Late last year (2006) the National Postal Mail Handlers Union filed suit in District Court to overturn an RI-399 Arbitration Award. The NPMHU alleged that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by issuing the decision. APWU filed its answer and  counterclaim to compel NPMHU and USPS to arbitrate RI-399 cases.

In the meantime, APWU on January 5, 2007 filed a lawsuit against NPMHU and USPS charging that “the National Postal Mail Handlers Union and U.S. Postal Service have violated a national-level three-party agreement that establishes procedures for resolving disputes over work assignments.”

NPMHU responded to the lawsuit in an article : THE APWU’S NEW MOTTO:“IF YOU CAN’T BEAT ‘EM, SUE ‘EM!” by stating thast “It is quite unfortunate that the APWU’s national leaders have chosen, once again, to highlight their own failures in print and on the web, rather than simply dealing with them in a professional manner” said NPMHU National President John Hegarty.”

Oddly enough, the Mail Handlers Union did not reference its own lawsuit against APWU and USPS.

All of the lawsuits and countersuits will become very interesting once the U. S. Postal Service (a defendant in all of the cases) submit its response to the court.

Excerpts from Lawsuit Below, followed by APWU countersuit

This is an action brought by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Division of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“NPMHU”), under 39 U.S.C. § 1208(b) for breach of a tripartite agreement between the NPMHU, the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (“APWU”) and the United States Postal Service (“the Postal Service”). By this action,the NPMHU seeks to vacate the award of Arbitrator Donald A. Anderson in Case # F98C-IFJ-01185458 (Loading Dock Scanning), on the ground that in issuing the award Arbitrator Anderson exceeded his authority under the tripartite agreement.

Cause of Action
S.C. § 1208(b), For Breach of Contract)
The NPMHU, the APWU and the Postal Service are parties to a tripartite agreement titled “Memorandum of Understanding” concerning “Regional Instruction 399 –Dispute Resolution Procedures”. That tripartite agreement establishes procedures (including arbitration) for the resolution of certain kinds of jurisdictional disputes between the NPMHU and the APWU, while at the same time foreclosing those parties from raising (and, perforce, the arbitrators appointed under the tripartite agreement from deciding) certain other kinds of jurisdictional disputes.

On June 27, 2006, an arbitration hearing in Case # F98C-IFJ-01185458 (Loading Dock Scanning) was held before Arbitrator Donald A. Anderson—one of several regional arbitrators who had been appointed by the parties pursuant to their tripartite agreement. On August 23, 2006, Arbitrator Anderson issued his award in that case, and mailed copies of the award to each of the parties to the proceeding. The NPMHU received its copy of the award from Arbitrator Anderson on September 11, 2006.

In his award, Arbitrator Anderson rendered a decision on the merits of a jurisdictional dispute asserted by the APWU over the assignment of certain scanning work at a Postal Service facility located in Oakland, California. Arbitrator Anderson did so based on his stated conclusion that the parties to the arbitration proceeding had agreed to submit the jurisdictional dispute in question to him for a decision on the merits. That stated conclusion was incorrect; the NPMHU and the Postal Service never agreed to submit the jurisdictional dispute in question to Arbitrator Anderson for a decision on the merits. To the contrary, the NPMHU and the Postal Service both argued to Arbitrator Anderson that the jurisdictional dispute in question was not among the kinds of jurisdictional disputes that are subject to arbitration under the parties’ tripartite agreement, and the only issue that they agreed to submit to Arbitrator Anderson for decision was that threshold issue of arbitrability (a threshold issue that Arbitrator Anderson failed to reach given his erroneous conclusion that the NPMHU and the Postal Service had agreed to submit the merits issue to him for decision).

By rendering a decision on a merits issue that the parties to the arbitration proceeding had not in fact agreed to submit to him, Arbitrator Anderson exceeded his authority under the parties’ tripartite agreement, and his award cannot stand.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the NPMHU asks this Court to vacate Arbitrator Anderson’s award in Case # F98C-IFJ-01185458 (Loading Dock Scanning) and direct the parties to cease and desist
from complying with that award; and to grant the NPMHU such other and further relief to which it may be entitled.

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF THE AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO
The American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (“APWU”) answers the complaint of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Division of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“MHU”),

This is a counterclaim by the APWU to compel the MHU and the Postal Service to arbitrate a jurisdictional dispute involving the proper craft to perform the keying function on the Linear Parcel Sorter (“LIPS”) machine at the Seattle Bulk Mail Center (“BMC”) in accordance with the “Memorandum of Understanding” concerning “Regional Instruction 399 – Dispute Resolution Procedures” (the “MOU”) which, among other things, established procedures (including arbitration) to resolve jurisdictional disputes among the parties.

On April 16, 1992, the APWU, the MHU and the Postal Service signed the MOU, which established a “new procedure for resolving jurisdictional disputes” which provided, among other
things, for panels of arbitrators appointed jointly by the parties a the Regional level to resolve jurisdictional disputes.

A dispute in Case No. E00C-1E-J 02123526 02C012 arose over the proper craft to perform the keying function on the LIPS machine at the Seattle BMC. This dispute was subject to the procedures established under the MOU, including arbitration. 9. The practice of the parties has been for representatives of all three parties to sign and send scheduling letters addressed to the arbitrator selected to hear the particular dispute.

The parties agreed that this dispute would be heard by Arbitrator Howell Lankford on August 29, 2006, at the Seattle BMC, starting at 9:00 a.m.

The APWU made several requests to representatives of the MHU and the Postal Service to sign and send a scheduling letter to Arbitrator Lankford to hear the dispute as was previously agreed by the parties.

The MHU and the Postal Service have failed to sign and send a scheduling letter to Arbitrator Lankford as requested by the APWU.

The APWU is justified in concluding that the MHU and the Postal Service have refused to sign and send a scheduling letter to Arbitrator Lankford as requested by the APWU.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the APWU asks that this Court to issue a decision and order:
(1) Finding that the MHU and the Postal Service in breach of the MOU;
(2) Ordering the MHU and the Postal Service forthwith to sign and send a scheduling letter to Arbitrator Lankford to hear the dispute and to proceed to arbitration expeditiously.
(3) Making the APWU and the clerks it represents at the Seattle BMC whole for losses occasioned by the refusal of the MHU and the Postal Service to schedule arbitration before Arbitrator Lankford at the time and place previously agreed to by the parties; and
(4) Granting the APWU such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.