For the U.S. Postal Service: Rose Barner, Labor Relations Specialist. Sam Lisenbe, National Business Agent

Transcription

1 REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL In the Matter of the Arbitration ( Grievant: Class Action Between ( Post Office: San Antonio, Texas UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ( USPS Case No: G15C--4G-C And ( Union No.: AA AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS ( UNION, AFL-CIO ( BEFORE: PETER J. CLARKE, Arbitrator APPEARANCES: For the U.S. Postal Service: Rose Barner, Labor Relations Specialist For the Union: Place of Hearing: Sam Lisenbe, National Business Agent San Antonio, Texas Date of Hearing: March 15, 2018 Date of Award: April 27, 2018 Relevant Contract Provisions: Articles 1.6, Contract Year: Type of Grievance: Contract Award Summary: The grievance is sustained. The Grievant Postal Service failed to present sufficient evidence to support its decision to deny the Union s request to grant Lead Clerks access to TACS data. Peter J. Clarke PETER J. CLARKE Arbitrator

2 ISSUE Whether the Postal Service violated the settlement agreement Q10C-4Q-C /HQTC dated February 4, 2016 by refusing Lead Clerks access to TACS to perform TACS duties? STATEMENT OF THE CASE The hearing opened as scheduled on March 15, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the Postal facility located at 1 Post Office Drive in San Antonio, Texas. The parties offered a Joint Exhibit (JX-2 consisting of 236 pages. Both parties were afforded time for opening, direct and crossexamination of witnesses and closing arguments. The proceedings were taped to ensure the accuracy of the record. RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS Based on the facts adduced at the hearing, the Arbitrator has determined that the relevant contract provisions are the following: Article 1.6A (Performance of Bargaining Unit Work of the National Agreement states, Supervisors are prohibited from performing bargaining unit work at post offices with 100 or more bargaining unit employees. Article 3 (Management Rights of the National Agreement provides, The Employer shall have the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations: * * * C. To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it; D. To determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted; * * * Article 19 incorporates into the National Agreement, Those parts of all handbooks, manuals and published regulations of the Postal Service, that directly relate to wages, hours or working conditions as they apply to employees covered by the [National] Agreement. 2

3 RELEVANT FACTS In response to a dispute between the Postal Service and the Union regarding Lead Clerk duty assignments having access to Time and Attendance Collection System (TACS, the parties agreed to the following: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND THE AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO RE: Q10C-4Q-C /HQTC Recently the parties met during pre-arbitration discussions regarding the above referenced dispute. The interpretative issue in this dispute is whether the MOU Re: Clerk Craft Jobs, Section 2, and the subsequent Lead Clerk Questions and Answers (Q&As dated May 4, 2012 require that all employees occupying Lead Clerk duty assignments must be given access the Lead Clerk Role in TACS, received the required TACS training, and be assigned TACS duties. After further review and discussion, it is mutually agreed to resolve this dispute in accordance with the following understanding of the parties: 1. All Clerk Craft employees occupying Lead Clerk duty assignments will be provided the required training for the Lead Clerk Clock Office role in TACS. 2. Access to the Lead Clerk role in TACS and assignment of TACS duties is based on local operational circumstances. Example: Where there is more than 1 Lead Clerk duty assignment within facility, not all Lead Clerks must be assigned TACS duties. However, a minimum of one will assigned the Lead Clerk Clock Office role in TACS to perform these duties. 3. The parties agree that the provisions above are only applicable in facilities that meet the criteria for Lead Clerk duty assignments in accordance with the MOU Re: Clerk Craft Jobs and the MOU Re: POSTPlan: Staffing of Offices, Filing of Assignments, PSE usage and Conversions. * * * 3

4 Accordingly, the parties agree that any case held pending this national dispute will be resolved in accordance with this agreement and local fact circumstances. /s/ Rickey R. Dean Rickey R. Dean A/Manager Contract Administration United States Postal Service Date: 2/4/2016 /s/ Lamont Brooks Lamont Brooks Assistant Director Clerk Division American Postal Workers Union Date: 2/4/2016 In December, 2016 another dispute arose about Lead Clerk duty assignments having access to TACS. Specifically, the eaccess System Administrator sent a memo to the Union which stated, Your request for access to Time & Attendance Collection System (TACS has been denied by Polanco, Marcelo R with the following comments: Training completed as required. Access not required at this time. The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the affected employees contesting the refusal to grant Lead Clerks access to TACS. The grievance was denied at the lower grievance levels and was then appealed to arbitration to be heard by this duly appointed arbitrator. DISCUSSION AND OPINION 1 APWU s Position The Union contends that the Postal Service violated the February 4, 2016 settlement agreement (2016 SA when on December 2, 2016 it sent the Union a letter indicating that the Lead Clerk training was completed and denying access to the TACS. The Postal Service has wrongfully taken the position that TACS duties are based on local operational circumstances rather than on the 2016 SA. The Postal Service contends that the Postal Service has taken the position that the San Antonio Post Office has no operational circumstance where the Lead Clerks are required to have access to Lead Clerk role in TACS. The Union also argues that Postal management is in violation of Article 1.6A and is performing bargaining unit work because some supervisors are performing TACS work. For these reasons, the grievance should be sustained. 1 Even though no reference may be specifically made, the Arbitrator considered all the parties contentions and reviewed the evidence and arbitration awards submitted. 4

5 Postal Service's Position The Postal Service argues that all San Antonio Post Offices have at least one Lead Clerk with TACS access at each primary unit, so the denial of additional TACS access is a moot point. In addition, Time and Attendance duties are based on local operational circumstances as it is ultimately the responsibility of the postmaster or installation head. Delegation of these duties falls under the authority of the postmaster or installation head, and based on item 2 of the 2016 SA, Access to the Lead Clerk role in TACS and assignment of TACS duties is based on local operational circumstances. See JX-2 at 13. In addition, Article 3 D gives the Postal Service the right, To determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted. Article 3C gives the Postal Service the right, To maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it. Based on these two provisions, the Postal Service has the right to use supervisors to complete the TACS work. Finally, the Union fails to specify exactly what duties is work for clerks that Postal management is allegedly performing. Therefore, the grievance should be denied. Analysis This grievance is fairly straight forward. The Union contends that the Postal Service violated the 2016 SA when it sent a memo denying further TACS access to other clerks occupying Lead Clerk duty assignments. The Postal Service counters that it followed the terms of the 2016 SA and granted TACS access only to those employees identified by local operational circumstances. There is no requirement that every Clerk who has a Lead Clerk duty assignment have TACS access. Based on the evidence adduced, the grievance is sustained for the reasons stated below. The parties agreed to the 2016 SA to bring clarity to a situation that caused confusion and disagreements. The 2016 SA specified under what circumstances the Postal Service must provide training for Lead Clerk duties and TACS access to the Lead Clerks. The Postal Service believes that it met the obligations listed under the 2016 SA when training was provided to the Lead Clerks. It adds that the San Antonio Post Office (SAPO is not a POStPlan office as described in item 3 and based on item 2, the access and assignment of the TACS duties is based on operational circumstances. Presently, the SAPO has no operational circumstances where the 5

6 Lead Clerks are required to have access to the Lead Clerk role in TACS. Supervisors and Managers are presently provided access to TACS because of their working knowledge of the employees in the unit and to address both of their working knowledge of the employees in the unit and to address both carrier and clerk clock ring corrections and assignments. The record presented copious evidence that the Postal Service failed to follow the 2016 SA when it denied the Union s request for Lead Clerk Access to TACS. The record contained documentation that the Postal Service denied TACS access to Lead Clerks. See JX-2 at 18. The Postal Service s admission that it denied TACS access to Lead Clerks undermines its belief that it followed the 2016 SA. Importantly, the Postal Service s use of supervisors to do the TACS work reveals that the TACS work is still necessary to get completed, yet the Postal Service contends that the operational circumstances allows it to deny TACS access to Lead Clerks. This argument is misplaced. Simply making a blanket statement that access to TACS and assignment of TACS duties is based on local operational circumstances doesn t make it so. Without more information about how the operational circumstances impact the need for granting access to the TACS information, the Postal Service s argument is not based on fact and is baseless. The record reflects that the TACS work is still present and was throughout all times when this grievance was pending. The Postal Service simply decided it was not going to comply with the 2016 SA for the generic reason of operational circumstances. However, there is no evidence to explain the reliance on operational circumstances to justify denying access to TACS. The Arbitrator simply cannot allow this disregard for a bargained for Settlement Agreement to stand. AWARD Based on the foregoing, the grievance is sustained. The Arbitrator issues the following remedy in accordance with the February 4, 2016 Settlement Agreement between the APWU and the Postal Service: 6

7 1. All Clerk Craft employees occupying Lead Clerk duty assignments will be provided the required training for the Lead Clerk Clock Office role in TACS. This includes any time a clerk bids to and is awarded a Lead Clerk duty assignment; 2. The appropriate number of Lead Clerks will be immediately granted access to TACS and will begin performing TACS duties in their section/tour/station/branch/office, whichever is relevant, in accordance with the February 2, 2016 Settlement Agreement; 3. If there is more than one Lead Clerk duty assignment within a facility, not all Lead Clerks must be assigned TACS duties. However, a minimum of one will be assigned the Lead Clerk Clock Office role in TACS to perform these duties; 4. If a Lead Clerk who is assigned TACS duties is absent or on leave and if another Lead Clerk is in the same office/tour/station/branch, he/she will be assigned TACS duties during the absence of the Lead Clerk who is normally assigned the TACS duties; 5. The Arbitrator remands the monetary remedy to the parties for the sole purpose of the local parties to meet in an attempt to agree on the amount of hours that supervisors/managers performed TACS duties during this time period. The Lead Clerks identified by the Local union will then be compensated at the appropriate rate of pay for those hours; and 6. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction for 90 days in case of a dispute regarding the monetary remedy, in which case either party may request a hearing for the Arbitrator to determine an appropriate monetary remedy. April 27, 2018 PETER J. CLARKE Arbitrator 7