EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS (Maximization of Full-Time Positions) ARTICLE 7

Transcription

ARTICLE 7
EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
(Maximization of Full-Time Positions)
This booklet contains nothing original. It simply pulls together information readily available from
other sources such as the JCAM and the MRS. Those are the first places to start looking when you
have any questions. Then, this booklet adds in excerpts from many arbitrations and Step 4s. This
booklet is neither definitive, nor the “last word” on a tough, complex issue — “maximization of
full-time positions.” Please remember that. To hear the “last word” on any subject such as this,
contact your National Business Agent. He’s the “expert.”
Not only is the number of full-time employees in our local complement important to us and our
members, it’s also a very precious issue to management. The “flexibility” that management gets from
having part-time employees goes a long way to compensate for their “last minute managing.” Think
how much easier it would be to manage an “on-demand workforce” — a workforce who had no
rights, a workforce to whom you had no obligation with regards to scheduling or guaranteed hours.
Contrast that with the situation that our managers face. We have 12% or less part-time employees
nationwide while nearly 60% of UPS’ workforce is part-time.
Article 7 0of our National Agreement defines the composition of the work force for the Postal
Service. It defines the classifications for Postal Employees and how those employees will be utilized.
It tells us that there will be a “Regular Work Force” consisting of full and part-time career
employees, a “Supplemental Work Force” consisting of “Casuals,” and a “Transitional Work Force.”
(There are no longer any TEs employed in Region 2. The NALC has done a good job in that area.)
Here, we will focus on the “Regular Work Force,” and management’s responsibility to maximize the
number of full-time employees within that “Regular Work Force.”
There is a listing of cites that I have pulled from a number of arbitrations and Step 4s. For ease of
use, I’ve given each a number in order of listing. Later on in the booklet, when you see a number
such as 8, it refers to that number arbitration or Step 4 at the back of the booklet.
I think that, in order to achieve a full-time workforce, you and I must do a few specific things.
First, we need to minimize any Casual positions within our installations by insuring that Casuals are
actually employed only in circumstances which do not occur on a routine or consistent basis, but
are of a temporary and/or “exigent nature.” (Exigent means roughly “an instant need.”) Anything
other than “temporary,” or “intermittent” service conditions calls for the use of career employees.
Casuals are not to be used day-in and day-out “even if it is cheaper.” Through forcing management
to minimize the use of Casuals, we will be closer to having career employees doing the everyday
work.
Next, I think that we need to pay attention to our smaller offices with an eye to the possibility of a
full-time “Cross-Craft” assignment. That’s my personal opinion. I understand the automatic difficulty
any such an attempt would face. I also understand that, if we’re successful in creating such an
assignment, we might end up creating a full-time “Clerk” position.
Maximization of Full-Time Positions Page 1 of 43
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
But, if we face the reality that “Clerk” PTFs, and even Postal managers, are routinely doing
“Carrier” work across the state, I think you can understand my position. Personally, I would rather
see one (1) full-time position and one (1) part-time position rather than three (3) part-time positions.
Third, I think that we need to be constantly aware of the composition of our local workforce and
demand the conversion of a PTF to full-time, and the creation of a new Reserve assignment under
Article 7.3.A the day that it’s possible.
Fourth, I think that we need to regularly and consistently enforce Article 8. Although Article 8 might
seem unrelated to the “maximization of full-time positions,” that enforcement may be just the key
that we need to create another full-time assignment.
Fifth, I think that it’s critical that we pressure management to keep all assignments adjusted to as
close to eight (8) hours as possible. If we’re successful in that, we will have secured another key
element in earning another full-time assignment.
Lastly, and just as important as the previous, I think that watching management closely is of primary
importance to our goal. You and I know that even though we can’t prove it in most cases,
management deliberately tries to get away with “innocent mistakes” that are really calculated tactics
to circumvent the National Agreement and our local agreements and settlements. But, we can only
“shine the light of day” on their intentional manipulation if we’re paying attention and keeping good
records.
7.1.A. — Defines the “Regular” Workforce
ARTICLE 7
Section 1. Definition and Use
A. Regular Work Force. The regular work force shall be comprised of two categories of employees which are as
follows:
1. Full-Time. Employees in this category shall be hired pursuant to such procedures as the Employer may
establish and shall be assigned to regular schedules consisting of five (5) eight (8) hour days in a service
week.
2. Part-Time. Employees in this category shall be hired pursuant to such procedures as the Employer may
establish and shall be assigned to regular schedules of less than forty (40) hours in a service week, or shall
be available to work flexible hours as assigned by the Employer during the course of a service week.
Article 7.1.A defines the composition of the “Regular Work Force.” As we see, it is made up only
of career employees, either “full-time,” or “part-time.” Neither Casuals nor TEs are considered
“career employees.” They are defined later in Article 7.1.B.1 and 7.1.C.1.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
7.1.B.1 — Defines the “Supplemental” Workforce
ARTICLE 7
B. Supplemental Work Force.
1. The supplemental work force shall be comprised of casual employees. Casual employees are those who may
be utilized as a limited term supplemental work force, but may not be employed in lieu of full or part-time
employees.
Article 7.1.B.1 defines the “supplemental workforce” as consisting of “Casuals.” They are excluded
from the bargaining unit, and don’t receive the benefits that bargaining unit employees receive. On
top of that, Casuals don’t receive as much pay as career employees, or even as much as TEs do.
Based on that, it’s easy to see why management loves them and would rather use them than career
employees. That’s probably why management so often forgets those last dozen words of Article
7.B.1. — “may not be employed in lieu of full or part-time employees.” Let’s you and I help
them remember those words.
7.1.B.2 — Limits the Usage of “Casuals”
ARTICLE 7
B. Supplemental Work Force.
2. During the course of a service week, the Employer will make every effort to insure that qualified and
available part-time flexible employees are utilized at the straight-time rate prior to assigning such work to
casuals.
Article 7.1.B.2. further limits the use of “Casuals.” The language clearly demonstrates that the
Parties agreed that management must make every effort to use regular employees at the straight time
rate before using Casuals. We will refer back to this section again later when we start looking at
how management tries to manipulate the PTF hours in an effort to get around their obligation under
Article 7.3.C. My experience is that management will go to great lengths to try to avoid their
contractual obligation to maximize full-time positions. Those lengths include using Casuals when
they should be using PTFs.
If we focus intently on management’s use of Casuals, we can make sure that Casuals aren’t used
instead of PTFs in straight time. If we do that job right, management won’t have any Casuals. At
least they won’t be working any Casuals unless all PTFs are working 40 hours a week. If we can
accomplish that, we’re part way to “maximizing” the number of full-time employees.
We need to maintain good records.
If we pay strict attention to every day that any Casual works, we might be able to support the
argument that the requirements of 7.3.C would have been met had it not been for “Casual
violations.” If we don’t pay attention; if we don’t keep good records, we lose a valuable argument.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
(Exhibit A — Seniority List)
A primary source of information that needs to be included in the grievance case file is the seniority
list. It readily identifies for us the full-time regulars, the part-time regulars and flexibles, and the fulltime flexibles — if any. It defines the full-time Carriers as 134 and the PTFs as 434.
(Exhibit B — ODL)
The Overtime Desired List will be valuable when we start looking at Article 8 and the Letter Carrier
Paragraph. Those not on the list will be of importance to us. The current ODL needs to be included
in the grievance file.
(Exhibit C — Hours Analysis)
A quick review of the “Hours Analysis” will show us whether or not all of our PTFs worked forty
(40) hours in any given week. It will also tell us whether any Casuals worked during any week that
a PTF didn’t work forty (40) hours. It will also tell us the total overtime used in a unit by the day.
If they used fifty (50) hours in the unit that day, and they had a PTF sitting at home who didn’t get
forty (40) hours that week, could we legitimately argue that management was deliberately paying
regulars overtime to keep a PTF from getting forty (40) hours? Watch management scramble when
they try to convince you that they had a viable, legitimate business reason and they weren’t trying
to circumvent Article 7.3.C.
(Exhibit D — ETC Everything)
A review of the “ETC Everything” report will tell us, theoretically, who worked where and when.
The “D/A” at the top shows whether the person is a,
Full-Time Carrier — 134,
PTF — 434,
Casual Carrier — 634, or
Casual Clerk — 610.
In order for the “ETC Everything” report to be of value, we need to compare its information with
the 3996s and 1813s to ensure that the “work hour transfers” were done accurately.
If we combine what we found in the “Hours Analysis,” and the“ETC Everything” with the
information from the schedule and the 1813, and what we know about the work the Casual did, we
might have a supportable argument that the PTF should have worked instead of the Casual. If we can
do that, and get the PTF credited with eight (8) hours of work for that day, we’re a step closer to
qualifying under 7.3.C.
Additionally, this information will identify whether a PTF qualified as “Auxiliary Assistance” later
when we look at Article 8 and the Letter Carrier Paragraph.
A good way to keep track of the data that you’ve generated is on a spreadsheet that will graphically
demonstrate the relationship between all your numbers.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
(Exhibit E — PTFs, Casuals, Non-List)
This section of spreadsheet shows non-list Carriers Locke, McCraner, and Phillips working overtime
on Tuesday 07/29. It doesn’t show the hours worked by the ODL Carriers, but does show that PTF
Aveldson didn’t work and PTF Boggs worked only 5.93 hours. Although this section doesn’t show
it, PTF Aveldson didn’t work forty (40) hours that week. This section does show that Casuals Penn,
Wilson, and Noyes all worked on days that Aveldson didn’t work. In and of itself, the spreadsheet
doesn’t prove anything. But, it gives us a good place to start.
(Exhibit F — Jensen)
This section of spreadsheet records the daily and weekly hours for PTF Jensen over a period of
twenty-seven (27) weeks. As you can see, during this period, he averaged over 8½ hours a day, and
over 48 hours a week. But, it’s important to recognize that, based on the figures we have here, he
doesn’t qualify for conversion under Article 7.3.C. Again, the spreadsheet gives us a place to start.
If we accurately maintain these records on a consistent basis, we can promptly correct those
instances where he should have worked eight (8) hours but didn’t. It also gives us the opportunity
to immediately develop documentation demonstrating managements’ attempts to circumvent the
National Agreement.
(Exhibit G — Summary)
This page summarizes the weekly work hours for twenty-two (22) PTFs. It takes their weekly hours,
adds them together, and then averages them out.
As you can see, during only two (2) of the weeks (9-1 and 9-2) did all of the PTFs together not
average forty (40) hours for the week. Neither of these weeks were more than a ½ hour short for an
average of all of them. The line “Avg/Hours” gives the average weekly hours for all of the PTFs
during that week.
The weekly total divided by forty (40) hours a week gives us the equivalent number of eight (8) hour
positions in the time worked by the PTFs. Over the period that we have here, that equivalent number
varied between a low of 20.7 to a high of 24.5. This means that, over the fourteen (14) week period
that we’re looking at here, those twenty-two (22) PTFs did the work of an equivalent 22½ full-time
positions.
Does this page prove that we deserve another twenty-two (22) full-time positions? No, it doesn’t.
Does it show that management hasn’t made “every effort” to maximize the full-time positions? I
think that it shows that very clearly.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
7.2.A — Provides that work from different crafts may be
combined to create full-time assignments
ARTICLE 7
Section 2. Employment and Work Assignments
A. Normally, work in different crafts. occupational groups or levels will not be combined into one job. However,
to provide maximum full-time employment and provide necessary flexibility, management may establish
full-time schedule assignments by including work within different crafts or occupational groups after the
following sequential actions have been taken:
1. All available work within each separate craft by tour has been combined.
2. Work of different crafts in the same wage level by tour has been combined.
The appropriate representatives of the affected Unions will be informed in advance of the reasons for establishing
the combination full-time assignments within different crafts in accordance with this Article.
Through the language of Article 7.2.A, the Parties demonstrated how important they considered
management’s responsibility is to maximize the number of full-time positions throughout the Postal
Service. Through 7.2.A, they agreed that, even though it’s not common, and may happen only under
limited circumstances, work from different crafts may be combined in order to provide maximum
full-time employment. Under this section, management may combine work from different
occupational groups or crafts only after it has first combined all available work within each
separate craft, by tour.
A combined position under Article 7.2.A may include the work of only the six crafts covered by
the 1978 National Agreement, i.e., Letter Carrier, Special Delivery, Clerk, Motor Vehicle,
Maintenance and Mail Handler. Rural carriers are excluded. This limitation was defined in the
August 19, 1995 Cross-Craft MOU shown on page 157 of the 1994 National Agreement.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Re: Article 7, 12 and 13 - Cross Craft and Office Size
A. It is understood by the parties that in applying the provisions of Articles 7, 12 and 13 of this Agreement, cross
craft assignments of employees, on both a temporary and permanent basis, shall continue as they were made
among the six crafts under the 1978 National Agreement.
B. It is also agreed that where this Agreement makes reference to offices/facilities/ installations with a certain
number of employees or man years, that number shall include all categories of bargaining unit employees in
the office/facility/installation who were covered by the 1978 National Agreement.
Date: August 19, 1995
I’ve been unable to find anyone that can point to anyplace where one of these “combined-craft”
assignments exists. But, it seems to me that this argument might be useful in some of our smaller
offices that have both “Clerk” and “Carrier” PTFs that are each fighting for hours. I know that, in
these situations, management works those people back and forth across craft lines anyway. It just
might be that, if we could find somebody in one of these offices to start working at it, and start
keeping good records, we might be able to create such a position.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
With regards to this idea, remember that the knife cuts both ways. Depending on how the hours lay
out, even if we could support a full-time position, it might end up as a full-time clerk with carrier
duties — instead of the other way around
7.3.A — Limits the Ratio of Part-Time Employees to Full-Time
Employees
ARTICLE 7
Section 3. Employee Complements
A. The Employer shall staff all postal installations which have 200 or more man years of employment in the
regular work force as of the date of this Agreement with 88% full-time employees in the letter carrier craft.
As you can see, Article 7.3.A limits the ratio of part-time to full-time employees in the Letter Carrier
craft to 12%. This section applies only to “200 man-year offices.”
Whether an installation is classified as a 200 man-year (work year) office is determined as of the
National Agreement’s effective date. That classification doesn’t change throughout the life of the
Agreement. The hours of bargaining unit employees in the six crafts covered by the 1978 National
Agreement are counted in making this determination.
(Exhibit H — On Rolls Complement)
The On Rolls Complement Report provided by the Postal Service on an accounting period basis is
used by the NALC to monitor compliance with the 88 percent full-time requirement. Our NBA pays
particular attention to this. Expect him to drop you a line if your office falls below the percentage,
but don’t rely on that. The only problem with waiting for him to notify you is that, if you pay close
attention, you’ll have the information long before he will. That means that, if you pay attention, your
people will be full-time sooner rather than later.
Although the work hours of six postal crafts are counted together to determine an installation’s
classification as a 200 man-year installation, the 88 percent full-time requirement applies only
to Letter Carriers working at such facilities. All City Letter Carriers, including TEs are counted
in this calculation, but Casual Carriers are not. Full-time regulars, including reserve and unassigned
regulars, and full-time flexible carriers are counted as “full-time employees.” Part-time flexibles,
part-time regulars and TEs are counted as not full-time.
As you can see, in March of 1996 in the Portland District, we ran from a low of 87% full-time
Carriers in Portland and Vancouver to a high of 94% in Medford.
An APWU Step 4 13 tells us that the Service is not required to maintain the 7.3.A percentage on a
“day-to-day” basis.
87/02/03 APWU Step 4
H4C-4H-C 16345
(M-00938)
“. . .During our discussion, it was agreed that Article 7.3 of the 1984 National Agreement does not require
management to maintain the 90/10 ratio on a "daily basis”. . .”
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Under Article 12.5.B.2, the Service is required to withhold positions as necessary to minimize
involuntary reassignment of “excessed” employees.
ARTICLE 12 PRINCIPLES OF SENIORITY, POSTING AND REASSIGNMENTS
Section 5. Reassignments
B. Principles and Requirements
2. The Regional Postmasters General shall give full consideration to withholding sufficient full-time and
part-time flexible positions within the area for full-time and part-time flexible employees who may be
involuntarily reassigned.
In 1990, National Arbitrator Mittenthal ruled (C-10343) 26, that when management withholds fulltime positions under Article 12.5.B.2., it may fall below the 88/12 percent full-time staffing
requirement. At this time, there are no legitimately “held pending excessing” employees in Region
2.
Someone converted under 7.3.A becomes a “Reserve Regular.” Reserve Letter Carrier Assignments
are full-time, biddable assignments. The term “unassigned regular” is to be used only in those
instances where full-time letter carriers are excess to the needs of the delivery unit and not holding
a valid bid assignment.
7.3.B
ARTICLE 7
B. The Employer shall maximize the number of full-time employees and minimize the number of part-time
employees who have no fixed work schedules in all postal installations . . .
As early as 1973, the Parties agreed (M-0022 2) 1 that “maximization of full time assignments” is
only possible in individual installations. That doesn’t mean individual Stations or Zones. Instead,
it means installation as in “city” or “postmaster.”
Even though the Service might argue that “maximization cannot be achieved at the cost of
efficiency,” Arbitrator Flagler (C-12011) disagreed. He said that:
“. . .the language of Section 7.3.B strongly implies an intent to balance managerial flexibility on the one hand with
the stated goal to ‘maximize the number of full-time employees’ . . .”
As early as 1976, National Arbitrator Garrett (C-00421) 2 said that:
“. . .An assertion by the . . . postmaster that inefficiency will result, without concrete documentation of the nature
and extent of such inefficiency, is not enough in the face of such Union evidence . . .”
Over the years that followed, arbitrators, with few exceptions, have consistently ruled that Article
7.3.B was independent of Article 7.3.C.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
In 1987, Arbitrator Larson (C-00944) 15 wrote,
“. . .Section C states one way in which the need . . . can be established . . . But Section B allows for other proofs
. . . I overrule the objection that the Union’s claim should be limited to Section 3.C . . . Section 3.B is applicable
and expresses a general obligation on the part of the Employer . . . I do not think that the only way to prove
violation of Section 3.B is to prove the elements of Section 3.C . . . the Union’s statement can be read as alleging
that PTFs in the aggregate satisfied Section 3.C . . .”
In 1991, in arbitration (C-10756) 29, Arbitrator Talmadge commented on Mittenthals’ 1980 award
(C-03234). He interpreted Mittenthal as saying, “ . . . Article 7.3.B clearly states that the post office shall
maximize the full-time employees in all postal installations . . . ” and that “ . . . between Article 7.3.C and Article
41.2.B.4, what the Parties were attempting to do was to limit the amount of time a PTFs' assignment could remain
a part-time position . . . In other words, 7.3.C simply provided one “concrete example” to demonstrate the need
to maximize. . .”
And, in 1992, Arbitrator Baldovin (C-12157) 38 wrote,
“. . . Section 3.C cannot be viewed as the only situation requiring conversion. It must be viewed as one situation
or example requiring conversion . . . Support for this proposition is found in a letter from James G. Merrill . . .
dated 02/10/78 . . . I am constrained to conclude that Section 3.B. requires conversion anytime it can be
demonstrated that a full-time position can be accommodated . . . any other interpretation would, for all practical
purposes, result in writing Section 3.B out of the . . . Agreement . . .”
In 1993, Arbitrator Williams (C-13098) 47 said,
“. . . The broad stream of arbitral opinion holds that 7.3.B is a requirement which management must meet
regarding maximizing the work force. It is not just a general policy statement with the only specifics being 7.3.A
for large post offices and 7.3.C for small ones . . . the overwhelming arbitral interpretation of Article 7.3.C is that
it is only one way to demonstrate the need or requirement to maximize . . .”
Perhaps Arbitrator Sherman stated it best, in S7C-3B-C 20567 47, when he said:
“. . .The employer would have the arbitrator ignore the contractual history which clearly demonstrates the
language to have remained the same, with meaning and intent as originally negotiated. They point to 7.3.C as the
‘only’ criteria which can be used to prove 7.3.B. Their position has no support in fact, history, or reasonableness.
. . .The fact of the matter is that the language now contained in 7.3.C was added in 1973 to provide a guideline
to be used to judge compliance with the language now contained in 7.3.B. The Parties negotiated a criterion
which would absolutely, positively demonstrate that a part-time flexible should be converted . . .
In other words, the Parties negotiated the perfect way to demonstrate a need to convert in order to comply with
7.3.B; they did not negotiate 7.3.C in order to eliminate 7.3.B. Nor was it negotiated to represent the only way
. . . they certainly did not assign each sentence a separate letter . . . intending that they must be considered as
one . . .”
In his 1980 award, National Arbitrator Mittenthal (C-03234) 7 told us that,
“. . .management offered . . . (a proposal) under this proposal, “any combination of carrier duties in a work
facility, that . . . when combined constitute eight (8) hours within ten(10) . . . over a consecutive six month
period will demonstrate the need for converting these duties to a full time position . . . ”
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Arbitrator Ordman (C-08230) 17 also agreed that a combination of work hours could legitimately
be used to demonstrate a need for additional full-time positions. He said,
“. . .the results showed 11 full-time routes . . . 99 hours per day warrants the designation of a 12th full-time route
. . . A 99 hour per day average in hours would plainly indicate a justification, if not a need, for 12 full-time
positions, totally 96 hours per day, and 1 part-time position . . .”
Ordman was joined in this position by Arbitrators Marlatt (S7C-3E-C 18642) and Talmadge (C10756) 29. In 1990, Arbitrator Martin (C-10713) 24 said,
“. . .Total hours used by part-time flexibles is an important -- perhaps determinative -- criterion to be used in
evaluating whether management has complied with its general obligation to maximize . . .”
Then, in 1992, Arbitrator Barker (C-12126) 37 said,
“. . .management operates under the contractual imperative of Article 7.3.B that it shall maximize the number of
full-time and minimize the number of part-time employees in its facility . . . the fact that, in 1989, the median
average hours worked per week by part-time employees was 530 is a significant factor to be weighed . . .”
In 1992, Arbitrator Baldovin (C-12157) 38 also concluded that Article 7.3.C of the Agreement was
not the exclusive means pursuant to which conversion to full-time positions was required. He said
that to so conclude would be to write Section 3.B out of the Agreement and leave it with no meaning.
He concluded that Section 3.B requires conversion any time it can be demonstrated that a full time
position can be accommodated,
“. . . that is, when sufficient hours of work exist to permit one employee to work . . . in lieu of two or more
employees . . .”
Baldovin said that:
“(If the only time that Section 3.B. was operative was after Section 3.C was met) . . . then Section 3.B would be
meaningless, would serve no purpose and should not be included in the National Agreement . . .”
In a Region 2 case in 1996, Arbitrator Axon (C-15663) 50 strongly supported the Union’s position.
He said that,
“. . .The Arbitrator rejects the Postal Service’s reasoning and Postal Service arbitral authority that Section 3.B only
comes into effect if a Section 3.C violation is proved. The better reasoned arbitration cases hold that Section 3.C
is a separate and independent provision that is not dependant on Section 3.C . . .”
Management frequently asserts that they need “flexibility” in order to operate. In 1990, Arbitrator
Martin (C-10713) 24 simply rejected management’s arguments in this regard. He said that,
“. . .Management argues that it needs flexibility . . . I disagree, as did Arbitrators Garrett (AB-N-3744) and
Gamser (MC-C-9358) . . . It is obvious that management values flexibility higher than Contract Compliance . . .”
That position was supported by Arbitrator Ordman (C-08230) 17 who said,
“ . . .any flexibility achieved in scheduling part-time employees for collections and other work functions which occur
in the late afternoon may not be permitted to override the mandate of Article 7.3.B of the Agreement to maximize
the number of full-time employees in all postal installations . . . management’s assertion of the need for, and
advantages of its present use of flexibility may not be permitted to override the mandate of Article 7.3.B of the
National Agreement to maximize the number of full-time employees . . .”
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
It was also supported by Arbitrator Stephens (C-13395) 25 who said,
“. . .It is apparent that the postmaster was trying to . . . provide a flexible work force . . . as laudable as is this goal
. . . one must conclude that the postmaster does not have a free hand . . . The parties . . . have agreed upon
language . . . which restricts such attempts to hire many part-time employees . . .”
It was further supported by Arbitrator Sobel (C-10433) 27 who said,
“. . .The desire for flexibility by itself could not justify management’s position . . .”
As early as 1976, National Arbitrator Garrett (C-00421) 2 held that the maximization obligation
imposed by the second sentence of Article 7.3 is of a continuing nature, and is in addition to the
specific staffing obligation in Article 7.3.A. Commenting on Garrett’s decision in 1978, National
Arbitrator Gamser (C-02978) 5 said that Article 7.3.B imposed such a [continuing] obligation “. . .
when the Union presents a prima facie case for greater maximization in any given installation . . .”
Arbitrators Ordman (C-08230) 17 and Baldovin (C-12157) 38 clearly agreed that management’s
maximization under 7.3.B is in addition to its 88/12 obligation under Article 7.3.A. Arbitrator
Baldovin said that,
“. . .Since Section 3.B applies to all postal installations, this would include the installations referred to in Section
3.A. Since Section 3.A requires a minimum full-time employee ratio of 90/10, then the application of Section 3.B.
to Section 3.A installations would have to apply to the 10% part-time complement which . . . exist at such
installations . . .”
However, in the 1996 agreement, Arbitrator Mittenthal changed the language of Article 7.3.B. He
inserted language referring to the 88/12 rate. The wording says:
B. . . . however, nothing in this paragraph B shall detract from the USPS' ability to use the awarded full-time/part-time ratio as provided for in paragraph 3.A. above.
7.3.C.
ARTICLE 7
C. A part-time flexible employee working eight (8) hours within ten (10), on the same five (5) days each week and
the same assignment over a six month period will demonstrate the need for converting the assignment to a full-time position.
(Exhibit I — Vacca Letter)
In August of 1977, NALC President Joe Vacca sent a letter to the Postal Service initiating a Step 4
grievance 3. It challenged the idea that a PTF might have to work the same assignment on the same
days for six months to qualify for maximization under Article 7.
(Exhibit J — Merrill Letter)
In February of 1978, in settlement of that grievance (M-00978) 4, James Merrill, USPS General
Manager Grievance Division, wrote, “. . . The need to establish a full time assignment is not determined
exclusively by the third sentence of Article 7, Section 3 . . . this provision merely sets forth a particular factual
situation, the occurrence of which is considered to indicate that a full-time position is feasible . . .”
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
In 1991, Arbitrator Goodman (C-10791) 30 referred back to the 1978 National grievance (M-00978)
3. He said that:
“(the Vacca/Merrill correspondence) . . . shows that as early as 1978, the Parties understood that Section 7.3.B, in
conjunction with Section 7.3.C, contemplated other circumstances in which full-time positions should be created
. . . To allow the Postal Service to avoid its obligation to maximize the number of full-time employees by relying
on a “same five (5) days” technicality would open Pandora’s box to possible abuse through mere manipulation of
days off. . . .”
During the National Negotiations preceding the 1978 National Agreement, the Parties signed a
09/17/78 MOU on Maximization. In it, they agreed to develop criteria during 1979 which would
establish additional full-time positions. Instead of living up to their agreement, the Service
stonewalled for over a year. That gave rise to a National Level grievance.
LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Re: Maximization
This letter memorandum sets forth our mutual intent regarding the attached Memorandum of Understanding
relating to maximization.
1. This Memorandum of Understanding is in settlement of the arbitration pending in case No. N8-NA-141, and
satisfies the obligations of the parties pursuant to the Arbitrator's decision in N8-NA-0141 and the
Memorandum of Understanding relating to maximization dated September 15, 1978.
3. Conversions required pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding shall be in addition to (but not
duplicative of) conversions that may be required pursuant to existing provisions of the National
Memorandum of Understanding. The criteria established by this Memorandum of Understanding are
supplementary to, not in limitation or diminishment of, existing criteria in the National Agreement.
5. Employees converted to full-time positions pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding may bid on
assignments posted for bids by employees in the craft, and shall be full-time regular city letter carriers under
the National Agreement.
6. In those installations where conversions have been made under this Memorandum of Understanding, and there
are subsequent reversions or excessing, any reductions in full-time letter carrier positions shall be from
among those position(s) converted pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding until they are exhausted.
8. The parties recognize their continuing obligation to discuss other respects in which maximization may be
implemented in accordance with the National Agreement.
Date: February 3, 1981.
The 1981 Letter of Intent was the final settlement of that grievance as ruled on by National Arbitrator
Mittenthal in 1980 (C-03234) 7. Letter Carriers converted under the 02/03/81 MOU became
“Reserve Regulars.” This MOU created a separate, additional obligation to maximize full-time
positions beyond the four separate maximization obligations of Article 7.3.A-D. In other words, even
though management has complied, for example, with the 88 percent full-time requirement in a 200
man-year facility (under Article 7.3.A), further conversions to full-time flexible might still be
required when the requirements of this memorandum are met. If an office falls below 88 percent,
conversions must first be made to full-time regular to bring the office to 88% by creating “Reserve
Regulars.” After full-time flexible positions have been created they may be counted as full-time
toward the 88 percent requirement.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
“. . .This specific maximization obligation is similar to that of Article 7.3.C, because it is triggered by a PTF carrier
working a relatively regular schedule over a six-month period. However, where Article 7.3.C requires work on the
same assignment, this memorandum requires only that the PTF carrier be performing letter carrier duties of
any kind. . .”(JCAM 7-12)
The additional obligation on management referred to in JCAM 7-12 is that whereas Article 7.3.C
requires work on the same assignment, this memorandum requires only that the PTF carrier be
performing letter carrier duties of any kind.
89/09/05 National Arbitrator Mittenthal
M1C-NA-C 120
(C-09340) DC
“. . .When PTFs are entitled to conversion to full-time under both the 02/03/81 MOU (Maximization) and Article
7.3.A, the Service must first convert under the MOU (create Reserve Regulars) and then convert under Article 7.3.A
(create FTFs) . . .”
National Arbitrator Mittenthal clarified that, if an office fell below the required full-time percentage
at the same time that a part-time flexible met the criteria for conversion to full-time flexible under
the MOU, “the Postal Service must first convert pursuant to the [88]% staffing requirement and
thereafter convert pursuant to the Memoranda.” Thus, the conversions to full-time flexible under the
1981MOU would be in addition to the conversions to full-time regular necessary to bring the office
to 88%.
Manipulation
As early as 1980, National Arbitrator Mittenthal (C-03234) 7 commented that he was aware that
managers were deliberately manipulating events to “prevent application of Article 7.3. Arbitrators
Eaton (C-11189) 16, Rose (W8C-5D-C 3350) and Goodman (C-10791) 30 shared Mittenthal’s
perception from 1980 and applied it to current times.
80/07/07 National Arbitrator Mittenthal
N8N-NA 0141 (C-03234)
DC
“. . .Over the years, the NALC and the other postal unions have become increasingly dissatisfied with
management’s avoidance of its maximization responsibilities. Local managers have utilized various devices to
prevent application of Article 7.3 such as scheduling PTFs over 6 days, rather than 5, or cutting off the hours
of a PTF just short of 40 and assigning the work to another employee . . .”
(Exhibit K — Herbert 08/16/97 memo)
We know that they’re doing it. They know they’re doing it. Everyone knows they’re doing it. This
is an example of the type of documentation that might be helpful in supporting the Union’s claim that
management had been deliberately trying to avoid their obligations under Article 7.3.C.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand what Herbert’s intention is. With the question, “Do they work
six days a week?”, he is clearly saying, “If they aren’t, make sure that they do!” With the question
“Can I give them a 38 hour or less work week?”, he is clearly saying, “Do it!” No reasonable person
would believe that Herbert wasn’t ordering his minions to circumvent Article 7.3.C.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
(Exhibit L — Herrington Memo)
Here’s another example of management manipulation. Herrington is one of Herbert’s postmasters.
It’s not too difficult to reach the conclusion that Herrington’s 08/18/97 memo was in direct response
to Herbert’s 08/13/97 letter.
It’s pretty clear that Herrington got the message because he repeated Herbert’s orders to his own
subordinates. Herrington’s instructions were crystal clear. “. . .take whatever action is necessary
to insure PTFs work, at a maximum, in the 32 to 38 hour range. . .”
Without question, Herrington was ordering his subordinates to circumvent Article 7.3.C.
Look for any evidence of management manipulation. Document what you find. Put the evidence in
your case file. And, argue management’s deliberate attempt to circumvent their contractual obligation
to maximize.
As discussed earlier, many arbitrators believe that Article 7.3.C simply defines only one
circumstance which demonstrates the need for management to create a full-time position. An
employee converted under 7.3.C becomes a “Full-Time Flexible.”
This specific MOU moved management’s obligation under 7.3.C down to include 125 man-year
offices.
AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Re: Maximization/Full-time Flexible - NALC
Where a part-time flexible has performed letter carrier duties in an installation at least 40 hours a week (8 within
9, or 8within 10, as applicable), 5 days a week, over a period of 6months (excluding the duration of seasonal
periods on seasonal routes, defined in Article 41, Section 3.R of the National Agreement), the senior part-time
flexible shall be converted to full-time carrier status.
This criteria shall be applied to postal installations with 125 or more man years of employment.
It is further understood that part-time flexibles converted to full-time under this criteria will have flexible reporting
times, flexible non scheduled days, and flexible reporting locations within the installation depending upon
operational requirements as established on the preceding Wednesday.
The parties will implement this in accordance with their past practice.
Date: July 21, 1987
The 1991 Step 4 settlement(M-01032) 35 shifted management’s burden downward to smaller
offices. Management and the Union now agree that Article 7.3.C applies to all offices regardless of
size. It says,
“. . .Article 7.3.C contains no provision which limits its application only to those offices with 125 or more man
years of employment . . .”
Arbitrator Freedman (C-13479) 48 agreed with that position in 1994.
Six months are consecutive
Based on the 1992 Step 4 settlement (C-27937) 36, the six (6) month period must be consecutive.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
92/04/14
Step 4
H7N-3W-C 27937
(M-27937)
“. . .The issue in this grievance is whether the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Maximization/Full-time
Flexible-NALC requires that the six month period be consecutive . . . The six month measuring period in the
MOU means six consecutive months . . .”
Time on an opt counts
In 1985, National Arbitrator Mittenthal (C-05070) 11 decided that the time spent by a PTF on an opt
under the provisions of Article 41.2.B.4 should be credited toward meeting the maximization criteria
in Article 7 Section 3.C. He said that,
85/07/08
National Arbitrator Mittenthal
H1N-2B-C 4314
(C-05070)
NJ
“. . .between Article 7.3.C and Article 41.2.B.4, what the Parties were attempting to do was to limit the amount of
time a PTF’s assignment could remain a part-time position.”
Despite the explicit provisions of Article 15, Section 4.A.6 which provide that all arbitration awards
are final and binding, the Postal Service has recently taken the position that it will no longer comply
with Arbitrator Mittenthal’s award. This issue is currently pending national level arbitration.
Although Mittenthal’s award is in dispute, NALC branches should continue to enforce Arbitrator
Mittenthal’s award and seek appropriate monetary make whole remedies whenever management
refuses to comply.
Two different Step 4 settlements, (M-01047) 18 in 1988, and (M-00913) 21 in 1989 clearly define
that leave will be counted for the purposes of meeting the six (6) month requirement of Article
7.3.C. In 1992, Arbitrator Britton (S7N-3N-C 40258, C-12323) 43 reiterated that position.
88/08/29
APWU
Step 4
H4C-4K-C-16421
(M-01047)
“. . .For conversion under the provisions of the Article 7, Memorandum of Understanding, leave will be counted
toward the 39-hour requirement provided it is not taken solely to achieve full-time status . . .”
Issues are somewhat different when we’re trying to reclaim “reverted positions.”In 1982, Arbitrator
Marx (C-3667) 8 said that the Union wasn’t required to prove the need for maximization since the
route was already there before management abolished it. This position was reiterated by Arbitrator
Erbs (C-14888) in 1999.
In 1991, Arbitrator Germano (C-10930) 31 said that:
“. . .that . . . management desires to avoid a future reversion when anticipated automation becomes a reality will
not support the present elimination of a full-time position . . .”
Arbitrator Walt (C-12223) 41 agreed with that position in 1992. We need to remember that recently
we’ve seen management regain some of their “flexibility” by reverting Reserve Positions.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
In 1997, Zigman (F90N-4F-C 95065219) 54 decided that, although management does have the right
to abolish Reserve positions, that right is not an “unfettered right.” He said,
“. . .management does have the right to abolish Reserve. . .positions but that right is not an unfettered right. . .with
respect to decisions involving abolishment of existing positions. . .Article 7.3.B is separate and independent of
Article 7.3.C. . .the Service’s authority under Article 3 is restricted by Article 7.3.B. and. . .if the Union can
demonstrate. . .that there is sufficient work. . .for a 40 hour route. . .there is a strong presumption. . .against
abolishment. . .”
This reinforced the position taken by Arbitrator Marx (C-3667) 8 in 1982. It also reinforced the
position taken by Arbitrator Walt (C-12223) 41 in 1992 when he required management to reinstate
a Reserve position after finding that PTFs were still working forty (40) hours a week and that there
had been no reduction in workload. Additionally, Walt said,
“. . .Although the Garrett award (C-00421) 2 dealt with the conversion of part-time flexible position to full-time
positions, his analysis . . . clearly applies to this case . . .”
In 1992, Arbitrator Alsher (S0N-3N-C 6276, C-12516) 44 simply restored the positions because
management failed to provide information to the Union.
Even though Arbitrators agree that Article 12 takes precedence, management may not withhold
positions indefinitely. In the 1979 dispute, National Arbitrator Gamser (C-05904) 6 decided that
management had withheld the positions for too long.
In similar grievances, Arbitrators Taylor (C011349) 33, Scearce (C-12890) 45, and Olson (C-16756)
53 all ruled that the “withholding” may only be for a “reasonable time.”
In 1992, Arbitrator DiLauro (C-12210) 40 decided that the workload hadn’t dropped as management
had anticipated and converted five PTFs to full-time retroactive.
(Exhibit M — Job Description for a Reserve Regular)
The work being done fits the job description of a Reserve Regular
We can argue that the work being done fits the job description of a Reserve Regular who would have
superior rights to a PTF. Both PTFs and Reserve Regulars are used for “leave replacement.”
Arbitrator Hutt (E90N-4E-C 95060364) 56 addressed the rights of a Reserve Regular. He pointed
out that:
“. . .the . . . Reserve Regular Position carries certain rights with it. Among those rights is the right to be preferred
for an assignment over PTFs. This right is included by necessary implication in the language of Article 7.3.B which
encourages maximization of full-time regulars . . . likewise, the provisions of Article 7.3.C allude to the need to take
affirmative action to convert work assignments to full-time positions if the assignments are truly full-time in nature.
. .”
Arbitrator Zigman (F90N-4F-C 9506521) 56 agreed with that position.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
(Exhibit M — Schedule showing both Reserves and PTFs opting)
A schedule demonstrating that both PTFs and Reserves are opting the same assignments would tend
to show that they’re doing the same work during the same time frames. As we said before, they’re
both doing “leave replacement.”
Another area to concentrate on is Article 8.
ARTICLE 8
HOURS OF WORK
Section 5. Overtime Assignments
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 or sixty (60) hours in
a service week. . .
Enforcement of Article 8.5.G will mean that all Casuals(if any) and PTFs as well as the ODL must
work to twelve (12) hours in a day and sixty (60) hours in a week before any non-list Carrier works
overtime off their assignment. If we fully apply this section, we will have more eight (8) hour days
for the PTFs and will be that much closer to another full-time position.
“. . .In the Letter Carrier Craft, where management determines that over time or auxiliary assistance is needed on
an employee’s route on one of the employee’s regularly scheduled days and the employee is not on the overtime
desired list, the employer will seek to utilize auxiliary assistance, when available, rather than requiring the
employee to work mandatory overtime . . .”
Enforcement of the “Letter Carrier Paragraph” will mean that all Casuals and PTFs as well as the
ODL must work to ten (10) hours in a day before any non-list Carrier works overtime on their own
assignment. Again, if we full apply this section, we will have more eight (8) hour days for the PTFs
and will be that much closer to another full-time position.
There’s not a lot that I know of that we can do to keep management from working ODL Carriers
overtime to keep PTFs from working. Even though it seems fiscally irresponsible to pay full-time
employees overtime when they have PTFs available at straight time, that seems to fall within
management’s “right to mismanage.”
But, we can, and should, do something when they work non-list Carriers overtime either off or on
their own assignment. Consistent, firm application of Article 8.5.G and the “Letter Carrier
Paragraph” should result in more regular eight (8) hour days and forty (40) hour weeks for our PTFS.
7.3.D
Article 7.3.D requires management to convert an assignment when a count and inspection shows
more than eight (8) hours. But, under 7.3.D, sometimes there’s even no need for a formal count and
inspection.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
ARTICLE 7
D. Where a count and inspection of an auxiliary city delivery assignment indicates that conversion to a full-time
position is in order, conversion will be made.
Let’s keep all of our routes to eight (8) routes to ensure the maximum number of full-time assignments.
Section 141.11 of the M-39 requires management to keeps routes in adjustment year round. Let’s
take it upon ourselves to help management remember their responsibilities to 141.
“. . .The routes must be maintained in reasonable adjustment throughout the year. In order to fulfill this
requirement, local managers may find it necessary to make minor route adjustments, to provide relief, add
deliveries, capture undertime, etc. . .”
In 1991, Arbitrator Nolan (C-10587) 28 said that,
“. . .Management . . . took upon itself the obligation to maximize full-time employment. Similarly, in Section
141.11 of the M-39, it took upon itself the obligation of ensuring that routes are ‘maintained in reasonable
adjustment throughout the year’ . . . good faith compliance with Section 7.3.B requires management, not the
Union, to gather the appropriate information to determine the need for additional full-time positions . . .”
In the same decision, Nolan also said that,
“. . .Once the Union pointed out the amount of overtime work and work by PTFs and Casual employees, the
Employer should have initiated the route count and inspection in order to determine whether the Union’s request
for another full-time position was meritorious . . .”
This position was supported by Arbitrator Lurie in 1992 (C-12138) 42.
Nolan also said:
“. . .Section 7.3.B does impose a general obligation to maximize full-time employment, but Article 19 incorporates
handbooks which specify how and when new positions are to be created. On the other hand . . . the Employer’s
attempt to make Section 3.B a mere footnote to the succeeding sections would eliminate the general obligation
altogether . . . Section 3.B stands as a binding commitment, however inconvenient the Employer now finds it
. . .”
In 1991, Arbitrator Germano (C-10930) 31 rejected managements contention that a “formal count
and inspection” must be conducted before a conversion could be made. This position was also
supported by Arbitrator Lurie in 1992 (C-12138) 42. He said,
“. . .the Parties agree that there are additional methods for effecting these conversions which do not require a count
and inspection . . .”
In 1984, Arbitrator Scearce (C-04076) 10 determined that the fact situation of the issue at hand must
be assessed at the time of the grievance filing. This was in response to an argument by management
that the situation had changed, and the support for a full-time assignment no longer existed. The
arbitrator was also “unimpressed with managements argument that a major highway would have
divided the proposed route.”
In 1991, Arbitrator Germano (C-10930) 31 also rejected management’s argument that there might
not be enough work for a full-time assignment at some point in the future. This position was
supported by Arbitrator Britton in 1996 (C-15853) 49. He said,
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
“. . .the possibility that a combined route may grow rapidly is . . . not a valid reason for failing to combine two
auxiliary routes . . . Even if the Arbitrator were to agree, however, that the DPS technology could eventually lead
to the phasing out of both auxiliary routes, he would still be required to find that management’s delay in phasing
out the auxiliary routes would be incompatible with the requirement of maximization of full-time employees . . .”
Section 271 of the M-39 defines conditions which might require management to inspect a route.
While in and of itself, Section 271 won’t affect compliance with Article 7.3.D, properly applied, it
might put us in position to take advantage of 7.3.D. If we fully utilize it and force management to
create eight (8) hour assignments, then the excess can be combined and claimed under 7.3.D.
270 SPECIAL ROUTE INSPECTIONS
271 WHEN REQUIRED
Special route inspections may be required when one or of the following conditions or circumstances is present:
a. Consistent use of overtime or auxiliary assistance.
b. Excessive undertime.
c. New construction or demolition which has resulted in an appreciable change in the route.
e. A carrier requests a special inspection and it is warranted
f. Carrier consistently leaves an/or returns late.
g. If over any 6 consecutive week period (where work performance is otherwise satisfactory) 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 route shall, upon request, receive a special mail count and
inspection to be completed within 4 weeks of the request. The month of December must be excluded from
consideration when determining a 6 consecutive week period. However, if a period of overtime and/or
auxiliary assistance begins in November and continues into January, then January is considered as a
consecutive period though December is omitted. A new 6 consecutive week period is not begun.
Remember to enforce the time limits with “Special Inspections.” We know that management will do
nearly everything they can to keep from doing a “Special Inspection.” They know that the routes are
generally overburdened. They also know that if they can keep them overburdened, they can use that
to pressure the Regular on the assignment, as well as they know that if they keep the assignments
overburdened, they can limit the employees that have a right to a fixed schedule and guarantee of
hours.
AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Re: Special Count and Inspection - City Delivery Routes
The United States Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, agree that it is in the
best interests of the Postal Service for letter carrier routes to be in proper adjustment.
Therefore, where the regular carrier has requested a special mail count and inspection, and the criteria set forth
in Part 271g of the Methods Handbook, M-39, have been met, such inspection must be completed within four
weeks of the request, and shall not be delayed. If the results of the inspection indicate that the route is to be
adjusted, such adjustment must be placed in effect within 52 calendar days of the completion of the mail count
in accordance with Section 211.3 of the M-39 Methods Handbook.
Exceptions may be granted by a Division General Manager only when warranted by valid operational
circumstances, substantiated by a detailed written statement, which shall be submitted to the local union within
seven days of the grant of the exception. The union shall then have the right to appeal the granting of the exception
directly to Step 3 of the grievance procedure within 14 days.
Date: July 21, 1987
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
What is a “Full-Time Flexible?”
LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Re: Maximization
This letter memorandum sets forth our mutual intent regarding the attached Memorandum of Understanding
relating to maximization.
1. This Memorandum of Understanding is in settlement of the arbitration pending in case No. N8-NA-141, and
satisfies the obligations of the parties pursuant to the Arbitrator's decision in N8-NA-0141 and the
Memorandum of Understanding relating to maximization dated September 15, 1978.
3. Conversions required pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding shall be in addition to (but not
duplicative of) conversions that may be required pursuant to existing provisions of the National
Memorandum of Understanding. The criteria established by this Memorandum of Understanding are
supplementary to, not in limitation or diminishment of, existing criteria in the National Agreement.
5. Employees converted to full-time positions pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding may bid on
assignments posted for bids by employees in the craft, and shall be full-time regular city letter carriers under
the National Agreement.
6. In those installations where conversions have been made under this Memorandum of Understanding, and there
are subsequent reversions or excessing, any reductions in full-time letter carrier positions shall be from
among those position(s) converted pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding until they are exhausted.
8. The parties recognize their continuing obligation to discuss other respects in which maximization may be
implemented in accordance with the National Agreement.
Date: February 3, 1981.
The1978 memorandum of understanding was similar to the 1981 memorandum and first established
a type of letter carrier status — “full-time flexible” — not mentioned in Article 7. The 1981 letter
of intent reprinted above, as we discussed earlier, the resolution of a 1978 Step 4 grievance, and
remains in effect under the 1987 memorandum. The currently effective 1987 memorandum applies
the full-time flexible maximization requirement to offices with 125 or more man-years of
employment; the 1978 memorandum applied only to installations with 150 or more man years of
employment.
When a PTF carrier’s work over a 6-month period meets the criteria of this memorandum, the senior
PTF must be converted to full-time flexible (FTF). Under the memorandum a full-time flexible carrier
has a flexible schedule which is established week-to-week and posted on the Wednesday preceding
the service week.
But, that schedule may involve varying daily reporting times, varying non-scheduled days and
varying reporting locations with the installation depending on operational requirements.
Under the letter of intent a full-time flexible carrier:
1. May bid on full-time regular positions (paragraph 5);
2. Subject to operational requirements, should not be subjected to unreasonable disruptions in reporting times,
non-scheduled days and reporting locations (paragraph 4); and
3. Is subject to reductions in full-time carrier positions through either reversion (see Article 41.1) or excessing
(see Article 12.5) before full-time regular carrier positions (paragraph 6).
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Per the Maximization MOU, when management proposes to excess full-time employees under the
provisions of Article 12, Section 5.C, all full-time flexibles must be excessed before management
may excess any full-time regulars.
This rule applies even in cases where a full-time regular is junior to a full-time flexible. In order to
avoid the possibility of being excesses before more junior employees, full-time flexibles should be
advised to bid on all full-time letter carrier assignments that are posted for bids.
Article 41.2.B was drafted prior to the December 21, 1987 Memorandum of Understanding
establishing the full-time flexible category. Thus, contrary to what is stated in this section, both fulltime flexible and full-time regular employees can bid on letter carrier duty assignments.
ARTICLE 41
LETTER CARRIER CRAFT
Section 2. Seniority
B. Definitions
1. Seniority for bidding on preferred Letter Carrier Craft duty assignments and for other purposes for application
of the terms of the National Agreement shall be restricted to all full-time regular city letter carriers.
Full-time reserve letter carriers, full-time flexible schedule letter carriers, unassigned full-time
carriers, and part-time flexible carriers may all opt for hold-down assignments. Full-time flexible
positions are not available for opting because they are not bid assignments.
Remedies
In 1980, National Arbitrator Mittenthal (C-03234) 7 ruled that the Arbitrator has the authority to
fashion remedies. Later, in 1988 (C-08338) 19, he ruled again and provided back pay for delayed
conversions. Below is a list of recommended remedies.
1. Convert all affected employees to Full-Time Flexible, retroactively to date of filing
2. Pay the affected individuals at the straight time rate for any hours worked less than eight (8) hours a day,
or forty (40) hours a week since date of filing.
3. Pay the affected individuals at the penalty rate for any overtime work on the fifth or more consecutive day
in a week since date of filing.
4. Apply retroactively to the date of filing the schedule to which the employee is assigned when converted and
pay the employee out-of schedule pay for time “out of schedule.”
5. Pay interest to the affected individuals at the federal judgement rate for all delayed wages.
6. Management is to agree to cease and desist failing to maximize the number of full-time Letter Carrier
positions.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
MAXIMIZATION “Cs” & “Ms”
(Comments in normal type are my interpretation. Comments in italic only are from the award. Comments
in italics within quotation marks were made by the referenced Arbitrators at the end of the quote)
1 73/12/07 Step 4
NBS 185
(M-00222)
Maximization is possible only in individual units where full-time assignments are available.
2 76/01/26 National Arbitrator Garrett
AB-N-3744
(C-00421) MA
The arbitrator held that the general maximization obligation in Article 7, Section 3 (B) applies to all size offices,
is of a continuing nature and is in addition to the specific 90/10 staffing obligation in Article 7, Section 3 [A].
. . .To the undersigned, that statement clearly indicates that the Employer has the duty to maximize full-time
positions since the language of Section 3 states that he “shall” do so. . .
. . .a clear inference that one. . .or more PTFs might be converted without impairing efficiency. . .the Postmaster
should have scheduled. . .additional full time assignments. . .
. . .An assertion by the. . .postmaster that inefficiency will result, without concrete documentation of the nature
and extent of such inefficiency, is not enough in the face of such Union evidence. . .
. . .7.3.B could be used as a basis for conversion. . .Paragraph B imposed such an obligation when the Union
presents a prima facie case for greater maximization in any given installation. . .
. . .The maximization obligation imposed by the second sentence of Article VII, Section 3 is of a continuing
nature. It hardly could be otherwise, since relevant conditions affecting the size and composition of the work
force cannot be expected to remain static. . .
The Arbitrator commented that management should have tried to satisfy the requirements of 7.3.C.
3 77/08/04 Vacca Letter to Conway
NC-NAT-8871
(M-00978)
. . .It has come to my attention that Postal Service Management has taken the position that it has an obligation.
. .to maximize. . .by converting PTFs to full-time status only when. . .(The same PTF worked the same 8 hours
on the same assignment over the same 5 days). . .NALC disagrees. . .and contends instead that. .
.(management). . .has an obligation to maximize. . .whenever there exists available work to be performed eight
hours within ten hours on five of six days in a service week over a six-month period, notwithstanding how many
different PTFs may have been performing such work over a six month period. . .Based on the forgoing, I am
forced to conclude that there exists “a dispute between the Union and the Employer as to the interpretation of
the Agreement. . .
4 78/02/08 Merrill Letter to Vacca
NC-NAT-8871
(M-00978)
. . .The need to establish a full-time assignment is not determined exclusively by the third sentence of Article
VII, Section 3. In other words, situations exist that would demonstrate a need for a full-time assignment are
not limited to the circumstances set forth in the third sentence of Article VII, Section 3. . .This provision merely
sets forth a particular factual situation, the occurrence of which is considered to indicate that a full-time
position is feasible. . .
5 78/10/12 National Arbitrator Gamser
NC-E-9358
(C-02978) NJ
. . .In the instant case. . .the data. . .certainly created a strong inference that the Postmaster. . .could
re-establish his present carrier work schedules and create at least four additional full-time assignments on a
temporary basis with only a minimal, if any, impact upon efficiency or impairing required flexibility . . .
Maximization Cs & Ms Page 22 of 43
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
6 79/12/07 National Arbitrator Gamser
NCE-16340
(C-05904)
The Arbitrator ruled that Article 12.5 takes precedence over Article 7.3.C.
PA
7 80/07/07 National Arbitrator Mittenthal
N8N-NA 0141
(C-03234) DC
. . .Over the years, the NALC and the other postal unions have become increasingly dissatisfied with
management’s avoidance of its maximization responsibilities. Local managers have utilized various devices to
prevent application of Article 7.3 such as scheduling PTFs over 6 days, rather than 5, or cutting off the hours
of a PTF just short of 40 and assigning the work to another employee. . .
. . .in a letter dated November 26. . .management offered . . .(a proposal) under this proposal, “any
combination of carrier duties in a work facility, that. . .when combined constitute eight (8) hours within ten(10)
. . .over a consecutive six month period will demonstrate the need for converting these duties to a full time
position.” . . .Hours spent by a PTF covering for an absent full-time Carrier are to be included in this formula.
..
8 82/09/29 Regional Arbitrator Marx
N8N-1N-C 13262
(C-3667) NY
The Arbitrator restored a reverted Reserve Position with an explanation that there was no change in the work
load necessitating the reduction of full-time positions.
The Union did not argue for the creation of a new full-time assignment, rather the maintenance of an
existing one.
9 84/??/?? Regional Arbitrator Eaton
W1N-5C-C 11644
“(This Arbitrator). . . was persuaded by Arbitrator Eaton W1N-5C-C 11644 when he argued that Article 7.3.B
states a general requirement for maximization of full-time employees. . .) 91/04/09 Regional Arbitrator Talmadge N7N-1E-C 31427
(C-10756) MA
10 84/01/28 Regional Arbitrator Scearce
S1N-3W-C 12023
(C-04076)
. . .We are obliged to assess the situation at the time of the grievance filing. . .
FL
. . .I am unimpressed. . .that a major highway. . .would have divided such a route. . .
. . .two “more or less contiguous” auxiliary routes. . .should have combined into a single full-time route. . .
H1N-2B-C 4314
(C-05070)
NJ
The Arbitrator ruled that time spent on an “opt” or “hold-down” qualifies for the requirements of Article 7.3.C.
. . .between Article 7.3.C and Article 41.2.B.4, what the Parties were attempting to do was to limit the amount
of time a PTF’s assignment could remain a part-time position. They established a six month limitation. . .
“. . .Article 7.3.B clearly states that the post office shall maximize the full-time employees and minimize part
time employees in all postal facilities. . .it is paragraph C (7.3.C) that expresses the obligation ‘to maximize’
in concrete terms. . .” 91/04/09 Regional Arbitrator Talmadge N7N-1E-C 31427 (C-10756) MA
. . .Thus Arbitrator Mittenthal suggests that Sections 3.B and 3.C should be read together, not independently.
. . 97/06/17 Regional Arbitrator Snider W0N-5L-C 5292 (C016928) CA
Despite the explicit provisions of Article 15, Section 4.A.6 which provide that all arbitration awards are final and
binding, the Postal Service has recently taken the position that it will no longer comply with Arbitrator
Mittenthal’s award. This issue is currently pending national level arbitration. Although Mittenthal’s award is in
dispute, NALC branches should continue to enforce Arbitrator Mittenthal’s award and seek appropriate monetary
make whole remedies whenever management refuses to comply.
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
12 86/??/?? Regional Arbitrator Jacobowski
C4N-4K-6281
“. . .two part-time auxiliary routes could be combined into a single full-time eight hour assignment, and. . .the
routes should be combined. . .”
13 87/02/03 APWU Step 4
H4C-4H-C 16345
(M-00938)
. . .During our discussion, it was agreed that Article 7.3 of the 1984 National Agreement does not require
management to maintain the 90/10 ratio on a "daily basis”. . .
14 87/07/21 National MOU “Full-Time Flexible” Page 157 National Agreement
15 87/08/05 Regional Arbitrator Larson
S1C-3W-C 38156
(C-00944) FL
[Although the office was too small to qualify under 7.3.A] . . .Section 3.B is applicable and expresses a general
obligation on the part of the Employer. . .
. . .I do not think that the only way to prove violation of Section 3.B is to prove the elements of Section 3.C. .
.the Union’s statement can be read as alleging that PTFs in the aggregate satisfied Section 3.C. . .Section C
states one way in which the need. . .can be established. . .But Section B allows for other proofs. . .
. . .I overrule the objection that the Union’s claim should be limited to Section 3.C. . .
“. . .the Larsen award (S1C-3W-C 38156) in which he held that 7.3.C states one way in which the need for
converting a PTF can be shown, but 7.3.B allows for other proofs and expresses a general obligation on the part
of the employer. . .” 90/07/21 Regional Arbitrator Stephens S7C-3B-C 21734 (C-13395) AR
16 88/04/05 Regional Arbitrator Eaton
W4C-5G-C 31740
(C-11189)
OR
. . .an arbitrator would be empowered to look into a charge that working hours of PTFs had been changed for
the purpose of evading the goals of 7.3.B. . .
17 88/08/15
Regional Arbitrator Ordman
C4N-4E-C 15204
(C-08230)
OH
. . .The maximization obligation in Article 7.3.B is in addition to the 90/10 obligation in Article 7.3.A
. . .the results showed 11 full-time routes. . .99 hours per day warrants the designation of a 12th full-time route.
. .A 99 hour per day average in hours would plainly indicate a justification, if not a need, for 12 full-time
positions, totally 96 hours per day, and 1 part-time position. . .management’s assertion of the need for, and
advantages of its present use of flexibility may not be permitted to override the mandate of Article 7.3.B of the
National Agreement to maximize the number of full-time employees. . . in all postal installations. . .
18 88/08/29 APWU Step 4
H4C-4K-C-16421
(M-01047)
. . .For conversion under the provisions of the Article 7, Memorandum of Understanding, leave will be counted
toward the 39 hour requirement provided it is not taken solely to achieve full-time status. . .
H4N-NA-C 93
(C-08338) DC
Provided for back-pay for delayed conversions.
20 88/11/17 Regional Arbitrator McAllister
C4N-4Q-C 28180
The Union offered “combination” possibilities between stations.
(C-08494)
MO
21 89/04/12
Step 4
H7N-2A-C 2275
(M-00913)
“. . .For the purposes of meeting the six month requirements of Article 7.3.c., approved annual leave does not
constitute an interruption in assignment, except where the annual leave is used solely for purposes of rounding
out the workweek when the employee would otherwise not have worked. . .”(MRS)
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
22 89/04/14 Step 4
(M-00920)
Provided a remedy for all installations in violation of the 90/10 ratio of full-time to part-time.
M1C-NA-C 120
(C-09340)
DC
. . .A part-time flexible properly converted to full time flexible under the 1981 Memoranda is thereafter properly
counted as a “full-time employee” for purposes of satisfying the 90% staffing requirement under Article VII,
Section 3A. To this extent, the grievance is denied. . .
. . .When PTFs are entitled to conversion to full-time under both the 02/03/81 MOU (Maximization) and Article
7.3.A, the Service must first convert under the MOU (create Reserve Regulars) and then convert under Article
7.3.A (create FTFs). . .
24 90/07/20 Regional Arbitrator Martin
C7C-4Q-C 10587
(C-10713)
MO
. . .Management argues that it needs flexibility. . .I disagree, as did Arbitrators Garrett (AB-N-3744) and
Gamser (MC-C-9358). . .
. . .Arbitrator Garrett AB-N-3744 said. . .“An assertion by the. . .postmaster that inefficiency will result, without
concrete documentation of the nature and extent of such inefficiency, is not enough in the face of such Union
evidence”. .
. . .Total hours used by part-time flexibles is an important — perhaps determinative — criterion to be used
in evaluating whether management has complied with its general obligation to maximize. . .
25 90/07/21 Regional Arbitrator Stephens
S7C-3B-C 21734
(C-13395)
AR
. . .the Larsen award (S1C-3W-C 38156) in which he held that 7.3.C states one way in which the need for
converting a PTF can be shown, but 7.3.B allows for other proofs and expresses a general obligation on the
part of the employer. . .
. . .Arbitrator Marlatt (S7C-3E-C 18642) discusses the Larsen award. . .he reverses his own earlier thinking.
. .and shows that Arbitrator Eaton also supports the Union’s position on this issue (W4C-5G-C 31740). . .
. . .It is apparent that the postmaster was trying to. . .provide a flexible work force. . .as laudable as is this goal.
. .one must conclude that the postmaster does not have a free hand. . .The parties. . .have agreed upon
language. . .which restricts such attempts to hire many part-time employees. . .
. . .On 21 out of 28 weeks, at least 4 PTFs or Casuals worked eight (8) hours per day, five (5) days per week.
When one combines other schedules, this shows the need for at least six (6) full-time positions. . .
. . .(Arbitrator Larson) held that Article 7.3.C states one way in which the need foe converting a PTF can be
shown, but Article 7.3.B allows for other proofs and expresses a general obligation on the part of the
employer. . .
H7N-3D-C 22267
(C-10343)
DC
27 90/11/17 Regional Arbitrator Sobel
S7N-3S-C 28423
(C-10433C)
FL
. . .were the Union able to show that any of the routes it wanted to convert normally required eight hours. . .the
burden would fall upon the employer. . .The desire for flexibility by itself could not justify management’s
position. . .
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
28 91/02/09 Regional Arbitrator Nolan
S7N-3W-C 30348
(C-10587)
FL
. . .Section 7.3.B does impose a general obligation to maximize full-time employment, but Article 19
incorporates handbooks which specify how and when new positions are to be created. On the other hand. . .the
Employer’s attempt to make Section 3.B a mere footnote to the succeeding sections would eliminate the general
obligation altogether. . .
. . .Section 3.B stands as a binding commitment, however inconvenient the Employer now finds it. . .
. . .Management. . .took upon itself the obligation to maximize full-time employment. Similarly, in Section
141.11 of the M-39, it took upon itself the obligation of ensuring that routes are ‘maintained in reasonable
adjustment throughout the year’. . .good faith compliance with Section 7.3.B requires management, not the
Union, to gather the appropriate information to determine the need for additional full-time positions. . .
“. . .Once the Union pointed out the amount of overtime work and work by PTFs and Casual employees, the
Employer should have initiated the route count and inspection in order to determine whether the Union’s
request for another full-time position was meritorious. . .”92/07/23 Regional Arbitrator Lurie S0N-3D-C 2778 (C-12138)
29 91/04/09 Regional Arbitrator Talmadge
N7N-1E-C 31427
(C-10756)
MA
The Arbitrator was persuaded by Arbitrator Eaton (W1N-5C-C 11644) when he argued that Article 7.3.B states
a general requirement for maximization of full-time employees. He allowed a calculation which included all
Carrier work hours.
30 91/04/16 Regional Arbitrator Goodman
W7N-5-S-C 24644
(C-10791)
NM
(the Vacca/Merrill correspondence). . .shows that as early as 1978, the Parties understood that Section 7.3.B,
in conjunction with Section 7.3.C, contemplated other circumstances in which full-time positions should be
created. . .To allow the Postal Service to avoid its obligation to maximize the number of full-time employees
by relying on a “same five (5) days” technicality would open Pandora’s box to possible abuse through mere
manipulation of days off. . .
31 91/05/30 Regional Arbitrator Germano
N7N-1K-C 35702
(C-10930)
ME
. . .there were 8 hours or more of work. . Management’s contention that a formal count and inspection must be
conducted be conducted before such a conversion can be made is not supported. . .Management’s reasons for
not converting the assignment to a full-time position are also unsupportable. . .whether or not there will
eventually be sufficient work to continue route 13. . .at some future date is not the issue. . .
“. . .that. . .management desires to avoid a future reversion when anticipated automation becomes a reality will
not support the present elimination of a full-time position. . .”92/07/21 Regional Arbitrator Walt C0N-4R-C 4619 (C-12223)
“. . .the Parties agree that there are additional methods for effecting these conversions which do not require
a count and inspection. . .”82/07/03 Regional Arbitrator Lurie (C-12138)
32 91/10/11 Regional Arbitrator Talmadge
N7N-1G-C 35646
(C-11279)
VT
33 91/11/11 Regional Arbitrator Taylor
S0N-3V-C 43
(C011349)
TX
. . .I am persuaded that . . .management is dangerously close to going beyond the rule of reason. . .
S7N-3W-C 88143
(C-11474A)
FL
. . .It is obvious that the postmaster. . .felt that Auxiliary Route 8932 should be a regular one. . .His efforts were
not approved by his own superiors. . .the Union asserts that the Service merely altered (the PTF’s) schedule
slightly to try to avoid the application of Article 7.3.C. . .
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
35 91/12/06 Step 4
H7N-3F-C 39104
(M-01032)
. . .Article 7.3.C contains no provision which limits its application only to those offices with 125 or more man
years of employment. . .
36 92/04/14 Step 4
H7N-3W-C 27937
(M-27937)
. . .The issue in this grievance is whether the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Maximization/Full-time
Flexible-NALC requires that the six month period be consecutive. . . The six month measuring period in the
MOU means six consecutive months. . .
37 92/06/26 Regional Arbitrator Barker
W7N-5E-C 28510
(C-12126)
CA
. . .management operates under the contractual imperative of Article 7.3.B that it shall maximize the number
of full-time and minimize the number of part-time employees in its facility. . .
. . .the fact that, in 1989, the median average hours worked per week by part-time employees was 530 is a
significant factor to be weighed. . .
38 92/06/29 Regional Arbitrator Baldovin
S7C-3W-C 22661
(C-12157)
FL
. . .Since Section 3.B applies to all postal installations, this would include the installations referred to in
Section 3.A. . .
. . .Since Section 3.A requires a minimum full-time employee ratio of 90/10, then the application of Section 3.B.
to Section 3.A installations would have to apply to the 10% part-time complement which. . .exist at such
installations. . .
(If the only time that Section 3.B. was operative was after Section 3.C was met). . .then Section 3.B would be
meaningless, would serve no purpose and should not be included in the National Agreement. . .Section 3.C
cannot be viewed as the only situation requiring conversion. It must be viewed as one situation or example
requiring conversion. . .Support for this proposition is found in a letter from James G. Merrill. . .dated
02/10/78. . .(this demonstrated that) situations which might exist that would demonstrate a need for a full-time
assignment are not limited to the circumstances set forth in the third sentence of Article 7.3. . .This provision
merely sets forth a particular factual situation. . .I am constrained to conclude that Section 3.B. requires
conversion anytime it can be demonstrated that a full-time position can be accommodated. . .any other
interpretation would for all practical purposes result in writing Section 3.B out of the. . .Agreement. . .
39 92/07/17 Regional Arbitrator Johnston
LA
40 92/07/18 Regional Arbitrator DiLauro
KY
S0N-3N-C 4208
(C-12211)
E7N-2J-C 44821
(C-12210)
The issue was a “Withheld Position.” The arbitrator found that the workload didn’t drop.
41 92/07/21 Regional Arbitrator Walt
C0N-4R-C 4619
(C-12223)
SD
. . .Although the Garrett award (AB-N-3744 76/01/26 (C-00421)) dealt with the conversion of part-time flexible
position to full-time positions, his analysis. . .clearly applies to this case. The 90% full-time manning mandate
of 7.3.A is a minimum requirement. . .
. . .However, compliance with 7.3.A does not necessarily mean the employer has complied with the full-time
manning requirements of the National Agreement. . .while the employer is not obligated to maximize full-time
employment “if the consequence is a significant increase in labor cost,” the mere assertion that increased
inefficiency will result. . . “without concrete documentation of the nature and extent of such inefficiency,
is not enough”. . .
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
42 92/07/23 Regional Arbitrator Lurie
S0N-3D-C 2778
(C-12138)
AL
. . .the Arbitrator therefore finds that the Postal Service has the contractual arbitration, under Article 7.3.B of
the Agreement, to perform a special count and inspection. . .
“. . .the Parties agree that there are additional methods for effecting these conversions which do not require
a count and inspection. . .” Regional Arbitrator Germano 91/05/30 N7N-1K-C 35702 (C-10930)
“. . .two part-time auxiliary routes could be combined into a single full-time eight hour assignment, and. . .the
routes should be combined. . .” Regional Arbitrator Jacobowski C4N-4K-6281
“. . .Once the Union pointed out the amount of overtime work and work by PTFs ans Casual employees, the
Employer should have initiated the route count and inspection in order to determine whether the Union’s
request for another full-time position was meritorious. . .” Regional Arbitrator Nolan 91/02/20 S7N-3W-C 30348 (C-10587)
“. . .two “more or less contiguous” auxiliary routes. . .should have combined into a single full-time route. . .”
Regional Arbitrator Scearce 84/01/28 S1N-3W-12023 (C-04076)
43 92/08/20 Regional Arbitrator Britton
S7N-3N-C 40258
The Arbitrator ruled that time on Annual Leave counts.
(C-12323)
MS
44 92/10/29 Regional Arbitrator Alsher
S0N-3N-C 6276
(C-12516)
LA
The Arbitrator restored the positions because management failed to provide information to the Union.
TX
46 93/03/01 Regional Arbitrator Mikrut
IN
S0N-3V-C 7652
(C-12890)
The arbitrator ruled for the Union because of an overlong delay in filling vacant positions.
C0N-4G-C 4934
(C-12854)
47 93/06/22 Regional Arbitrator Williams
W7N-5E-C 29608
(C-13098)
CA
. . .The broad stream of arbitral opinion holds that 7.3.B is a requirement which must be met by management
regarding maximizing the work force. It is not just a general policy statement with the only specifics being 7.3.A
for large post offices and 7.3.C for small ones. . .the scores of cases analyzed by this Arbitrator over the years
indicates a case law which concludes that maximization is required if PTFs are working forty (40) hours a
week, or forty (40) hour lots of weeks, if the requirement was substantially met, if there was an excessive use
of part-time, if there was a high ratio of part-time employees, etc. . .
. . .the overwhelming arbitral interpretation of Article 7.3.C is that it is only one way to demonstrate the need
or requirement to maximize. . .In. . .AB-N-3744, Arbitrator Garrett held that. . .7.3.B could be used as a basis
for conversion. . .Garrett held that “The maximization obligation imposed by the second sentence of Article
7.3.B is of a continuing nature”. . .He indicated that Paragraph B imposed such an obligation “when the Union
presents a prima facie case for greater maximization in any given installation”. . .
. . .Perhaps Arbitrator Sherman stated it best, in S7C-3B-C 20567, when he said “The employer would have
the arbitrator ignore the contractual history which clearly demonstrates the language to have remained the
same, with meaning and intent as originally negotiated. They point to 7.3.C as the ‘only’ criteria which can
be used to prove 7.3.B. Their position has no support in fact, history, or reasonableness. The fact of the
matter is that the language now contained in 7.3.C was added in 1973 to provide a guideline to be used to
judge compliance with the language now contained in 7.3.B. The Parties negotiated a criteria which would
absolutely, positively demonstrate that a part-time flexible should be converted. . .In other words, the Parties
negotiated the perfect way to demonstrate a need to convert in order to comply with 7.3.B; they did not
negotiate 7.3.C in order to eliminate 7.3.B. Nor was it negotiated to represent the only way . . .they certainly
did not assign each sentence a separate letter. . .intending that they must be considered as one”. . .
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
48 94/02/18 Regional Arbitrator Freedman
FY93-518
(C-13479)
CT
. . .It is clear from Article 7.3. . .that the parties concur that [there is] no minimum size a post office applies to
Article 7.3.C. . .
49 96/09/13 Regional Arbitrator Britton
G90N-4G-C 95054098 (C-15853)
TX
. . .the possibility that a combined route may grow rapidly is. . .not a valid reason for failing to combine two
auxiliary routes. . .Even if the Arbitrator were to agree, however, that the DPS technology could eventually lead
to the phasing out of both auxiliary routes, he would still be required to find that management’s delay in
phasing out the auxiliary routes would be incompatible with the requirement of maximization of full-time
employees. . .
50 96/08/02 Regional Arbitrator Axon
E90N-4E-C 95004482 (C-15663)
ID
. . .The Arbitrator rejects the Postal Service’s reasoning and Postal Service’s arbitral authority that Section 3.B
only comes into effect if a Section 3.C violation is proved. The better reasoned arbitration cases hold that
Section 3.B is a separate and independent provision that is not dependant on Section 3.C. . .
51 96/11/25 Regional Arbitrator Rhemus
E90N-4E-C 95057679 (C-16114)
OR
. . .it is difficult now for management successfully to impeach (data) it collected and gave to the Union. . .
52 97/03/05 Regional Arbitrator Gudenberg
A94N-4A-C 96032482 (C-16486)
NY
The issue was management’s failure to post a position that wasn’t reverted as a result of DPS.
53 97/05/12 Regional Arbitrator Olson
F90N-4F-C 93033943 (C-16756)
CA
. . .vacancies can only be withheld in appropriate circumstances for a reasonable period. . .
54 97/06/18 Regional Arbitrator Zigman
F90N-4F-C 95065219
CA
. . .management does have the right to abolish Reserve. . .positions but that right is not an unfettered right.
. .with respect to decisions involving abolishment of existing positions. . .Article 7.3.B is separate and
independent of Article 7.3.C. . .the Service’s authority under Article 3 is restricted by Article 7.3.B. and.
. .if the Union can demonstrate. . .that there is sufficient work. . .for a 40 hour route. . .there is a strong
presumption. . .against abolishment. . .
55 97/10/01 Regional Arbitrator Rhemus
E94N-4E-D 95072780
The grievance called for combining router duties and street hand-offs.
OR
. . .I conclude the data presented by the Union make a prima facie case that work enough for a full-time route
existed, was practicable, and could have been posted for bid. . .
56 97/12/18 Regional Arbitrator Hutt
E90N-4E-C 95060364
The Arbitrator cited management’s responsibilities under Section 141.11 of the M-39.
UT
. . .the. . .Reserve Regular Position carries certain rights with it. Among those rights is the right to be preferred
for an assignment over PTFs. This right is included by necessary implication in the language of Article 7.3.B
which encourages maximization of full-time regulars. . .likewise, the provisions of Article 7.3.C allude to the
need to take affirmative action to convert work assignments to full-time positions if the assignments are truly
full-time in nature. . .the manager acknowledged that there was eight (8) hours of work. . .even after the
abolishment. . .The Arbitrator is also unpersuaded that management’s difficulties with scheduling routes,
auxiliary routes, A/L replacements, is so pervasive to warrant the summary abolishment. . .
“. . .Yet the hierarchy of positions within the Postal Service (TE, PTF, Full-time Regulars) anticipates that, in
proper instances, a regular employee’s job will only be extinguished as a last resort. . .” 97/06/18 Regional Arbitrator
Zigman
F90N-4F-C 9506521
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit A — Seniority List
Maximization Exhibits Page 30 of 43
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit B — ODL
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit C — Hours Analysis
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit D — ETC Everything
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit E — PTFs, Casuals, Non-List
Saturday Monday
07-26
07-28
Non-ODL
Butchko (601)
Gustafson (601)
Loyd (601)
Sombs (601)
Andrew (801)
Belcher (801)
Locke (801)
McCraner (801)
Phillips (801)
Aronin (901)
Brock (901)
LaSalle (901)
Voutsikakis (901) 0.15
Benfield (902)
Marsden (902)
Total Non-ODL
0.15
PTFs
7.89
Aveldson (801)
Boggs (701)
Cassell (902)
Dellinger (901)
Ginger (901)
Gracie (601)
Werner (601)
Wolf (601)
Casuals
Penn (801)
9.82
Miles (801)
4.9
Wilson (901)
Noyes (901)
Total Casuals
14.72
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
07-29
07-30
07-31
Friday
08-01
0.40
1.97
1.06
0.60
0.11
0.13
0.10
1.40
0.65
0.53
0.86
1.47
1.05
0.09
1.57
0.00
0.00
3.71
7.54
0.00
5.98
0.00
5.93
9.35
8.00
17.35
0.27
0.25
1.33
2.00
2.00
0.92
0.63
8.01
2.01
2.51
0.54
0.15
1.31
6.52
6.12
5.88
0.00
0.00
9.62
8.65
7.20
6.81
9.42
9.50
27.77
8.65
22.66
7.71
17.13
1.50
1.63
0.00
0.00
6.55
2.93
9.48
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit F — Jensen
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit G — Summary
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit H — On Rolls Complement
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit I — Vacca Letter
August 4, 1977
Mr. James V.P, Conway
Senior Assistant Postmaster General
Employee and Labor Relations
United States Postal Service
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Conway:
It has come to my attention that Postal Service Management has taken the position,
pursuant to Article VII, Section 3, of the 1975 National Agreement, to maximize the
number of full-time employees in all Postal installations by converting part-time
flexible employees to full-time status only when there is evidence that the same parttime flexible employee has been working the same eight hours within ten hours on the
same five days each week on the same assignment over a six-month period. NALC
disagrees with that interpretation of Article VII, Section 3, and contends instead
that the employer has an obligation to maximize the number of full-time employees
at a Postal installation by converting part-time flexible whenever there exists
available work to be performed eight hours within ten hours on five of six days in
a service week over a six-month period notwithstanding how many part-time
flexible employees may have been performing such work over a six month period.
It is the position of the NALC that this question was resolved in 1974 during
discussions with Bill Henderson and the undersigned concerning the Step 4 grievance
from Cleveland, Ohio #NB-C-624.
Based on the forgoing, I am forced to conclude that there exists “a dispute between the
Union and the Employer as to the interpretation of the Agreement” within the meaning
of Article XV, Section 2, last paragraph. I, therefore, hereby institute that dispute as
a grievance at the National level and request an immediate Step 4 meeting to attempt
to resolve same.
Sincerely yours,
J. Joseph Vacca
President
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit J — Merrill Letter
02/08/78
Mr. J. Joseph Vacca, President
National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
100 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Re: NC-NAT-8871
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Vacca:
On September 14, 1977, we met with you to discuss the above-captioned grievance at the fourth step of our contractual
grievance procedure.
The matters presented by you as well as the applicable contractual provisions have been reviewed and given careful
consideration.
The NALC alleges that the U.S. Postal Service takes the position that “it has an obligation pursuant to Article VII, Section
3 of the 1975 National Agreement, to maximize the number of full-time employees in all postal installations by converting
part-time flexible employees to full-time status only when there is evidence that the same part-time flexible has been
working the same eight hours within ten hours on the same five days each week on the assignment over a six month period.
The NALC contends that “the employer has an obligation to maximize the number of full-time employees at a postal
installation by converting part-time flexible employees to full-time status whenever there exists available work to be
performed eight hours within ten hours on 5 of 6 days in a service week over a six-month period, notwithstanding how
many different part-time flexible employees may have been performing such work over a six-month period.”
It appears that perhaps there is some misunderstanding of the Postal Service’s position relative to the application of Article
VII, Section 3. The need to establish a full-time assignment is not determined exclusively by the third sentence of
Article VII, Section 3. In other words, situations which might exist that would demonstrate a need for a full-time
assignment are not limited to the circumstances set forth in the third sentence of Article VII, Section 3. The
sentence states, “A part-time flexible employee working eight hours within ten on the same five days of each week and the
same assignment over a six-month period will demonstrate the need for converting the assignment to a full-time position.”
This provision merely sets forth a particular factual situation, the occurrence of which is considered to indicate that a fulltime position is feasible. This sentence clearly refers to the same part-time flexible working the same assignment for 8 hours
within 10 hours in the same five days per week over a six-month period.
This is not to say that there can not be other circumstances which might support the conclusion that a full-time
position is warranted. However, whether such circumstances exist, will depend on the particular facts to an individual
office. This would include disputes as to whether various duties can be combined into a full-tome assignment in a particular
individual situation. Thus it involves a fact question and does not involve the interpretation of the National agreement.
I believe the forgoing clarifies the position of the Postal Service with respect to the meaning of the application of Article
VII, Section 3. After a careful reading of your letter of August 4, 1977 in the context of this clarification, it does not appear,
as you allege, that a dispute exists regarding an interpretation of the National Agreement. Under the circumstances, we
consider that the National Level Grievance referenced above is resolved.
Sincerely,
James G. Merrill
General Manager
Grievance Division
Labor Relations Department
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit K — Herbert Letter
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit L - Herrington Memo
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit M — Job Description for a Reserve Regular
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)
Exhibit N — Schedule showing both Reserves and PTFs opting
January 4, 2000 (7:04PM)

EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS (Maximization of Full-Time Positions) ARTICLE 7

Transcription

Similar documents

JUST ONE MORE JUST ONE MORE

Finding - Key Resource Group, LLC

Recent Trends in Legal Hiring. pdf

// liVE it loUD liVE it loUD \\

department of communication

EEO Public File Report 2015

LAAFA Fall 2012 Brochure

Internships Internships

US Job Forecast