Springfield: Third Bundle and Maximum Hours

Let’s get into this one because it’s a biggie. Your local steward team filed a grievance for carriers being mandated to carry DPS as a third bundle and exceeding their maximum hours in a day. It was a rough day; DPS didn’t arrive until very late in the day, parcels weren’t ready, and many of us made three or four trips to the street delivering just flats, just DPS, just parcels, or whatever was ready at the time for each station. It was a wreck, and there were many flagrant violations that negatively affected many carriers. We grieved it, management at the local levels didn’t want to resolve it based on precedent-setting language the Union was citing, so we sent it to the Step B team. Now that you’re all up to speed, let’s break it down.

This is the front page that details the administrative stuff as well as the Union’s issue statements. You should notice the incident date was on October 10th, 2023, it arrived at Step B on April 1st, 2024, and it was resolved on September 3rd, 2024. That is one heck of a timeline. Should it be like that? No way. Why is it that way? Check out previous articles that detail your local team’s issue with getting compliance with remedies and escalating remedies.

The issues in this grievance are regarding carrying DPS as a third bundle, working carriers in beyond their maximum hours, historically repetitive violations of working carriers beyond their maximum hours, and failing to meet with the Union to resolve this grievance at the lowest level.

The next part is the joint decision agreed to by the USPS representative and the NALC representative. Give it a read, or skip it to my synopsis.

Firstly, the Step B team agreed with the Union that carrying DPS as a third bundle is a violation of the National Agreement. Management should not be doing that, and if it happens again it is proper for the Union to grieve it. That is the important first step to see here because if carrying DPS as a third bundle wasn’t a violation it would have said so here, but it was clearly identified to be a violation. Good.

Another cease and desist of violations of article 8.5.G was issued, which goes neatly on the stack of other cease and desist language we use to show this is ongoing and egregious. Management can still choose to violate this, but it is now very clear that violation of this is a choice. Additionally, the Step B team identified ELM 432.32 as a controlling provision for any maximum hours claims as well. That’s good because that identifies maximum hours for CCAs, Non ODL, etc., which states our maximum hours includes our lunch breaks. That is going to be very important this holiday season to avoid being abused. Good.

Next, carriers are to be paid 150% for work performed beyond their maximum hours for noncompliance with previous settlements. So if you work 13 hours in a day you’re paid 1 hour of your base pay x150% on top of your hourly wages. The additional money isn’t much, but the Union is pursuing escalation as an incentive to stop the violations; we’d rather have compliance than the money by a long shot. This is good as well.

Then, things get a little interesting…

At the lower levels, your local Union team requested that carriers would be allowed to clock out at their maximum hours without any disciplinary consequence to force the issue of compliance. At the Step B, this was honored with some guard rails to ensure it happens; management is to instruct carriers to clock out at their maximum hours, and carriers may clock themselves out at their maximum hours without disciplinary consequence. This applies to your daily AND weekly maximums. Now, management cannot work you beyond your maximum hours, and if you are ordered to you may opt not to without fear of discipline. Management is supposed to give a stand-up talk with all carriers and get everyone’s signatures on it for attendance purposes so carriers know their rights and so that management can be held accountable for choosing to violate the agreement in the future. THAT… is good.

The redacted part is carriers who were forced to work over 12 hours and the amount of hours they worked for pay purposes.

Below that we can see part of the local Union’s position and starting to get into the backstory of the grievance, as well as a little contract language the local team used to illustrate the violation.

After that is a boring part for non-stewards, but important piece for everyone to see and understand: management did not meet with the Union at the Formal level to resolve this grievance. There is a jointly agreed upon document that clearly defines the Union and management’s commitments to each other in the grievance resolution process (M-01492), and the Step B team underlined what they believed were the important parts of that document for the resolution. Give that a read and see what you think of that.

Lastly, we see that the Step B team is giving a summary: a few violations happened, and they should not have happened at all given the precedent. Additionally, the summary states that the language regarding maximum hours is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. That part is very important because that has literally been management’s contention previously; they have stated that the language is ambiguous and can be interpreted different ways. This defeats that argument soundly because the language is clear.

This last page is the last one that needs to be posted and it is a copy of the stand up management is supposed to issue to all carriers in Springfield over several days to make sure everyone gets this talk including CCAs.

The end!

Wow, that was a long one, so thank you for sticking with me. I hope that you can see how hard your branch 203 stewards are working for you and that this transparency gives you a little insight into the amount of work we’re shouldering, as well as the ridiculous opposition we face.

Remedies worth anything will take a little time to get, and this one will help our installation tremendously in the near future. Our experience working with these can help in the surrounding offices too, so if you’re in one of the branch 203 areas not in Springfield, look: we can help you too, so don’t be shy about asking for representation.

All right, I’ve got more to write up, so that’s it for this one. Have a great one out there.