Springfield: Improper Mandates
Hey there everyone! I recently got a few inquiries about improper mandates remedies and what your local Union representation is doing about it, so I wanted to share what’s going on with the latest Step B resolution we have for the installation. Further, I’ll explain the ongoing state of this grievance at the end. Thank you members for showing an interest and being willing to come forward to make your voices heard! Let’s get into it!
All right, here’s the first page of the Step B decision. Step B is the third level of the grievance resolution procedure, and is right before Arbitration. This level is after we’ve talked about it locally and “sent it up” because we disagree in whole or in part.
This page tells us several things; there are six resolutions included in this decision, and looking at the local grievance numbers they are from May and June of 2024. The issue statement shows that we’re grieving assignment of mandatory overtime and noncompliance with previous settlements. Lastly, it tells us in the first part of the Decision that “violations occurred.” That’s important because if there were none, or if there was only one violation, it would have stated so here. We have “violations.”
This page continues on with the Decision, stating that management will “cease and desist” violations from improperly mandating carriers based on Article 8.5 of the National Agreement. Further it states:
Carriers improperly mandated will be paid a 150% premium for the hours improperly mandated.
Carriers available (ODL) will be paid at the applicable straight time or overtime rates.
I worked these grievances and let me say for the record: this is much less than I am asking for, but it is being settled for this at the Step B. Am I happy with this? No, it is not preventing these kinds of grievances, but the kinds of remedies I’m requesting just might be incentive enough to get these violations to stop. Let’s move on though to the next important read; some of the arguments from each side.
The Union contends at Formal A a LOT more than this. I’m not sure why it’s done this way, but we only have a handful listed of the 20+ pages of contentions that I’ve sent up. I will be learning more about this process in the coming months, and I will share that info when I get it.
Management contents at the Formal A…. Now this is what we really want to see. Management is scraping for any argument they can because we’ve defeated them all at Step B and higher. This is management’s position (in part) so you get an idea of what they are arguing against you.
Management uses projections to make sure you have 8 hours of work. If management doesn’t think you have 8 hours of work they will assign you work off-assignment to make up for it. Where are they getting this? Projections and simple math is what we’re told, but essentially management’s argument was carriers weren’t working hard enough so they gave you more work to “earn your pay.” Then it’s your fault you went over 8 hours, so the violation really is your fault and the Union shouldn’t have grounds to grieve it.
Pivoting is a method of utilizing undertime. When carriers say they have undertime, cool, but telling carriers they have undertime then giving them off-assignment work is what’s actually happening. Again, it’s your fault you’re going over because if you went faster there would be no violation.
Management says Article 3 gives them the right to manage employees. Yes, Article 3 does that, but it also states that their power is limited to the provisions of the negotiated contract. In other words; they must manage in accordance with the contract, it’s not an option.
There is no evidence in the case file. This one is my favorite. We used all carriers’ clock rings in the office through the week and compared the Non-ODL list and Work Assignment list to the availability of ODL carriers and CCAs and totaled up the violations. We used math to show violations occurred. We used carriers’ statements that they were told they had undertime. We used management’s reports to defeat management’s own positions. We used the handbooks and manuals to make sure our arguments had contractual basis, and we used precedent-setting grievance resolutions to establish the habitual nature of these types of violations. Saying there is no evidence is a blatant lie and disrespectful to the process.
Carriers time is unauthorized because they did not give a good reason. So, in accordance with your reporting requirements in the M-41 handbook, management just said your estimate of your ability is not good enough and the violations should be denied because of that.
Management is making good business decisions. Okay, maybe this one is my favorite, I dunno. The fact of this grievance is they paid Non-ODL and Work Assignment folks OT to carry improperly mandated swings while the ODL carriers went home. Then they paid Non-ODL and Work Assignment folks 150% premium for abuse of the contract through the grievance process, so that’s an extra whole overtime bit they paid out. Then they paid the ODL for work they didn’t do, but could have done, so they were entitled to that time/money. Then they paid your stewards for a few hours per grievance to work these, then hours to meet on these, to the tune of probably nearly 30 hours for these. The payout on this batch was almost $2,400 just for the grievance, not all the other operational costs, so… how is this good business decisions? Could have just worked the ODL carriers available and avoided a ton of headache, time, and money.
All right, I’ve made my point, let’s move on.
At the top is says:
“The documentation provided demonstrates that management mandated non-ODL and WA carriers to perform overtime while ODL and CCA were still available within their contractual limits.”
I wonder how they came to that decision if management said there was no evidence…
Anyway, remember the violations of 8.5 we talked about earlier? This is them; the relevant 8.5.D, 8.5.F, and 8.5.G articles. Give them a read, they’re easier than you’d think.
This is wrapping it up with a neat little bow to reinforce their decision, but they neglected to address the Article 15 issues listed in our issue statement.
Article 15 is the section that talks about the grievance resolution process, and that ongoing violations can be prevented by following precedent-setting Step B decisions. It is also the subject of several internal postal memos about compliance to grievance settlements and adherence to labor agreements. Noncompliance is an Article 15 issue and it’s an ongoing, willful decision. Your local Union has been busy and have wracked up over 140 “cease and desist” decisions regarding Article 8.5 since May of 2023. That’s only about a sixteen month campaign here. The omission of a remedy specifying article 15 is significant to me.
Am I happy about this?
No, your local representation is not. Sure, people get paid for being improperly mandated, and the ODL get paid for time they’ve missed, but this decision only talks about a very limited scope of what we’re grieving. Moreover, the resolutions we are getting are not preventing future grievances; every week your local teams devote a lot of time to investigating and writing up these grievances to further our protection and gain every inch we can on this battle.
What can we say about this? Well, it’s progress. Your local team is fighting their asses off to make a good enough case that will make these repetitive violations stop, but it’s going over our heads and it’s being resolved for less than it’s worth because there’s a massive back log of grievances at the levels above us. I don’t think it’s fair by any means, but I know they’re swamped like crazy too.
In my opinion, management’s noncompliance is a strategy to overwhelm the grievance procedure and tarnish the reputation of the NALC enough to get people to quit the Union and eventually decertify it. Our membership and activity is what’s pushing us forward, and I know a massive shakeup in the Union in 2026 will change things dramatically, we’ve just got to get there.
Stay hearty, brothers and sisters, and we’ll keep marching forward for as long as the storm lasts.
What can you do to help?
Every single time your rights are violated request a steward. Request representation on the clock and write a statement. If you’re unsure how that helps, I will personally tell you the advantage it gives us and give you specific examples of how statements have advanced our position. You may think that a little statement doesn’t do anything, but carriers in my station have provided over 100 statements in the last year and I’ve kept every one of them for ongoing use. You want to show systemic, ongoing violations of your rights? Request a steward, go on the record, and we’ll link arms with you to push the line forward together.
Thanks for reading, and I’ll have more updates soon.