELM, which identifies "Unsatisfactory Performance" as "a level of performance repeatedly or consistently below the minimum requirements. One single incident cannot be considered "repeatedly" or "consistently". The charge “Unsatisfactory Performance” is overly broad and obscures in each instance the proximate causes of the respective disciplines. Virtually every type of infraction within the Postal Service is always related to Unsatisfactory Performance or Failure to Follow Instructions. In just about every case, Management throws the same “mud at the wall” hoping some of it will stick.
(5) The action is punitive in nature rather than corrective and is without just cause.
(6) Management has failed to use progressive discipline as outlined in the National Agreement. "Progressive Discipline" is normally: (1) Article 16 Discussion; (2) Letter of Warning; (3) 7 Calendar Day Suspension; (4) 14 Calendar day Suspension; and (5) Notice of Removal. The 278 E clearly shows that the grievant has no previous Active Disciplinary Act (re:Discussion).
(7) Is there a rule and is the rule consistently and equitably enforced? The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Other carriers in Seminole Station have missed scans and have not been disciplined. On 12/30/06, Carier B. Vlamakis carried the grievant’s route (7765). She missed the Depart to Route , 101 Aspen Cir, 224 Dogwood Cir., and the Return to Office scans. It must be noted that 101 Aspen Cir and 224 Dogwood Cir. Are two of the scan point that the grievant was charged with missing. When Exec. Vice Pres. Les Stroup interviewed Vlamakis, she stated that she did not know if the scanner was working or not. No Discussion was held with this Carrier.
(8 )The Notice of Seven Day Suspension cited in the instant case has not been resolved, and apparently remains in the grievance process. Whether the case will be arbitrated or not, and how it will be concluded, is unclear at present. It is not proper at this point to allow the instant discipline to be built upon another instance of discipline, which may or may not stand up in the final analysis. The Letter of Warning is not a proper basis for elevating the level of the instant discipline, even without any consideration to the question of the relatedness of the two cases. Therefore, the instant discipline must be adjudged based upon whether or not the facts provided here warrant a Fourteen (14) day calendar suspension.
(17)
(1) Management has failed to follow their own provisions in Part 115.1, 115.2, 115.3, and 115.4 of the M-39, which states in part that:
Part 115. Discipline. Part 115.1 Basic Discipline. In the administration of discipline, a basic principle must be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive. No employee may be disciplined or discharged except for just cause. The delivery Manager must make every effort to correct a situation before resorting to disciplinary measures. The grievant explained that he was so busy, he forgot to put it on.
Part 115.2 Using People Effectively. Managers can accomplish their mission only through the effective use of people. How successful a manager is in working with people will, to a great measure, determine whether or not the goals of the Postal Service are attained. Getting the job done through people is not an easy task, and certain basic things are required, such as: a.) Let the employee know what is expected of him or her; b.) Know fully if the employee is not attaining expectations- .
-Don't guess--make certain with documented evidence; c.) Let the employee explain his or her problem-Listen! If given a chance, the employee will tell you the problem. Draw it out from the employee, if needed, but get the whole story.
Part 115.3 Obligation to Employees. When problems arise, Manager must recognize that he/she has an obligation to employees and to the Postal Service to look to themselves, as well as, to the employee to: a.) Find out who, what, when, where and why. b.) Make absolutely sure you have all the facts. c.) The Manager has the responsibility to resolve as many problems as possible before they become grievances. d.) If the employee's stand has merit, admit it and correct the situation. You are the Manager; you must make decisions; don't pass this responsibility on to someone else
Part 115.4 Maintain Mutual Respect Atmosphere. The National Agreement sets out the basic rules and rights governing Management and employees in their dealings with each other but it is the front line Manager who controls Management's attempt to maintain an atmosphere between employer and employee which assures mutual respect for each other's rights and responsibilities..
The grievant stated in question #8 of the investigative interview that he knows that security is important and that it will not happen again, sorry.
Labor Relations Representative G. E. Keegan, in a Post Brief to Arbitration Case H94N-4H-D 96055456 indicates that a "discussion" is the first step of Progressive Discipline The 278 E clearly shows that the grievant has no previous Active Disciplinary Act (re:Discussion).
(7) Due process has being denied the grievant and the union when Supervisor Long, stated in writing that, this Letter of Warning serves as a warning to this employee and all other
(17)
(1) Even if the grievant had committed the infractions cited, they would not warrant the severity of discipline imposed
(2) The grievant's actions are not inconsistent with Part 665.13 of the ELM. Management has shown no proof that the grievant was not discharging her duties conscientiously and effectively. Management has not shown any impairment or harm to the efficiency of the mail or the Postal Service.
(3) Management failed to consider any mitigating circumstances.
(4) The charge of Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet the provisions of Part 375.2 of the ELM, which identifies "Unsatisfactory Performance" as "a level of performance repeatedly or consistently below the minimum requirements. One single incident cannot be considered "repeatedly" or "consistently". The charge “Unsatisfactory Performance” is overly broad and obscures in each instance the proximate causes of the respective disciplines. Virtually every type of infraction within the Postal Service is always related to Unsatisfactory Performance or Failure to Follow Instructions. In just about every case, Management throws the same “mud at the wall” hoping some of it will stick.
(5) The action is punitive in nature rather than corrective and is without just cause.
(6) Management has failed to use progressive discipline as outlined in the National Agreement "Progressive Discipline" is normally: (1) Article 16 Discussion; (2) Letter of Warning; (3) 7 Calendar Day Suspension; (4) 14 Calendar day Suspension; and (5) Notice of Removal. The 278 E clearly shows that the grievant has no previous Active Disciplinary Act (re:Discussion).
(7) Management has violated Step B Decision H98N-4H-C02161785 and grievance resolve #1477-368-99-96 that clearly states that Management have available, at the station level, at the time a Notice of Discipline is issued, a copy of the 278-E package.
(7) The discipline was not timely issued. The alleged incident occurred on 12/5/07 and an investigative interview was conducted on 12/21/07 (over 2 weeks later). On or about 1/5/08, the grievant was issued a Letter of Warning, dated 1/2/08. When management discovers a letter carrier’s misconduct, it must initiate discipline in a timely manner. If management does not do so, it waives whatever rights it may have to impose discipline. Thirty (30) days is not timely.
(9) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Other carriers in Pinellas Park have had knife cuts and have not been disciplined.
(6) Management has violated a prior Step B Decision (H98-4H-C 02161785) which upholds prior local decisions that Management will provide a copy of the Discipline Package upon and at the time of the request by the Steward. The Step B Decision provided "Management is to cease and desist from future violation of this agreement." The grievant, in this case, was issued a Letter of Warning on 10/6/06. The Steward made a second written request (Union Form 2) and handed it to the Supervisor Frorath on 10/14/06, the Steward’s first request was misplaced by Supervisor Jose Clavell, who was reassigned to the Main Office. The Steward finally received the 278 E Grievane Package on 10/21/06.
On the Form, he requested a copy of the 278-E package. The Supervisor Long, (204B) refused the form because "He had nothing to do with it." The Steward then gave the form to Supervisor Flanagan who stated he would leave it on the Managers desk. On 4/14/06, still not having received the 278-E Package, and not receiving the first Form 2 or a copy, the Steward submitted another Form 2 on 4/14/06. On Monday, 4/17/06, he was given the 278-E Package, but till no copy of the Letter of Warning as he had requested. He then submitted another Form 2 requesting a copy of the Letter of Warning.
(9) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct.
(9) Management failed to provide the requested 278 E.
(9) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Other carriers in Pinellas Park have had knife cuts and have not been disciplined.
(11))The Letter of Warning cited in the discipline (EXPANDING STREET TIME) is not a proper basis for elevating the level of the instant discipline, even without consideration to the questions of the relatedness of the case. Therefore, the instant discipline must be adjudged based upon whether or not the facts provided here warrant a Seven (7) Day Suspension. The 10/18/02 Letter of Warning has not been adjudicated and therefore should not have been cited.
(1) Due process has being denied the grievant and the union when Supervisor Teri Brown stated that she was not allowed to resolve any grievances. She was required by Manager Diane Goldstein to send them to Formal Step A, thus violating the provisions of Article 15 of the National Agreement.
Ernest Protho stated that “he did not agree with some of their policies for the Notice od Seven (7) Day Suspension, but he had to give it to me anyway”. This clearly shows that discipline was ordered by higher management, rather than by the grievant’s immediate supervisor.
(13) Although the Letter of Warning was issued and signed by Supervisor Leisa Williamson, this action is the latest element in Station manager Luke Romano’s agenda to ignore contractual requirements as it pertains to union rights, and managing through bullying. Romano has used these same techniques at the Gulfwinds Station as well as the Winter Park, Fl. Post Office where intervention was conducted regarding the Second Joint Statement and behavior in the Workplace. On 5/15/02, Postmaster Thomas Pawlowski and NALC Br. 1477 President O.D. Elliott agreed to Intervention due to the problems in the work envirment at the Crossroads Station in an effort to reduce those problems.. Luke Romano is no longer the Station Manager at the Crossroads Station. The labor climate, now, is greatly improved.
(14) On November 14, 2002, Branch 1477 petitioned the NALC National Business Agent and the USPS District Manager for an intervention process due to the Hostile work environment being created by the Largo Postmaster, Managers, and Supervisors. Much of this was reflected in the geometric increase of discipline in the Largo Post Office from a total of 29 for the year 2000, to 43 in 2001, to over 91 in 2002. Management seem to be going out of their way to look for anything, justifiable or not, to issue discipline. This discipline is just one more example of the disciplines without justification.
(15) The discipline was not timely issued. The alleged incident occurred on 6/3/06 and an investigative interview was conducted on 6/6/06. The grievant was issued a Letter of Warning dated 7/25/06. When management discovers a letter carrier’s misconduct, it must initiate discipline in a timely manner. If management does not do so, it waives whatever rights it may have to impose discipline. Fifty (50) days is not timely.
(16) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Other carriers in Seminole have had accidents and have not been disciplines.
(17)The Letter of Warning cited in the instant case has not been resolved, and apparently remains in the grievance process. Whether the case will be arbitrated or not, and how it will be concluded, is unclear at present. It is not proper at this point to allow the instant discipline to be built upon another instance of discipline, which may or may not stand up in the final analysis. That other Letter of Warning is not a proper basis for elevating the level of the instant discipline, even without any consideration to the question of the relatedness of the two cases. Therefore, the instant discipline must be adjudged based upon whether or not the facts provided here warrant a seven (7) day calendar suspension.
(18) Management is deliberately creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear in a misguided effort to create a speed up to increase productivity.
(19) On 6/16/03, the parties finally agreed to enter an Intervention Process, but since then, the discipline has actually increased.
(20) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter Carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Recently Carrier Ron Massey lost Registered Mail and was issued a Letter of Warning that the retention period was reduced to one year in his file. Additionally, Carrier Dave Bennett was issue a Letter of Warning for misdelivering signing, and leaving a parcel at the wrong address. He was issued a letter of demand for $318.56, which he paid. At the Informal Step A meeting, Supervisor stated that this same carrier previously lost Registered Mail, with little or no discipline.
In this instant case, there was no loss to the Postal Service when the marriage mail (unintentionally) fell out of the LLV and almost immediately returned to the Unit Supervisor.
(21) Management’s grievance representative lacked authority to settle the grievance. In an effort to resolve this issue at the lowest possible level, the Union presented a resolution sheet to Supervisor Hayden and encouraged her to accept the offer. The Union offered to reduce the Removal Notice to a Letter of Warning to be removed 8/1/04, provided that during the interim the grievant has no similar infractions and that it not to be cited in other discipline unless similar. After several minutes, the Supervisor left the room to consider this. She later returned and stated that it was not strong enough. The Union designee crossed out Letter of Warning and wrote in 7 Day Suspension. She then said that she needed time to consider. The parties agreed to extend the time limits for a decision until 8/20/03. Prior to meeting with her on 8/20/03, the Union had a Step A meeting with Mgr. C/S Tom Latto. During this meeting, The Union pulled a Step B remand decision from Latto’s desk, and there was the resolution sheet that we offered Supervisor Hayden. It was apparent the Latto is going to make the decision. This grievance had not yet been appealed. Immediately following this meeting, the Union met with Supervisor Hayden at her desk, where she formally denied the grievance. the Union, then, formally withdrew the offer to reduce the removal Notice to a 7Day Suspension.
(22) At the Informal Step A, Supervisor Hayden stated that she couldn’t resole this grievance because there were several disciplinary actions cited in the Removal Notice. The Union explained that some of those cited should not have been cited. She further stated that, I know that you are going to win, but I can’t resolve it. She reviewed the interview that the Union conducted and stated that her responses were correct.
(23) Suncoast District and Cluster Safe Driving Rules for Postal Drives #13 states: You must turn off the engine when you exit the vehicle. If the vehicle will not be in your full view, remove ignition key and lock the vehicle. What rule did the grievant violate.
(24) The discipline was not timely issued. The alleged incident occurred on 4/11/03 and an investigative interview was conducted on 4/24/03. The grievant was issued a Letter of Warning dated 4/30,03. When management discovers a letter carrier’s misconduct, it must initiate discipline in a timely manner. If management does not do so, it waives whatever rights it may have to impose discipline. Forty Three (43) days is not timely.
(25) The grievant was disparately treated. Letter carriers who are similarly situated should receive the same discipline for the same conduct. Other carriers in Palmetto have had express mail failures and have not been disciplined. In question #12 of Steward Eric Bonds interview of Supervisor Dimko, he asks In the last 6 month how many express mail failures have there been in this office, he responded, I don’t know, quit a few. In question #13, Bonds asks Dimko, what discipline were other employee of this office given, Dimko responds, so far none.
(3) Management is using Safety and Performance in a weak effort to support just cause for a performance issue. Safety and Performance are two separate issues and should not be considered together.
(27) In this instant case, the penalty simply does not fit the crime.
(28) The grievant was emotionally impaired.
ATTENDANCE
(15)
Did Management have just cause when the issued the grievant a Notice of Seven (7) Day Suspension, dated 11/28/07? If not, what is the remedy to be?
(16)
Carrier Steven Piccolo was issued a Notice of Seven (7) Day Suspension, dated 11/28/07, for Continued Unsatisfactory Attendance.
(19)
Remove the Notice of Seven (7) Day Suspension, dated 11/28/07, from all files and records.
(1) Management has failed to follow their own provisions in Part 115.1, 115.2, 115.3, and 115.4 of the M-39 which states in part that:
Part 115. Discipline. Part 115.1 Basic Discipline. In the administration of discipline, a basic principle must be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive. No employee may be disciplined or discharged except for just cause. The delivery Manager must make every effort to correct a situation before resorting to disciplinary measures.
Part 115.2 Using People Effectively. Managers can accomplish their mission only through the effective use of people. How successful a manager is in working with people will, to a great measure, determine whether or not the goals of the Postal Service are attained. Getting the job done through people is not an easy task, and certain basic things are required, such as: a.) Let the employee know what is expected of him or her; b.) Know fully if the employee is not attaining expectations-don't guess--make certain with documented evidence; c.) Let the employee explain his or her problem-Listen! If given a chance, the employee will tell you the problem. Draw it out from the employee, if needed, but get the whole story.
Part 115.3 Obligation to Employees. When problems arise, Manager must recognize that he/she has an obligation to employees and to the Postal Service to look to themselves, as well as to the employee to: a.) Find out who, what, when, where and why. b.) Make absolutely sure you have all the facts. c.) The Manager has the responsibility to resolve as many problems as possible before they become grievances. d.) If the employee's stand has merit, admit it and correct the situation. You are the Manager; you must make decisions; don't pass this responsibility on to someone else.
Part 115.4 Maintain Mutual Respect Atmosphere. The National Agreement sets out the basic rules and rights governing Management and employees in their dealings with each other but it is the front line Manager who controls Management's attempt to maintain an atmosphere between employer and employee which assures mutual respect for each other's rights and responsibilities.
(17)
(1) Even if the grievant had committed the infractions cited, they would not warrant the severity of discipline imposed.
(2) The grievant's actions are not inconsistent with Part 665.41 of the ELM as charged by management. Part 665.41 states in part, "The employees are required to be regular in attendance". Management has never advised the grievant at what point they would consider his attendance to be not regular or that he might be subject to disciplinary action.
(3) Management failed to consider any mitigating circumstances.
(4) All of the sick leave absences were for genuine illness.
(5) Management approved all of the absences and not once did they require medical certification to substantiate the absence.
(6) The action is punitive in nature rather than corrective and is without just cause.
(7) Management is attempting to deny the grievant his right under Article 10 of the National Agreement to use sick leave.
(8) Management violated Grievance #1477-368-99-96 resolve by not providing the 278-E discipline package as requested.
(9) Management has violated Step 4 Decision #A8-E-0471/E8C2FC-2033 which clearly states that discussions are not to made a part of a control record system to which other individuals have access, nor should a written notation be passed from one supervisor to another. Supervisor Guetzloff references an official discussion from her previous supervisor.
(10) Supervisor Guetzloff gave the grievant an official discussion on August 31, 2007 and cited a absence of 8/30/07 on the Letter of Warning, which is Double Jeopardy, thus making the Letter of Warning Improper.
(11) The absences from 9/28/07 and 9/29/07should be considered as one (1) each, based on John Potter’s 9/2/97 letter which states in part that when an employee calls in requesting Sick Leave and is incapacitated for a duration which consist of consecutive days, it should be charged as one (1) absence.
(12) The Suncoast District established a set number of absences (two) to be used to ensure that employee attendance records are being reviewed by their supervisor. The grievant is within that established number.
(8) The discipline was not timely issued. The grievant’s last absence was on 9/23/06. A Investigative Interview was conducted on 9/28/06. The grievant was issued a Notice of 14 Day Suspension, dated 10/11/06. Management waited until 11/29/06 to issue the Notice of 14 Day Suspension. When management discovers a letter carrier’s misconduct, it must initiate discipline in a timely manner. If management does not do so, it waives whatever rights it may have to impose discipline. Sixty Two (62) days is not timely.
(9) Management has failed to use progressive discipline as outlined in the National Agreement and their own "Unsatisfactory Performance Plan", which is part of a 48 page document from the U.S.P.S. Southeast Area Office dated 3/17/94, subject: "Unsatisfactory Effort". The "Unsatisfactory Performance Plan" in this document provides that "Progressive Discipline" is normally: (1) Article 16 Discussion; (2) Letter of Warning; (3) 7 Calendar Day Suspension; (4) 14 Calendar day Suspension; and (5) Notice of Removal. Additionally, Suncoast District Labor Relations Representative G. E. Keegan, in a Post Brief to Arbitration Case H94N-4H-D 96055456 indicates that a "discussion" is the first step of Progressive Discipline.
(10) The grievant has been denied due process. District Manager, Mike Jordan's cc: mail dated 6/6/01 takes away the decision making of his subordinates, and requires the issue of discipline.
(11) The grievant has been denied due process. The basic objective of the grievance procedure is the achievement of sound and fair settlements. At the 10/31/02, Informal Step A meeting with Supervisor John Jones, the Union offered to resolve this grievance by reducing the Letter of Warning to an Official Discussion on 1/16/02 provided the he has three (3) or less unscheduled absences in that time period. Management quickly accepted that offer. The Union informed Supervisor Jones that he was going back to his office to type up the resolves. Following the meeting, management went to the grievant and informed him that his grievance has been resolved. The Union also informed the grievant as such. Later that day, Supervisor Jones calls the Union Hall and informs Executive Vice President Les Stroup, that after further review, he can not accept that offer because he was not aware of all the absences. It was Supervisor Jones who initially initiated the Letter of Warning. It has the appearance that this supervisor did not have the authority to resolve this grievance.
PART-TIME FLEXIBLE'S
Part-Time Flexible Letter Carriers may exercise their preference by use of their seniority for vacation scheduling and for available Full-Time Craft duty assignments of anticipated duration of five (5) days or more in the delivery unit to which they are assigned.
SIMULTANEOUS SCHEDULING
15. Issue Statement:
Did management violate Article 8 of the National Agreement by working non-overtime desired list carriers, on overtime on 06/16/06, in lieu of available overtime desired list carriers? If so what is the appropriate remedy?
16. Undisputed Facts:
1) On 6/16/06, Management mandated Work Assignment Listed Carriers Gregory, Euse and non-Overtime Desired Carrier Murphy to work 1.23, 1.25, and 1.49 hours of overtime respectively on duty assignments other than those they are assigned.
2) Overtime Desired Carriers were available and willing to work the available overtime.
17. UNION’S full detailed statement of disputed facts and contentions
1) Article 8.5.C2 states:
Only in the letter carrier craft, when during the quarter the need for overtime arises, employees with the necessary skills having listed their names will be selected from the list. …
The Union contends that this language requires management to adequately staff its facilities to ensure that no full-time regular employees electing a Work Assignment Overtime Only list or those not electing to sign any Overtime Desired List designation is required to work overtime when sufficient Overtime Desired Employees are available to complete the work. In the instant case OTD carriers Randazzo, Truax, TsChamber, Sherman, Farrier, Weaver, Hutchinson and Davenport were available within the limits listed in Article 8.5.F and G of the National Agreement.
F. … excluding December, no full-time regular employee will be required to work overtime on more than four (4) of the employee’s five (5) scheduled days in a service week or work over ten (10) hours on a regular scheduled day, over eight (8) hours on a non-scheduled day or over six (6) days in a service week.
G. Full-time employees not on the “Overtime Desired” list may be required to work overtime only if all available employees on the “Overtime Desired” list have worked up to twelve(12) hours in a day and sixty (60) hours in a service week. Employees on the “Overtime Desired” list:
1. may be required t work up to twelve hours in a day and sixty (60) hours in a service week (subject to payment of penalty overtime pay set forth in Section 4.D for contravention of Section 5.F); and
2. excluding December, shall be limited to no more than twelve (12) hours of work in a day and no more that sixty (60) hours of work in a service week.
The language in Article 8 5.F and G was negotiated in the 1984 National Agreement. The contractual obligation has never changed.
2) The Union contends the Article 8.5.c.2d the USPS and the NALC agreed to the language is known as the “Letter Carrier Paragraph”:
In the Letter Carrier Craft, where management determines that overtime or auxiliary assistance is needed on an employee’s route on one of the employee’s regularly scheduled days and the employee in not on the overtime desired list, the employer will seek to utilize auxiliary assistance when available, rather that requiring the employee to work mandatory overtime.
The J-CAM which is the governing handbook of the Article 15 Dispute Resolution Process discusses its implementation on page 8-14. The J-CAM affirms the Unions contention of improper simultaneous scheduling
–management can require full-time regular carriers not on the overtime desired list to work overtime on their own routes on a regularly scheduled day. Remember that this limited exception applies only when a full-time non-ODL letter carrier is required to work overtime on his/her own assignment on a regularly scheduled day.
The “Letter Carrier Paragraph” was reaffirmed in the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding. That memorandum included specific language on providing auxiliary assistance, simultaneous scheduling and staffing responsibilities. The Union contends permissible simultaneous scheduling exists when:
a) A non-ODL letter carrier working up to 10 hours on his or her own assignment on a regularly scheduled day as long as no ODL carrier was available to work at the regular overtime rate and
b) In cases where non-ODL carriers were working overtime on an assignment other than their own, or working a non-scheduled day as long as all ODL carriers were working up to 12 hours in a service day.
3) The 1984 Memorandum on Overtime states in part:
Recognizing excessive use of overtime is inconsistent with the best interests if postal employees and the Postal Service, over the years the parties have adopted changes to Article 8 with the intent to limit overtime, to avoid excessive mandatory overtime and to protect the interests of employees who do not wish to work overtime.
The Union contends the Overtime Desired List was created in part to eliminate the need to mandate those carriers that did not want to work overtime. In the creation of a goal such as the 5PM window of operations, management must staff to accomplish this task without violating the National Agreement. The Union contends that Managements claim that Article 3 of the National Agreement allows for their complete discretion when simultaneous scheduling overtime to non-overtime volunteers is erroneous. The JCAM states under Article 3.
While postal management has the right to “manage” the Postal Service, it must act in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, contract provisions, arbitration awards, letters of agreement, and memoranda. Consequently, many of the management rights enumerated in Article 3 are limited by negotiated contract provisions…
Therefore, management may have the right to establish an operational goal of 5PM it cannot do so in violation of other contract provisions.
4) The Union contends proper staffing of the installation will alleviate the inappropriate simultaneous scheduling of non-ODL and ODL carriers.
a. The St. Petersburg DSSA staffing analysis for fiscal year 06 shows that St. Petersburg’s authorized compliment calls for a total of 505 Carrier Craft employees. At the time of the appeal of this grievance St. Petersburg employees 454 full Time Regular Carrier Craft Employees, 41 Part-Time Flexible, and 2 Part Time Regular carriers for a total of 497 Carrier Craft Employees. The supplemental work force (casuals) are to be released effective 6/30/06.Although the St.Petersburg staffing is close to projections in staffing, the DSSA additionally shows a 7.5% goal of overtime to work hours for FY 6. Currently the St. Petersburg installation is 14.4% year to date (YTD) and 15.05% for last week. The Union points to this fact in illustrating management’s obligation to proper staff its facilities to remain in compliance with the National Agreement.
EL312 Section 124 – The district manager of Human resources is responsible for …c) planning and conducting appropriate ongoing recruitment efforts to meet local needs. d) planning, opening, announcing, and publicizing examinations for recruitment to meet staffing needs of the district.
EL312 Section 211.1 Forecasting –The installation head is responsible for forecasting the recruitment requirements ion the installation in sufficient time to assure that there are qualified persons available for appointment…While the installation head is responsible for forecasting recruitment needs, local management from all organizational functions must work together in assessing how changing operational needs will affect recruitment needs. Therefore, if the Postal Service decides to make an operational change that requires all mail in a delivery unit to be delivered by 5 p.m.., the regulations clearly state that management must staff accordingly.
b. The Compliment Committee Guidelines list as a requirement when submitting requests to the area committee must include…Latest accounting period’s flash report…the impact of automation and other program impacts. 14.4% Overtime rates and Operational changes such as a “window” should have been considered when projecting the staffing needs for the installation. Double digit overtime rates nearly doubling the yearly goals do not justify improper simultaneous scheduling The Union concedes managements rights to establish operational goals while managing the Postal Service. The Union contends staffing is required to eliminate the violations on the National Agreement. The Suncoast staffing inadequacies is further compounded in a notice sent, effectively “freezing” all hiring in the district. The notice states in part: This is to advise that all hiring in F-1, F-2b and F-4 must cease immediately until further notice. Over time and workhour reduction efforts simply have not yield the savings sufficient to support our continual hiring in these areas. You will receive further communication from Terry upon his return. Understanding that you may have hiring commitments which must be honored. The attached document must be completed and returned to Bernis Owen of my staff no later than close of business Friday-June 16, 2006. Should you have any questions or concerns, please call me.
5) The Union includes the “Dispatch Daily Schedule” for the Crossroads Station that illustrates a final truck is currently assigned to dispatch mail daily at 18.25. The Union contends of a 5 PM window of operations goal is unrealistic. Even when the goal is met the Union contends the mail is “on hold” until the final truck pulls away from the dock at approximately 18.42. The Union contends this does not justify the simultaneous scheduling of overtime and non-overtime carriers.
19. Remedy Requested/Offered:
1) Pay Carriers Truax, Sherman, TsChamber, Randazzo, Farrier, Weaver, Hutchinson and Davenport: 30 minutes at the applicable overtime rate less deductions.
2) Compensate Carriers Murphy, Gregory, and Euse 50% additional for the forced overtime hours required to work.
3) Cease and desist mandating non-Overtime Desired List (OTD) personnel to work overtime prior to maximizing the OTD list.
CHANGE OF SCHEDULE
(15)
Did Management violate Article 19 (F-210 of the National Agreement concerning a request for a temporary Change of Schedule? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 2/27/07, Carrier Fred Assidy submitted a PS 3189 requesting a Change of schedule on 3/3/07. On 3/1/07, Carrier Roy Vanderveer (who has a 8 hour work restriction) submitted a PS 3189 requesting a Change of Schedule. On 3/2/07, Supervisor Debora Melody denied both Change of Schedules citing “Needs of Service”.
(17)
(1) Carrier’s Assidy and Vanderveer Change of Schedule were disapproved as a matter of a blanket policy of Postmaster L. Williamson. On 3/2/07, Supervisor Debora Melody informed Shop Steward F. Assidy that Postmaster L. Williamson policy is that Supervisor will not approve Change of Schedules.
(2)Management issued a blanket policy to deny Change of Schedules, yet there are Carriers that begin tour at will, without a PS 3189 signed by a Shop Steward.
(3) On 3/3/07, Carrier Baez (who is on the OTDL) arrived at the work unit at 0645 (unaware of the new start time). Carrier Baez request to Begin Tour to assist with pivoted routes. This request was denied.
(4) On 3/3/07, Carrier Katzenmeyer (who is on the OTDL) cancelled his annual leave for the day and began his tour at 0700.
(5) On 3/3/07, Carrier Assidy was informed that he was to curtail everything that he could on his route so that he could carry a kick-off on Route 8129. Upon his return to the office, it was brought to his attention that Carrier Katzenmeyer had ended tour at 1615, along with 80% of the rest of the Carriers.
(6) Form PS 3189 for Carrier Assidy sat on the Supervisors desk from 2/27/07 until 3/2/07 (when the blanket policy was issued). It has been the Past Practice that when a PS 3189 is left on the Supervisor’s desk, and the Carriers is not told if it is Denied within two (2), it is automatically approved.
(19)
(1) Cease and Desist arbitrarily and/or as a matter of policy disapproving Change of Schedules.
(2) Grant Carriers Assidy and Vanderveer 30 minutes of Administrative Leave.
OVERTIME VIOLATIONS
(15)
Did Management violate Article 8 of the National Agreement by working non-ODL carriers, on overtime, on 1/9/08, in lieu of available ODL carriers? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 10/15/07, Carrier Regula, who is on the Work Assignment Only list, worked his non-scheduled day off. Carrier Pat Trudeau, who is one the Overtime Desired List, was non-scheduled.
(19)
Compensate Carriers Esteb and McCall .50 hours at the overtime rate.
Compensate Scsavnicki .50 hours at the Penalty Overtime rate.
Compensate Scsavnicki 1.50 hours at the overtime rate for working off the clock(Denied Steward Time).
(17)
(1) Due process has being denied the grievant and the union when Supervisor Teri Brown stated that she was not allowed to resolve any grievances. She was required by Manager Diane Goldstein to send them to Formal Step A, thus violating the provisions of Article 15 of the National Agreement.
(17)
(1) Management has violated Article 8.5.C.2.A by not assigning the overtime to Carriers
who are on the Overtime Desired List.
(2) Management has violated Article 8.5.G by requiring non-Overtime Desired List Carriers to work overtime when Carriers on the Overtime Desired List were available.
(3) Management has violated the provisions of the December 20, 1988 National Memorandum of Understanding relative to Article 8 (Pages 162 and 163 of the National Agreement). Item 3 of this memorandum allows management to require a non-Overtime Desired List Carrier to work overtime on his/her own regular assignment on their regular scheduled workday, i.e. "Letter Carrier Paragraph", rather than assign that overtime to a Carrier on the Overtime Desired List, if the Overtime Desired List Carrier would be in a Penalty Overtime status. IT DOES NOT allow Management to require non-Overtime Desired List Carriers to work overtime on other assignments to avoid penalty pay for Carriers on the Overtime Desired List.
(4)A memorandum of understanding signed December 20, 1998 explained the requirement to to seek to use auxiliary assistance before requiring a carrier not on the ODL or work assignment list to work overtime. Management must seek to use all of the following to provide auxiliary assistance:
· casuals
· part-time flexibles at the straight-time or regular overtime rate
· transitional employees at the straight-time or regular overtime rate
· available full-time regular employees such as unassigned or reserve regulars at the straight time rate
· full-time carriers from the overtime desired list at the regular overtime rate
(5) A Cease and Desist was signed by Supervisor Terry Brown, but Management refuses to comply.
(5) Supervisor Brown also states in the interview, she continually violates the National Agreement, even after a cease and desist order, because she does not have enough time in her day.
(4) Management has implemented a 5:00 P.M. Window of Operation in an effort to circumvent Article 8 of the National Agreement. Central’s last dispatch is after 6:00 P.M.
Management has violated the 5/28/85 Letter of Intent re: Work Assignment Overtime (Pages 164 and 165 of the National Agreement). Item A clearly provides that Work Assignment List Only applies to the overtime on a Carrier's regular work assignment on their regular scheduled workday.
(5) Management is in violation of Article 8. Article 8.5 provides, that management has the right to determine whether to give overtime work to a Part-Time Flexible, Casual, or a Full-Time employee. It makes no such provisions for Part-Time Regulars. Page 8-11 of the NALC-USPS Joint Contract Administration Manual identifies Auxiliary Assistance as Casuals, Part-Time Flexibles at the straight time or regular overtime rate, available Full-Time Regular employees at the straight time rate, and Full-Time Carriers from the Overtime Desired List at the regular overtime rate. Again, there are no such provisions for PTRs.
(6) PTR Carriers are hired for a specific job, with a regular schedule of work hours and non-scheduled day of less than 40 hours. They cannot sign the Overtime Desired List and should not be worked prior to Overtime Desired List volunteers.
(7) Management is in violation of their own May 29, 1985 letter relative to management's rights and obligation in the utilization of Part-Time Regulars. Item number 13-A clearly states that: Expansion of hours: While a Part-Time Regular is hired for a fixed number of hours per week, their hours can be expanded in unusual, unpredictable and non-recurring situations. It is not intended that Part-Time Regulars would have their hours of work expanded in a predictable fashion on a recurring basis. Postal Managers must be on constant alert to avoid expanding Part-Time Regular hours of work contrary to their intended use.
(8) Management has violated the provisions of Article 7.1.A.2, which requires that PTRs have regular schedules. This regular schedule consists of a 5 day week with a non-scheduled day. Management may not change the schedule or expand the PTR's hours (to include non-scheduled day) except for unpredictable, emergency situations. The events on the day in question were not unpredictable or an emergency. Management regularly works the PTRs out of their schedule and expands their hours to avoid overtime pay to Carriers on the Overtime Desired List.
(9) Management is in violation of Pre-Arbitration Settlement numbers H-94N-4H-C 98006851 and H-94N-4H-C 98006852 which states in part that: Part-Time Regular Carriers are normally to be worked in the unit to which they are assigned except as provided in Article 12.5.D of the National Agreement. It is recognized that when there is not sufficient work, Carriers may on a daily basis, be excessed from the section in accordance with the National Agreement.
QUARTERLY OVERTIME
(15)
Did Management make every effort to equitably distribute overtime among those on the “Overtime Desired” list in the 4th Quarter of 2007? If not, what is the remedy?
(16)
During the 4th quarter of 2007, the overtime tracking chart wasn’t kept up to date, overtime hours and opportunities were not equitable.
(19)
(1)Compensate the following Carriers at the Overtime Rate:
Castro – 56.21 hrs.
Esteb – 44.97 hrs.
Scsavnicki – 22.48 hrs.
DeCastro – 16.87 hrs.
(17)
(1) Management violated Article 8.5 by failing to make every effort to equitably distribute the overtime hours among those on the list.
(2) Management has violated the 5/91 Memorandum on the application of Article 8, Section 5 relative to distribution and tracking of overtime hours and opportunities for those who have signed the list. Item #17 clearly states that the unit Supervisor will total the first fourteen (14) days listing the total number of opportunities afforded and hours worked under the column for “Sub Total for the Period”. The unit Supervisor will meet the Steward to review for postings for accuracy and to discuss any inequities noted at that time. The same procedure will be followed for the remained of the calendar quarter. The total of each calendar month will be carried over and becomes the first entry on the next month’s tracking chart.
(3) Overtime opportunities were not tracked due to Management not using the overtime tracking legend at the bottom of the tracking chart. The Alternate Steward discussed this problem with the new Postmaster on May 19, 2006. A cease and desist order was issued June 8, 2006.
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH
(15)
Did Management violated Article 15.3 of the National Agreement by not adhering to a 4/20/07 Informal Step A Decision? If so, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 4/20/07, OIC Ed Curran sign an Informal Step A Decision which stated: The following carriers will be entitled to makeup hours during the second quarter of 2007. If by the end of the 2nd quarter they are not made up with corresponding hours, then they will be paid for the hours they are short by the 1st or 2nd full pay period in quarter 3 2007.
(17)
Management has violated Article 15.3.A of the National Agreementand, in effect, failed to bargain in Good Faith by ignoring the Informal Step A Decision dated 4/20/07.
(19)
Compensate the following Carriers at the overtime rate:
SPECIAL ROUTE INSPECTIONS
(1) The M-39, part 271g states, "If over six consecutive week periods a route shows over 30 minutes of overtime or auxiliary assistance on each of 3 days or more, in each week during this period, the Regular Carrier assigned to such a route shall, upon request, receive a Special Mail Count and Inspection within 4 weeks of request". Clearly, Carrier Scholle, Route 13009, meets that criteria.
(2) Management has violated Articles 5, 19, and 34 by not following the conditions of employment that relate to wages, hours, work measurement systems, handbooks, manuals and published regulations.
(3) Numerous arbitration awards and/or Step 4 Decisions state that the provisions of Part 271 of the M-39 refers to the route and not the Carrier on the route, despite the fact that the purpose of any such inspection is to adjust the route to the individual Carrier.
DENIED LIGHT DUTY
USPS-NALC Joint Step A Grievance Form Page -3-
NALC Grievance No. 1477-348-24-06
#17 (additional disputed facts and contentions)
(3) Management is in violation of Item #2 of the Local Memorandum of Understanding that states in part that: All regular Carriers and Part-Time Regular Carriers in the Punta Gorda Post Office shall be on a rotating days off schedule with the work week running Saturday through Friday.
#19 (additional remedy)
(2) Compensate the grievant an additional 50 % of her base hourly rate for all hours that she worked on her normal non-scheduled days off.
Management is in violation of Item #17 of the Local Memorandum of Understanding that states in part that:
It is agreed that light duty assignments within St. Petersburg and its stations and branches for Letter Carriers may include duties, where qualified and capable based on their restrictions, involving, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Assisting routes by setting up mail, casing, flat assistance, UBBM.
(2) Collection Management System Quality Control.
(3) Delivery of Express Mail and Collection Mail, if within physical limitations.
(4) Auxiliary Assistance, consistent with restrictions.
(5) Assist with DPS Quality Control.
(6) CFS Review Mail to include assistance with forwardable mail (parcel post-acct mail).
(7) Assist with Centralized Delivery Program.
MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION
(15)
Did Management violate Article 19 of the National Agreement by requiring the grievant to provide medical documentation for 10/22/07? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 10/22/07, Management required Scott Held to obtain medical documentation when he went home early because of a severe migraine headache.
(17)
(1) Management has failed to follow their own provisions in ELM 513.36 Documentation Requirement's. For period of absence of 3 days or less, Supervisors may accept the employees statement explaining the absence. Medical documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity for work is required only when the employee is on restricted sick leave or when the Supervisor deems documentation desirable for the protection of the interests of the Postal Service. The grievant is not on the Restricted Sick Leave List. The grievant has no history of sick leave abuse. (2 unscheduled absences since 2006)
(2) Management has failed to follow the provisions of Article 10.5 of the 1994-1998 National Agreement, Section 5.D. Sick Leave for period of absence of three (3) days or less, a Supervisor may accept an employee's certification as reason for an absence.
(3)The request was not for the protection of the interests of the Postal Service.
(19)
Compensate the grievant $15.00 (Co-Pay) and $6.30 for mileage (13 miles).
GUARANTEE
(15)
Did Management violate Article 8.8 of the National Agreement when they denied the grievant (who was scheduled in on his non-scheduled day) to work, then sent home? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 6/11/07, Carrier G. Fagan was scheduled to work his non-scheduled day, reported to work and then sent home by his Supervisor.
(19)
Compensate Carrier G. Fagan 8.00 hours at the overtime rate.
(17)
(1) Management has violated Article 8.8b by not compensating Carrier Fagan the full 8 hours that is guaranteed for working his N/S day.
(2) Management has violated ELM 432-63 which states, "An employee on guaranteed time may waive the full 8 hours for illness or personal emergency."
(3) Management has violated Step 4 Decision #H4N-2D-C 40585 which states: "Management may not solicit employees to work less than their call-in guarantee, nor may employees be scheduled to work if they are not available to work the entire guarantee. However, an em
ployee may waive a guarantee in case of illness or personal emergency. This procedure is addressed in the F22, Section 22.14 and the ELM, Section 432.63". In a "National Level" agreement dated 11-14-88, it also states illness and personal emergency are the only reasons guarantee time can be waived. Neither management nor the Letter Carrier has the right to waive the 8 hour guarantee under other conditions.
PTR OVERTIME VIOLATIONS
(1) Management is in violation of Article 8. Article 8.5 provides, that management has the right to determine whether to give overtime work to a Part-Time Flexible, Casual, or a Full-Time employee. It makes no such provisions for Part-Time Regulars. Page 8-11 of the NALC-USPS Joint Contract Administration Manual identifies Auxiliary Assistance as Casuals, Part-Time Flexibles at the straight time or regular overtime rate, available Full-Time Regular employees at the straight time rate, and Full-Time Carriers from the Overtime Desired List at the regular overtime rate. Again, there are no such provisions for PTRs.
(2) PTR Carriers are hired for a specific job, with a regular schedule of work hours and non-scheduled day of less than 40 hours. They cannot sign the Overtime Desired List and should not be worked prior to Overtime Desired List volunteers.
(3) Management is in violation of their own May 29, 1985 letter relative to management's rights and obligation in the utilization of Part-Time Regulars. Item number 13-A clearly states that: Expansion of hours: While a Part-Time Regular is hired for a fixed number of hours per week, their hours can be expanded in unusual, unpredictable and non-recurring situations. It is not intended that Part-Time Regulars would have their hours of work expanded in a predictable fashion on a recurring basis. Postal Managers must be on constant alert to avoid expanding Part-Time Regular hours of work contrary to their intended use.
(4) Management has violated the provisions of Article 7.1.A.2, which requires that PTRs have regular schedules. This regular schedule consists of a 5 day week with a non-scheduled day. Management may not change the schedule or expand the PTR's hours (to include non-scheduled day) except for unpredictable, emergency situations. The events on the day in question were not unpredictable or an emergency. Management regularly works the PTRs out of their schedule and expands their hours to avoid overtime pay to Carriers on the Overtime Desired List.
(5) Unit 71 Supervisor has continually scheduled PTR Carriers to work outside their assigned hours.
(6) Management has violated their own policy concerning working PTR Carriers outside their assigned schedule. In USPS Memo dated 1/29/00 from Postal Operations Manager, Nancy Fryrear, it is clearly stated that this use of PTRs is prohibited.
(7) In a letter dated 5/18/00, District Manager, Michael Jordan reaffirms management's policy of not normally expanding the work hours of PTRs.
HOLIDAY SCHEDULING
(15)
Did Management violate the provisions of Article 11 of the National Agreement by requiring all Non-Scheduled and Holiday Carriers (volunteers and non-volunteers) to work on Thursday, November 10, 2005? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 11/10/05, Carrier P. Meeks was mandated to work her non-scheduled day off .
(17)
(1) Management is in violation of Article 11, Section 6.B of the National Agreement. Section 6.B requires that for Holiday scheduling as many full-time and part-time regular schedule employees as can be spared will be excused from duty on a holiday or day designated as their holiday. Such employees will not be required to work on a holiday or day designated as their holiday unless all casuals and part time flexibles are utilized to the maximum extent possible, even if payment of overtime is required.
(19)
Grant Carrier P. Meeks, one (1) day of Administrative leave at her discretion, regardless of the percentage off.
ACT OF GOD
(15)
Did Management violate Article 19 of the National Agreement by not granting the grievant Administrative Leave on 10/24/05? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
Carrier S. Hixon was unable to report for work as scheduled due to a Hurricane and denied Administrative leave.
(17)
(1) Management is violating the provision of ELM 519 which states in part that “Employees scheduled to report who are prevented from reporting or, who after reporting, are prevented from working by an act of God may be excused as follows: Full-time and part-time regular employees receive administrative leave to cover their scheduled tour of duty not to exceed 8 hours”.
(19)
Grant the grievant eight (8) hours of administrative leave for 10/24/05.
FFD FORCED LEAVE
15. Issue Statement:
Did Management violate Articles 3, 10, and 19 of the National Agreement by placing the grievant on forced leave on 11/10/05? If yes, what is the remedy?
16. Undisputed Facts:
Carrier H. Lugo received a letter, dated 11/10/05 from Manager Adam DeMicheli advising her that she is not fit for duty and stated that she may take leave of her choice until she provides documentation that she can return to work.
17. Union: (Contentions)
(1) On 8/15/05, Carrier Lugo had a Psychiatry Evaluation for Fitness For Duty Examination by Dr. Shodan A. Patel, M.D., his report was received at the Tampa Health Unit on 9/15/05. On page four (4) of his report, he clearly states in part “in my opinion still fit for continued full time work”. He also advises her to seek further psychological evaluation.
(2) In a memo dated, 11/9/05, from Tammy Schwelberger to Adam DeMicheli it states in part that we received the final medical report from the postal contract physician regarding employee Hila Lugo, ssn, fitness for duty examination by Dr. Patel. The finding/recommendations are: Ms. Lugo is not currently fit for duty until she provides documentation from her treating psychiatrist regarding her current condition and treatment.
19. Remedy Requested:
Convert all annual leave, sick leave, and leave without pay from 11/10/05, to administrative leave.
MODIFIED JOB OFF – CHANGE STARTING TIME
(15)
Did Management violate 19 of the National Agreement and Section 546.14 of the ELM when they changed the hours of duty of August 15, 2005 Rehabilitation Job Offer? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
The grievant informed Manager Leisa Williamson that he signed a Modified Job Offer and mailed it to Injury Comp in Tampa, Fl. Manager Williamson changed his starting time from 07:00 to 10:30.
(17)
Management has violated the provisions of ELM 546.142 which states in part that “When an employee has partially overcome the injury or disability, the Postal Service has the following obligation:
(1) To the extent that there is adequate work available within the employee’s work limitation tolerances, within the employee’s craft, in the work facility to which the employee is regularly assigned, and during the hours when the employee regularly works, that work constitutes the limited duty to which the employee is assigned”.
(19)
(1) Cease and Desist.
(2) Compensate Carrier Castillo out of schedule pay for all work outside his regular schedule of 07:00 to 15:30.
CROSSING CRAFTS
(15)
Did Management violate Article 7 of the National Agreement on 2/8/07, when Postmaster Charlie Shannon instructed Clerks to fill out Form PS 3849 for Letter Carrier M. Kouns? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
On 2/8/07, Postmaster Charlie Shannon instructed Clerks to fill out approximately 25 Form PS 3849 (Delivery Notice/Reminder/Receipt) for Letter Carrier M. Kouns.
(17)
Management has violated Article 7.2 of the National Agreement, which states in part that Normally, work in different crafts, occupational groups or level will not be combined into one job.
(19)
Compensate Carrier M. Kunes $23.00 lump sum payment.
RETURNING TO OFFICE
(15)
Did Management violate Articles 30 and 19 of the National Agreement when they issued a blanket policy requiring Carriers to clock out five (5) minutes from when they return from the office? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
Acting Station Manager Diane Goldstein implemented a new five (5) minute rule. Carriers have five (5) minutes from the time they return to the office to clear their raw mail (should be a street function), clear their accountable mail, properly separate and file turn backs, mark up their miss-sort/miss-sent mail and punch out. She is also denying wash up time.
(17)
(1) All routes were adjusted with a 10 minute time after returning to office before ending tour to give Carriers enough time to clear accountable mail, return empty equipment, case and process all undelivered mail, take your mark-ups and mis-sorts to throwback case, and wash up time if necessary.
(2)Carriers have been forced off the clock by Manager Goldstein. Some Carriers were told they had to take some type of leave because their five (5) minutes were up.
(3)Management has violated Article 30, Item #1 of the Local Memorandum of Understanding that clearly states It is the position of the U.S. Postal Service that those employees in the Letter Carrier craft that perform dirty work of toxic materials should be granted such time as is reasonable and necessary for washing up.
(19)
Cease and Desist blanket policy that limits Letter Carriers to five (5) minutes office time when returning to office.
VIOLATION OF T-6 MEMORANDUM
(15)
Did Management violate the 03/2004 Memorandum of Understanding and Items 14 & 18 of the LMU when they scheduled Carriers, who was assigned to Zone 10 N, to work in Zone 10 S on 7/2/07. 7/6/07, and 7/10/07? If yes, what is the remedy?
(16)
(1) On 7/2/07, Carrier Parra, who was assigned to Rt. 1021, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1039) .42 hour overtime.
(2) On 7/6/07, Carrrier Bankston, who was assigned to Rt. 1030, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1021) .79 hour overtime.
(3) On 7/6/07, Carrier Weaver, who was assigned to Rt. 1010, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1024) 1.36 hour overtime.
(4) On 7/6/07, Carrier Randazza, who was assigned to Rt. 1003, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1021) 1.42 hour overtime.
(5) On 7/6/07, Carrier Payne, who was assigned to Rt. 1009, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1024) 1.51 hour overtime.
(6) On 7/10/07, Carrier Parra, who was assigned to Rt. 1034, worked in another Zone (Rt. 1021) 8.62 hour.
(17)
(1) Management has violated the 03/2004 Memorandum of Understanding, which clearly states that If a T-6 has routes in more than one “work unit” or “station” and is “bumped”, he/she would be limited to serving an “open” or temporary bid route on their swing ‘only” in the unit or station to which regularly assigned that day.
(2) Management violated Article 30 of the National Agreement (Items 14 & 18 of the LMU) which separates overtime by units or Zones>
(19)
(1) Cease and Desist
(2) Lump Sum Payment of $100.00 to all Carriers on the Overtime Desired List in Zone 10 N.
