The issue to be determined is whether or not the Postal Service violated the Agreement when it made a determination at the area level to reduce the hours per week for the custodial cleaning and maintenance work at the Pittsford, New York Post Office following the resignation of a full time regular Building Maintenance Custodian.  Approximately one month after the position became vacant, the Postal Service notified the Union that it planned to revert or eliminate this position pending the finalization of a new custodial staffing package which would be approved at the Area Level.  The staffing package approved by the Area reduced the number of cleaning service workhours which in turn reduced the number of custodial employees required to complete the cleaning services.

 

The Union protested the reduction of workhours and custodial complement and argued a national level decision required that the staffing be completed by local management making the determination as to what is appropriate and that it was necessary that the applicable handbooks require that local management make the determination as to the proper staffing levels. It based its argument on the national decision issued by Arbitrator Das in which indicated that local management should not be displaced by higher levels of management.  The Union also argued that the determination of the Postal Service at the Area level which altered the staffing levels was accomplished without basis, and constituted a violation of the Agreement.

 

The Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance and directed the Postal Service to staff the particular office with two full time employees and remanded the remaining remedy, including monetary compensation.  The Arbitrator correctly reasoned:

 

At the outset, the Postal Service contends that it made the proper decision to revert the position in question, and in doing so complied with the applicable provisions of the Agreement. Undoubtedly, upon reviewing Article 38 of the Agreement, it becomes evident that the Postal Service did, in fact, revert a position which occurred as a result of a custodial employee retiring. The reversion was completed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement.’ However, such reversion and whether or not it was appropriately made in accordance with the Agreement is’ not the issue in this case. Rather, the issue is whether or not the staffing levels which were determined at the local management level and subsequently revised by a higher level of management was appropriate.  It is readily apparent that the determination of the Postal Service at the’ area level to alter the staffing level which was completed by local management was completed prior to the issuance of a national arbitration decision concerning this subject matter. The Postal Service made a determination that it would be appropriate to ‘alter the staffing level which had been put in place by local management. Such determination was made when the area decided to alter the staffing level which was made by local management. When the record is revealed, it becomes apparent that a national level decision issued by Arbitrator Das clearly provided that staffing levels established under the MS-47 by local management should not be altered by a higher level of management. While there are certain matters that higher level management can perform, Arbitrator Das ruled “higher levels of management may not, however, displace local management in developing staffing packages within the ranges set out in the MS-47 handbook or dictate specific frequencies to be plugged into these packages.” In this specific case, this is exactly what occurred. Local management made a determination regarding specific staffing levels that were established pursuant to MS-47 handbook. The area made the determination to alter such staffing level by changing the frequencies which had been established by local management. In effect, what occurred in this circumstance is exactly what is precluded by the national award of Arbitrator Das. Consequently, it was improper for the area to alter the frequencies for the purpose of reducing the staffing level that had been established by local management. While there are certain functions which can be performed by the area regarding its review of staffing levels, what occurred in this specific case, based on the circumstances which were present, shows, that area management altered what had been accomplished by local management. In this case, local management appropriately made a determination to staff the Pittsford location and the determination of the area to alter this staffing arrangement was improper. Furthermore, such determination was in direct conflict with the national arbitration decision provided by Arbitrator Das.

 

Article 14 - Prescription Glasses (4/19/04)

The issue in this case was local management’s decision to cease purchasing prescription protective eye wear for maintenance employees.  According to the local manager, he claimed that OSHA did not require that the Postal Service purchase prescription eyewear; OSHA only required the Postal Service provide protective eyewear.  The local union protested claiming that this decision was made unilaterally, created an unsafe working condition for all maintenance employees and broke a long-standing binding practice which had been endorsed by Management Instruction EL-820-80-4. 

 

The arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance; he ruled  the decision to stop purchasing prescription safety glasses for employees who otherwise comply with the requirement of MI EL 810-2001-1 violated Article 5 of the contract and must be rescinded. He then ordered the Postal Service to reinstate the practice that existed prior to October 1995.

 

The arbitrator opined that the practice of purchasing prescription safety glasses arising under Management Instruction EL-8 10-2001 -1 and its predecessor established a benefit for maintenance employees who must wear glasses in the normal performance of their duties and who are required by the Postal Service’s safety rules to wear protective eye protective equipment.  He also found that purchasing prescription glasses to be a benefit to employees which was protected by Article 5 of the Agreement, “Thus, for employees who regularly wore glasses and who were required to wear eye protection, the purchase of glasses by the Postal Service had substantial value and could easily be deemed a “term and condition of employment” protected by Article 5”

Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director "A"
(202) 842-4213
(202) 289-3746 FAX