Springfield Max Hours Resolution
While there is a massive backlog of grievances from NALC Branch 203 at Step B, we are starting to get some of the resolutions back. To show how this process is working, and also how it’s not, we aim to make the process and resolutions transparent to help educate our membership about proceedings and contractual language. We’ll go through this page by page to help illustrate what’s happening. I have redacted personal information where necessary.
Apparently my “redaction” tool went a little crazy up there, but we’ll move on. Here we have a grievance originating in Southwest Annex that occurred on January 26 and that the Step B team states they didn’t get until March 27. They then resolved it on June 3. This shows the timeliness is an issue at Step B, which is in line with articles provided by our region’s National Business Agent.
In the issue we see that the grievance is about carriers being forced to work over their contractual maximum hours which are covered in Article 8 of the National Agreement. Also, a second issue has been raised about noncompliance with previous resolutions under Article 15 of the National Agreement.
In the decision we see that the Step B team (one Union representative and one USPS representative) are in agreement that a violation occurred. It’s shown that a previous Arbitration issued a “cease and desist” from violating the provisions of Article 8.5.G. Pretty easy to follow.
From the bottom of the previous page to the top of this page we see that management has agreed to pay carriers who worked beyond their daily and weekly maximum hours 150% of their base pay. The names have been redacted but the amount of hours these carriers were worked over their maximum hours in a week are totaled and shown here.
The two remedies are “cease and desist” violations of 8.5.G and 150% base pay for the violation of 8.5.G. This is important to note as we go on further.
Next we see what the Union contended at Formal A. This is a problem: this is a very small list and there were other notable contentions present in the Formal A’s Union position.
Right after that we see something that clearly illustrates the position that has led to the backlog of grievances:
“The file provided demonstrates that management failed to meet on this grievance at Formal A or provide any contentions.”
This means management would not meet with the Union and we had to move it up as a result. This also means that management provided no argument for any of the Union’s contentions, did not object to the violation, did not object to noncompliance, and did not object to the Formal A’s requested remedy.
After that we get into part of the contract language used to support this grievance. If you have ever been curious how maximum hours work, this is a very clear and consolidated way to overview your maximum hours rights.
The top of this page and the bottom of the page above it give a summary of the issue as interpreted by the Step B team, and the final stance on the issue in this grievance. The Step B team did address it to the incorrect Formal A representatives, which indicates they may not have given the case file as thorough a look as the local Union would have liked. Unfortunately it’s part of the process, everyone makes mistakes, and we have to give a little grace as we go.
This is the last page I’ll post from this decision (the very last page is payment information and personal carrier information). This may seem boring, but it’s the table of contents, and that will give us an idea of what’s in the file. Some of the highlights are the Union’s position is 20 pages long, there is a USB drive enclosed, there are fifteen pages of carrier statements and resolution impasses from lower levels that illustrate an ongoing issue. The files on the drive are previous resolutions mentioned in the Step B decision, as well as a lot more support for an improved remedy to stop violations from occurring.
The Union’s position has been that we do not want an escalated remedy, we only want compliance with the contract. The Union seeks an escalated remedy as a deterrence from future violations.
This file was sent up with a larger escalated remedy and many points to support that remedy, but none of those issues were addressed in this decision. Additionally, management’s noncompliance was not addressed, which is important because we already have several “cease and desist of violations of Article 8.5.G.” That language is not a deterrent for management or violations would have stopped years ago. In this grievance the Union was seeking compensatory time for blatant ongoing violations of Article 8.5.G under the advisement of the region’s NBA office, but for some reason we did not receive it despite management providing no contentions against it. The local Union is seeking the region’s position on the matter to help the membership understand this resolution process, as well as local representatives.
Summary: While there is some good here, there is a lot that is missing and/or is unaddressed. This does not provide any deterrent from management continuing the violations other than paying a little money, and the postal service has no problem wasting money. The local Union has questions about why certain points were unaddressed by the Step B team or why less of a remedy was granted when there was no objection from management regarding the requested remedy. When we find out more about the higher level Union plan we’ll share what we can.