Need help? If it's the
non-professional temporary kind, then Manpower, Inc., is the place
to go. USPS currently has a national contract with the company.
All postal locations need to use this mandatory source for the
purchase of these services. Casual employees can continue to be
hired under normal Postal Service hiring policy (use of PS Form 50,
Request for Personnel Action) or through the Manpower contract.
To make things easier, the Manpower catalog is now available through
eBuy. If your facility has Internet access, you need to order
non-professional temporary services via eBuy. No Internet access?
Continue your current ordering process.
Source:
USPS Link Online October 3, 2003
Manpower, Inc.,
National Contract
On April 30, 2002, Supply Management awarded a
contract to Manpower, Inc. (contract number 102592-02-B-1200), for a
full range of nonprofessional temporary services.
The period of performance for this contract is a base period of 2
years, with three 1-year renewal options. This contract is to be
used by all Postal Service™
locations and is a mandatory source for purchasing nonprofessional
temporary services. The Postal Service can continue to hire casual
employees under the normal Postal Service hiring policy (using PS
Form 50, Request for Personnel Action) or through the Manpower,
Inc., Contract
Effective September 23, 2003, the Manpower, Inc., catalog will be
available through eBuy, the preferred method for placing orders. You
should contact your district or area eBuy representative to receive
a logon ID and password. If you have access to the Postal Service
Intranet, you can access the training module for eBuy (no logon ID
or password is needed) as follows:
1. From Internet Explorer (V.50 or higher), go to the blue page at
http://blue.usps.gov and type "ebuy" in the address line and then
hit the Return key. (The direct URL is http://ebuy.usps/jsp/co/Login.jsp;
note that this URL is case sensitive.)
Source: Postal Bulletin
- PB22112 October 2, 2003 -
Click Here
Note: USPS intranet is
available only on most internal postal computers
2. Click on Catalogs, then Temporary Services, then your state name.
If you do not have access to the Intranet, you should contact the
appropriate area ordering official (for field offices) or the
contracting officer's representative (for Headquarters and
Headquarters field offices).
Complete ordering instructions are available in Material Logistics
Bulletin MLB-CO-03-017, at http://blue.usps.gov/purchase/material/mlb/03-017.doc.
If you do not have access to a computer, you can obtain the MLB by
calling National Materials Customer Service at 800-332-0317; select
the option for "Operations and Materials Customer Service."
If you have any questions, send an e-mail message to the Temporary
Services Team at the Travel, Retail, and Temporary Services Category
Management Center at Denver CMC 2BTSER.
- SCM Strategies,
Supply Management, 10-2-03
The notices above in USPSNews
Link [October 3rd] and the Postal Bulletin
[October 2nd] regarding Manpower anticipate vacancies caused by
early
retirements. Temporary agency employees count against the
ceiling for
casuals and the normal rules for using casuals apply.
Don Cheney
Steward
Auburn, WA 98002
******************************************************
"Kelly Girl" Award Is Issued
In a recent national level award, Arbitrator Das considered whether
the
Postal Service's use of temporary agency employees or temps violates
the
National Agreement. The arbitrator ruled that Article 7.1.B
does not
prohibit the Postal Service from using "Kelly Girls" or other
similar-type
temporary agency employees as a supplemental work force, provided
they are
counted as casuals and are subject to the limits on employment of
casuals
set forth in Article 7.1.B.
(AIRS #38887 -- USPS #Q9OC-6E-C 94046800, 1/31/2003)
The APWU's basic position was that temps are not casual
employees and that
Article 7 limits the composition of the supplemental work force to
casuals.
In addition, despite previous settlements that were reached, the
Postal
Service has never, as a matter of established practice, counted any
temps as
casuals. In fact, there was no evidence that the Postal
Service has ever
counted or treated temps like casuals.
Arbitrator Das rejected our contention that Article 7 prohibits the
use of
temps as a supplemental work force. However, this award is
significant
because his decision not only requires the temps to be counted as
casuals,
if used, but also makes it clear that temps are subject to the
limitation on
employment of casuals pursuant to Article 7.1.B. This is
important in light
of Arbitrator Das's earlier "casuals in lieu of" decision.
If temps are used, they can only be utilized as a limited term
supplemental
work force and not in lieu of (instead of, in place of, or in
substitution
of) career employees. Management has to give qualified and
available
part-time flexible employees working at the straight-time rate a
priority in
scheduling over temporary employees (if used) during the course of a
service
week and the employment of temps is limited to two (2) ninety (90)
day terms
of casual employment in a calendar year.
The APWU, at the national level, is pursuing discussions with the
Postal
Service regarding the inclusion of "Kelly Girls" or other
similar-type
temporary agency employees in the same or similar reporting
procedures as
casuals to ensure compliance with limitations provided for in
Article 7.1.B.
The background of this case and a summary of the arbitrator's
decision
follows.
This case arose when a Step 4 grievance was filed on May 18, 1994.
The
grievance indicated that the union interpreted the contract as
prohibiting
the use of employees of temporary agencies to perform bargaining
unit work.
The Postal Service thereafter denied the grievance, asserting in
part that
"'[p]revious agreements between the Postal Service and the APWU
clearly
indicate that the Postal Service may use temporary employees to
perform
short-term work as long as such employees are considered as casual
employees
pursuant to Article 7.1.B.'"
Before this Step 4 grievance was filed, the parties had entered into
two
Step 4 agreements on the issue of Kelly Girls relating to specific
circumstances. Each one of these settlements indicated that
the "'use of
temporary employees (i.e., Kelly Girls) in the circumstances
described in
this case shall be considered as casuals pursuant to Article 7.2.B
of the
National Agreement [currently Article 7.1.B of the National
Agreement].'"
In addition, there was correspondence at the national level between
the APWU
and Postal Service on several occasions relating to the use of
non-career
temporary employees. In 1992, the union inquired of the Postal
Service
whether non-career employees, such as "Kelly Girls" and other
temporary
service employees, who would operate the test Delivery Bar Code
Sorters
would be included within the 5% authorization for the supplemental
work
force. The Postal Service responded that when such employees
are used, they
are to be included in the 5% contractual limit on the supplemental
work
force.
In 1973, the Postal Service wrote a letter to the APWU confirming an
agreement regarding use of temporary clerical support to supplement
the
regular workforce of the Central Mark-Up System during conversion.
The
letter indicated that "'the temporary employees shall be considered
as
casuals in accordance with Article VII of the National Agreement and
compensated at Level 5, Step 1 except that payment for their
services shall
be made directly to the organization supplying the employees.'"
In 1993,
the APWU made an inquiry regarding the staffing of Postal Service
Business
Centers; i.e., "'whether the employees of outside contractors
assigned to
these sites are being counted as casual employees, for purposes of
Articles
1 and 7, as we believe they must be.'"
During arbitration proceedings, the union argued that temps are not
casual
employees and Article 7 limits the composition of the supplemental
work
force to casuals. We maintained that the term "casual" as used
in the
National Agreement means a postal employee who holds a limited-term
postal
appointment, is on the postal employment rolls, and is paid directly
by the
Postal Service. To further support this definition of casual,
we cited
Sections 419 and 432 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual
which
describe casual employees as "'nonbargaining unit, noncareer
employees with
limited-term appointments.'" In addition, the union referred
to national
level arbitration decisions that have stated that the term
"employed" in
Article 7.1.B.1 means "hired." We then argued that the temps
in this case
are not given appointments, they are paid for by an employment
agency and
not directly by the Postal Service, and they are not on the postal
employment rolls. Also, the union cited testimony of a witness
responsible
for tracking the employment of casuals since 1984 that temps are not
included in the casual count reports provided to the union by the
Postal
Service. Therefore, we contended that if temps are not
casuals, they cannot
be part of a supplemental work force that is defined in Article 7 as
being
made up of casual employees. Accordingly, the union maintained
that Article
7 must be read to prohibit the Service from using temps to perform
bargaining unit duties. Furthermore, we asserted that prior
settlements
cannot be relied on to change the limits of Article 7 since such
settlements
were restricted to particular types of work or projects and
particular
locations. In addition, the union argued that correspondence
on the issue
of temps was limited to specific fact situations and proposed
specific
remedies related to counting casuals. We thus maintained that
such evidence
does not demonstrate an agreement by the union to permit an improper
expansion of Article 7's limits. Finally, the union contended that
the
Postal Service should not be allowed to go outside negotiated limits
on who
can perform bargaining unit work.
The Postal Service countered that there is no contract language that
prohibits the use of temps as part of the supplemental work force.
While
Article 7.1.A and 7.1.C define regular work force and transitional
work
force employees as persons who "shall be hired pursuant to such
procedures
as the Employer may establish," according to management, there is no
language or requirement relating to how casual employees will be
procured.
Moreover, it asserted, the absence of a requirement that casuals be
directly
hired through the formal hiring process is consistent with the
reason for a
supplemental work force which is to satisfy an "immediate need by
rapid
availability." The Service further maintained that under
Article 3, it has
the right to employ nonbargaining unit personnel as deemed
appropriate and
nothing in Article 7 limits this right except a limit on the period
of time
they can perform the work. It also argued that the union's
right to object
to actions involving nonbargaining unit employees is very limited
since it
must establish that this conduct adversely affected wages, hours or
working
conditions of bargaining unit employees. In this case, the
Service
maintained that the union failed to rebut testimony of its witnesses
that
temps are counted against the casual cap when they are used.
Moreover, it
asserted that the union agreed in the past that temps could be used
as
casual employees as long as they are counted against the casual cap.
Arbitrator Das indicated first of all that "[t]he prior settlements
and
correspondence in this record . . . fall short of establishing that
the
parties have entered into an agreement on the interpretive issue
raised by
the Union in this case." "What the prior settlements and other
correspondence do reflect," according to the arbitrator, "is that
the Union
has been insistent that in cases where temps have been used by the
Postal
Service they are to be counted and included in the casual cap, and
the
Postal Service has agreed to that."
He then observed that there is "no direct language" in Article 7
that shows
that the Postal Service is prohibited from using temps to perform
bargaining
unit work as part of a supplemental work force. "While Article
7.B [sic]
uses the terms 'employee' and `employment', it does not state that
casual
employees 'shall be hired' by the Postal Service, as Article 7.A
[sic] and
7.C [sic] state with respect to the regular and transitional work
forces
that comprise the bargaining unit," according to the arbitrator.
Moreover,
Arbitrator Das indicated that he could not rely on prior national
level
arbitration awards that have stated the term "employed" in Article
7.1.B.1
means "hired," since "[n]one of these prior National Arbitrator
cases dealt
in any way with the issue of whether casuals had to be hired as
appointees
and be paid directly by the Postal Service." In addition, he
determined
that definitions of casual employees in Sections 419 and 432 of the
ELM
cannot be considered because they do not cover temps who are
obtained
through "procurement, rather than employment, procedures."
Finally, Arbitrator Das concluded that temps should not be treated
any
differently than casuals. He said that the APWU did not assert
"that use of
temps as part of a supplemental work force directly relates to
wages, hours
or working conditions of bargaining unit employees in any manner
different
from the use of casual employees that are hired directly by the
Postal
Service." Given evidence that the union's concern in the past
has centered
on the casual count, according to the arbitrator, "[t]he Union has
not shown
that assignment of bargaining unit work to temps, rather than to
casuals
hired directly by the Postal Service, has any additional adverse
effect on
the bargaining unit, provided, of course, that the temps are counted
as
casuals and are subject to the limits on employment of casuals set
forth in
Article 7.B [sic]."
(AIRS #38887 - USPS #Q90C-6E-C 94046800; 1/31/2003)
|