APWU filed a complaint in U.S. District Court on April 21, 2006, charging that “the Postal Service violated the Postal Reorganization Act in implementing its “network realignment” plan, known as Evolutionary Network Development (END). The complaint seeks a judgment that management violated the 1970 law, as well as an injunction against future violations.”  The following is a consolidation of APWU’s District court filing and the Postal Service’s response submitted to the court on June 26, 2006  (click here) . Although many of the Postal Service’s responses are standard answers used in early proceedings of legal cases — readers may find some of USPS responses to be of interest. The PDF version of both files may be downloaded by clicking either APWU complaint  or  USPS response.

Examples of 46 answers given by USPS:

10. APWU: In November 2001 or before, the Postal Service began development of a Network Integration and Alignment (hereinafter “NIA”) plan to be used to analyze and redesign the existing postal existing postal facility network as part of the Postal Service Transformation Plan.

10. USPS: Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it alleges that Defendant began development in 2001 of a plan to analyze and redesign its existing mail processing network. At that time, Defendant began development of computer optimization and simulation models that, when ultimately operable, could be utilized as analytical tools for planning a future mail processing network and for testing the feasibility of proposals to shift operations among specific mail processing facilities to realize that future network. Defendant admits that the optimization and simulation models under development at that time were part of a Network Integration and Alignment (NIA) program that has since been renamed Evolutionary Network Development (END).

11. APWU: The Postal Service agreed to provide a copy of its NIA plan to the APWU no later than 2002.

11. USPS: Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the allegation that it agreed to provide a copy of its “NIA plan” to the Plaintiff “no later than 2002.”

12. APWU: The Postal Service’ NIA plan was sufficiently developed to be used, at least in part , by December 2002.

12. USPS: Defendant denies that its plans for the redesign of its mail processing network were sufficiently developed for use to any degree in or about December 2002, or that it embarked on any centralized plan for mail processing network realignment in or about December 2002. Defendant also denies that the optimization and simulation models referenced above in paragraph 10 were sufficiently developed for use as tools as part of any such plan in or around that time.

13. APWU: Since December 2002 the Postal service has used its NIA plan to evaluate proposals to consolidate postal facilities; and proposals selected by NIA have resulted in the closure of approximately 30 Postal Service processing facilities, and in the reallocation of work processed in other facilities.

13. USPS: Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 12. Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it alleges or implies that Defendant utilized its (formerly NIA) Evolutionary Network Development optimization and/or simulation models to centrally direct a nationwide plan for network realignment or operational consolidation before 2006. Defendant admits that, for decades, it has maintained Area Mail Processing (AMP) review procedures, USPS Handbook PO-408 (March 1995), through which independently developed local management proposals for facility-specific operational consolidations are circulated up the chain-of-command to headquarters for review and consideration. Defendant admits that, since 2004, 17 such locally developed proposals (6 in 2004 and 11 in 2005) were approved; one such proposal in 2005 resulted in the closure of a postal facility; the other 16 involved shifting various mail processing operations among facilities. Defendant admits that review and approval of all such locally developed AMP consolidation proposals was put on hold for a time in 2002-2004. Defendant admits that this moratorium on review and approval of local AMP proposals was imposed to ensure that no locally developed proposals would be approved that might later be determined to have resulted in the establishment of roles for affected facilities that would be incompatible with the roles those facilities might play in a future mail processing network designed through use of the END optimization and simulation models.

Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it implies at these local operational consolidation proposals were initiated at headquarters or through use of the END models. Defendant denies that either END/NIA or the AMP review procedures have, since 2002, resulted in the closure of approximately 30 mail processing facilities.

Defendant admits that END/NIA can be expected to result in the shifting of operations among postal facilities on a systemwide basis, and that such consolidation of operations could lead to the closure of some facilities.

14. APWU: The Postal Service has not revealed its overall network realignment strategy, opting instead to reveal it slowly over time.

14. USPS: Defendant denies that it has not revealed its systemwide Evolutionary Network Development network realignment strategy, which is the subject of its February 14, 2006, request for an advisory opinion in Postal Rate Commission Docket No. R2006-1. Defendant admits that its network realignment strategy was under development for nearly five years.

15. APWU: The NIA plan has been re-named the Evolutionary Network Development (hereinafter “END’) process. The NIA and END processes use the same methods, data, models and objectives for designing the Postal Service’s mail processing network.

15. USPS: Defendant admits that the former Network Integration & Alignment (NIA) program has transformed into and been re-named the Evolutionary Network Development (END) program. Defendant admits that, in all material respects, END has inherited the methodologies, data inputs, and objectives of the optimization and simulations models developed under the NIA acronym.

http://www.postalreporter.com/usps-responds-to-apwu-court-case.htm